![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This is amazing.
The oil spill has been going on for over two months. It'll be at least another month before they can stop it. It's an unthinkably huge environmental disaster. In part, that's because BP ordered shortcuts to be taken (less safety in exchange for faster and cheaper readiness). In part (the bit that everyone seems to have forgotten), it's that TransOcean and Haliburton accepted those orders. In part, it's a complete failure of the government to do its job in maintaining regulations and providing oversight. In part, it's just that no one knows how to handle a situation like this - oil gushing at this depth. Safety technologies have proven ineffective even when properly used. Cleanup and response technologies haven't developed in my lifetime, while drilling has become ever more ambitious.
In response to all this, the Obama administration ordered a six month moratorium on offshore drilling. The oil companies decided to fight that in court. Yesterday, a Louisiana judge handed down his ruling. It's available here in PDF format.
In it, he notes that according to the law, deep water drilling permits are to be given only subject to environmental safeguards, that the Secretary of the Interior has the power to temporarily suspend operations if there's a threat to life (including fish), property, mineral deposits, or the environment, and that such an order may only be overturned if the court determines that the order was given arbitrarily and capriciously. The administration pointed out, among other things, that we can't handle the disaster we've got now - there's no way we'd be able to cope if another well was to blow. The last section of the ruling (beginning halfway down page 21) is entitled "irreparable harm."
It all seems pretty clear, doesn't it?
The ruling?
The moratorium is arbitrary and capricious. And would cause irreparable harm... to the oil companies.
Some are pointing out that the judge in question owns stock in at least five of the companies involved. I'm personally not as concerned about that. That's five companies out of well over a hundred that he invests in, and he lists the minimum range for four of the five.
In any case, the Obama administration is appealing it. And hopefully reissuing the moratorium, this time with better documentation.
The oil spill has been going on for over two months. It'll be at least another month before they can stop it. It's an unthinkably huge environmental disaster. In part, that's because BP ordered shortcuts to be taken (less safety in exchange for faster and cheaper readiness). In part (the bit that everyone seems to have forgotten), it's that TransOcean and Haliburton accepted those orders. In part, it's a complete failure of the government to do its job in maintaining regulations and providing oversight. In part, it's just that no one knows how to handle a situation like this - oil gushing at this depth. Safety technologies have proven ineffective even when properly used. Cleanup and response technologies haven't developed in my lifetime, while drilling has become ever more ambitious.
In response to all this, the Obama administration ordered a six month moratorium on offshore drilling. The oil companies decided to fight that in court. Yesterday, a Louisiana judge handed down his ruling. It's available here in PDF format.
In it, he notes that according to the law, deep water drilling permits are to be given only subject to environmental safeguards, that the Secretary of the Interior has the power to temporarily suspend operations if there's a threat to life (including fish), property, mineral deposits, or the environment, and that such an order may only be overturned if the court determines that the order was given arbitrarily and capriciously. The administration pointed out, among other things, that we can't handle the disaster we've got now - there's no way we'd be able to cope if another well was to blow. The last section of the ruling (beginning halfway down page 21) is entitled "irreparable harm."
It all seems pretty clear, doesn't it?
The ruling?
The moratorium is arbitrary and capricious. And would cause irreparable harm... to the oil companies.
Some are pointing out that the judge in question owns stock in at least five of the companies involved. I'm personally not as concerned about that. That's five companies out of well over a hundred that he invests in, and he lists the minimum range for four of the five.
In any case, the Obama administration is appealing it. And hopefully reissuing the moratorium, this time with better documentation.
From:
no subject
This doesn't excuse them -- they're still culpable for failing. But let's not all be that surprised here. If you set someone up to fail, they'll probably fail. If you put lots of money in front of them, they'll more than likely try, even though they know failure is likely.
From:
no subject
Not sure why we even need to drill offshore, considering it produces only a tiny fraction of the total oil used. And the oil so produced gets put on the global market, mixed with oil from everywhere else, so it's not like it makes us more independent from foreign oil.
But yes, the safeties are more effective in shallower water. They haven't bothered to develop better safeties for deeper water because no one has forced them to spend the money and effort in doing so.
Thing is that if we know the safeties aren't good enough at those depths, and if we know that the response capabilities aren't good enough if the safeties fail, then we shouldn't be allowing them to drill at those depths.
And yes, if there's profit to be made, they'll do it, whatever the consequences. Which is precisely why we need proper regulation and oversight. To set sane limits in the public interest.
None of which touches on what I'm actually saying - we need that moratorium. To reevaluate what is safe and proper and make sure that we move forward in a better direction. If, as you say, the current system sets them up to fail, then we need to overhaul the system.