Thread: Obama's bumbling of the oil spill

Originally Posted by AjaxPress

Ford refuses to install an $11 dollar device to prevent their Pintos from become roadway firebombs.

No they did not respond properly and the $3.5 milion they received in punitive damages is proof of such.

The $3.5 million was a slap on the wrist and proves your point. Even with that fine factored into the equation it was still cheaper to kill people.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

I am trying to find out what you mean by risk management, expensive safety precautions, etc. It really does sound like you believe that some safety measures are just not worth the cost - let a few people die instead. Is your position different than that?

Ajax nailed it. Life is risk. I know you understand this but choose to try and play on emotions instead.

Originally Posted by AjaxPress

That's a legitimate cost analysis vs risk issue.

What's unacceptable is that BP decided that a device that would have cost $500k and would have greatly minimized the damage cause was not worth the risk. That's bad, real bad and BP needs to suffer the harshest penalties possible for making this decision.

What device?

An underwater video showing steam and oil spewing has been released.

Underwater Video Shows Oil Gushing From Damaged Pipe into Gulf - The Lede Blog - NYTimes.com

This is taking far too long to rectify...I guess they'll just wait until the whole damn Gulf is an oil pit before they find a freaking solution.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

An underwater video showing steam and oil spewing has been released.

Underwater Video Shows Oil Gushing From Damaged Pipe into Gulf - The Lede Blog - NYTimes.com

This is taking far too long to rectify...I guess they'll just wait until the whole damn Gulf is an oil pit before they find a freaking solution.

That sucks. I hope they get it under control soon.

Originally Posted by AjaxPress

That's a legitimate cost analysis vs risk issue.

What's unacceptable is that BP decided that a device that would have cost $500k and would have greatly minimized the damage cause was not worth the risk. That's bad, real bad and BP needs to suffer the harshest penalties possible for making this decision.

The Interior Department exempted BP's calamitous Gulf of Mexico drilling operation from a detailed environmental impact analysis last year, according to government documents, after three reviews of the area concluded that a massive oil spill was unlikely.
{snip}

While the MMS assessed the environmental impact of drilling in the central and western Gulf of Mexico on three occasions in 2007 -- including a specific evaluation of BP's Lease 206 at Deepwater Horizon -- in each case it played down the prospect of a major blowout.

In one assessment, the agency estimated that "a large oil spill" from a platform would not exceed a total of 1,500 barrels and that a "deepwater spill," occurring "offshore of the inner Continental shelf," would not reach the coast. In another assessment, it defined the most likely large spill as totaling 4,600 barrels and forecast that it would largely dissipate within 10 days and would be unlikely to make landfall.

washingtonpost.com

I just wonder, had the current admin. not exempted them from the study, would they have been a little better prepared?

Originally Posted by Bearman

The Interior Department exempted BP's calamitous Gulf of Mexico drilling operation from a detailed environmental impact analysis last year, according to government documents, after three reviews of the area concluded that a massive oil spill was unlikely.
{snip}

While the MMS assessed the environmental impact of drilling in the central and western Gulf of Mexico on three occasions in 2007 -- including a specific evaluation of BP's Lease 206 at Deepwater Horizon -- in each case it played down the prospect of a major blowout.

In one assessment, the agency estimated that "a large oil spill" from a platform would not exceed a total of 1,500 barrels and that a "deepwater spill," occurring "offshore of the inner Continental shelf," would not reach the coast. In another assessment, it defined the most likely large spill as totaling 4,600 barrels and forecast that it would largely dissipate within 10 days and would be unlikely to make landfall.

washingtonpost.com

I just wonder, had the current admin. not exempted them from the study, would they have been a little better prepared?

That's a good question. A complete lack of oversight contributed to this mess, although since I lean libertarian on responsibility issues, it's all BP's and Haliburton's fault for failing to run their operations to at least a basic safety standard.

I mean, twelve different back-ups all failed at the same time? It's like they were inviting catastrophe.

Originally Posted by jviehe

What device?

It's called an acoustic trigger.

An acoustic trigger costs about $500,000, industry officials said. The Deepwater Horizon had a replacement cost of about $560 million, and BP says it is spending $6 million a day to battle the oil spill. On Wednesday, crews set fire to part of the oil spill in an attempt to limit environmental damage.

Leaking Oil Well Lacked Safeguard Device - WSJ.com

I suppose Obama bumbled this incident as the OP suggest because he didn't just mandate that the Acoustic Switch be installed like far left communazi nations like Norway, when instead he put faith in private companies, which is what conservatives claim they want.

Although this does go to show that conservatives should never be listened to ever.

wow. wow! That seems too simple.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

But we need to understand: "paying all the costs" only means more profits for BP because they will pass on 125+% of those costs to the consumers. Its a no-win deal for consumers/taxpayers. Corporations get away with stuff no human would ever be allowed to do.

How is BP going to "pass the costs on to consumers"?
Is BP going to be $3.89/gal while Texaco is $2.89/gal?
Most of the cost is coming out of BP profits.
That being said , oil prices will rise and consumers will pay more, but isn't that the way it's supposed to be, consumers should pay the full economic cost of their consumption decisions.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

An underwater video showing steam and oil spewing has been released.

Underwater Video Shows Oil Gushing From Damaged Pipe into Gulf - The Lede Blog - NYTimes.com

This is taking far too long to rectify...I guess they'll just wait until the whole damn Gulf is an oil pit before they find a freaking solution.

How long should it take?

Originally Posted by AjaxPress

It's called an acoustic trigger.



Leaking Oil Well Lacked Safeguard Device - WSJ.com

I suppose Obama bumbled this incident as the OP suggest because he didn't just mandate that the Acoustic Switch be installed like far left communazi nations like Norway, when instead he put faith in private companies, which is what conservatives claim they want.

Although this does go to show that conservatives should never be listened to ever.

I like how you turn a simple question into a partisan attack. You realize the blowout device WAS triggered, right? Without an acoustic switch? Which means them not having one is irrelevant.