Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Spill, The Scandal and the President

rollingstone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 30 posts

Re: The Spill, The Scandal and the President

#11

Post by grandalf »

bodytitle wrote: post #4

In 1967 the the house estimated that Medicare would cost $9 Billion a year by 1990. The real number would turn out to be $67 Billion. Every week or so the rate of the oil leak is revised upwards. What was once a spill has turned into a bad spill and now is being called a disaster. This seems consistent with the way most government estimates work. Ironically it is almost as if we need an independent body with no power…

Let us hope that someone involved sends the truth to WikiLeaks! We can't expect to get it from Obama or from BP.

Now that the buck stops with Obama, we can expect him to actively work to prevent the public from getting outraged.

Re: The Spill, The Scandal and the President

#12

Post by anigbrowl »

grandalf wrote: post #9
mbateman wrote: post #5

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…

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…

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.

Re: The Spill, The Scandal and the President

#13

Post by anigbrowl »

grandalf wrote: post #11
bodytitle wrote: post #4

In 1967 the the house estimated that Medicare would cost $9 Billion a year by 1990. The real number would turn out to be $67 Billion. Every week or so the rate of the oil leak is revised upwards. What was once a spill has turned into a bad spill and now is being called a disaster. This seems consistent with the way most government estimates work. Ironically it is almost as if we need an independent body with no power…

Let us hope that someone involved sends the truth to WikiLeaks! We can't expect to get it from Obama or from BP. Now that the buck stops with Obama, we can expect him to actively work to prevent the public from getting outraged.

I guess that's why he got BP to put $20 billion into an escrow fund. What is it you want him to do, exactly?

Back when he was talking about the need for more alternative fuels etc. I kept hearing about how he was interfering too much with markets and was a closet statist/socialist/Communist. Of course a few months ago otherwise sane people were still chanting 'drill baby drill' at political rallies.

Re: The Spill, The Scandal and the President

#14

Post by grandalf »

anigbrowl wrote: post #13
grandalf wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let us hope that someone involved sends the truth to WikiLeaks! We can't expect to get it from Obama or from BP. Now that the buck stops with Obama, we can expect him to actively work to prevent the public from getting outraged.

I guess that's why he got BP to put $20 billion into an escrow fund. What is it you want him to do, exactly? Back when he was talking about the need for more alternative fuels etc. I kept hearing about how he was interfering too much with markets and was a closet statist/socialist/Communist. Of course a few months ago otherwise sane people were still chanting 'drill baby drill' at political rallies.

Think about it this way:

What should be done: A systematic review of all offshore drilling practices and regulations and a significant reassessment, which would likely lead to the closing of hundreds of productive wells.

What will be done: A massive fine to BP and minor regulatory changes.

Obama is acting like a company man on this one, of course BP will be scapegoated, with the primary goal being to prevent widespread reforms from occurring and focusing on the idea that the problem is BP's negligence rather than on using the new information (spills can be very very bad) to question the practice of offshore drilling being worthwhile in the first place.

Re: The Spill, The Scandal and the President

#15

Post by grandalf »

anigbrowl wrote: post #12
grandalf wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

For the n th 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.

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.

Re: The Spill, The Scandal and the President

#16

Post by richcollins »

johnohara wrote: post #2

I finally took the time yesterday to read whatever I could about this problem. Like most Americans, I've watched the daily developments and nervously believed a solution was imminent. Maybe not optimal, but close at hand. Multinational comglomerates the size of BP have such a large quiver of resources at their disposal that it seemed all it would take was the desire to act and it would get done. So I believed. Here's…

Can you post your sources so I can better inform myself?

Re: The Spill, The Scandal and the President

#17

Post by grandalf »

Wolf_Larsen wrote: post #7

"Most troubling of all, the government has allowed BP to continue deep-sea production at its Atlantis rig – one of the world's largest oil platforms. Capable of drawing 200,000 barrels a day from the seafloor, Atlantis is located only 150 miles off the coast of Louisiana, in waters nearly 2,000 feet deeper than BP drilled at Deepwater Horizon. According to congressional documents, the platform lacks required engineer…

If Obama were the sort of guy who would even remotely consider messing with the oil industry, he would not be in the oval office right now.

Similarly if he were the sort of guy who would even remotely consider pulling out of Iraq he would not be in the oval office right now.

It's important to realize how much intrenched power the oil industry has and to what extent it is able to influence policy. Obama will dish out a lot of tough talk and fines to BP, but he won't mess with the industry as a whole by enacting meaningful reforms.

Re: The Spill, The Scandal and the President

#18

Post by anigbrowl »

grandalf wrote: post #15
anigbrowl wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the n th 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.

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.

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.

Re: The Spill, The Scandal and the President

#19

Post by anigbrowl »

grandalf wrote: post #14
anigbrowl wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess that's why he got BP to put $20 billion into an escrow fund. What is it you want him to do, exactly? Back when he was talking about the need for more alternative fuels etc. I kept hearing about how he was interfering too much with markets and was a closet statist/socialist/Communist. Of course a few months ago otherwise sane people were still chanting 'drill baby drill' at political rallies.

Think about it this way: What should be done: A systematic review of all offshore drilling practices and regulations and a significant reassessment, which would likely lead to the closing of hundreds of productive wells. What will be done: A massive fine to BP and minor regulatory changes. Obama is acting like a company man on this one, of course BP will be scapegoated, with the primary goal being to prevent widespre…

Your way of thinking seems to involve substituting portentous phrases for actual argument.

We know spills can be bad; while the degree of damage resulting from this one should certainly be factored into cost-benefit calculations, and prospective drillers required to plan and put up security for such eventualities, we still need to consider probability too. The fact is that incidents of this kind are quite rare in developed countries nowadays.

"Obama = coroporate shill" is just as stupid and mindless as "drill baby drill". 'Systematic review...significant reassessment' - mere buzzwords. If you think his policy should be to just halt deepwater drilling then OK, I can respect that point of view even if I don't fully agree. But please stop hiding behind a mask of pseudo-objectivity.

Re: The Spill, The Scandal and the President

#20

Post by anamax »

mbateman wrote: post #5

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…

> 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.

Post reply on HN