![[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
-Government regulation isn't the only mechanism through which safety is ensured. Individual companies have internal departments for ensuring safety. For that matter, individual workers can and will demand safe practices. It's possible to argue that BP was so obsessed with profit that it ignored the possibility of an accident, because an accident was this far off thing that nobody had seen and nobody could fathom. It's no longer possible to argue that an oil company is going to sign off on subverting safety regulations in the name of a quick buck, now that the financial risks are eminently clear. At least for the near future, self-policing is relatively trustworthy as a fallback.
-The Deepwater Horizon disaster wasn't something that came out of nowhere, in retrospect. There was a pattern of warning signs over the months before the disaster, and that pattern is one that can be used to check the other rigs for safety, and for that matter, is being used.
-This isn't a single expert objecting. More than half the panel of experts that the Interior Department consulted think the moratorium is misguided. At a certain point, you have to recognize that this isn't a matter of exercising pure caution in the face of the unknown. Recognized experts say that there is enough information to make an informed engineering decision. You may not be able to evaluate whether safe practices were followed, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.
In theory, obviously it's less likely that we'll have another accident if we stop drilling. But the whole point of engineering analysis is to decide when risks can be discounted and when they needed to be accommodated. Subjugating that to a political decision that looks good is rarely the right thing to do.