Is Blame Shifting From BP to the Government? Real time camera's to be shut off

[robinblue]

tomorrow as they try to plug it. WHOW! (per CBS evening news just now).


May 25, 2010 1:33 PM
Is Blame Shifting From BP to the Government?


(Credit: AP)

At some point in the course of all tragedies, human or environmental or both, frustration turns to anger -- and anger turns to blame.

Blame is usually attached to the body most responsible for the problem. In the case of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, it has been focused on the oil company responsible, BP.

But what happens when all that anger and blame isn't met with results? Blame is then shifted to another body that could potentially be held responsible. And in this case, that's the government.

Thus, today's CBS News poll: 45 percent of respondents disapprove of the Obama administration's handling of the gulf oil spill, while 70 percent disapprove of BP's handling of the situation.

As the oil keeps flowing, the White House has struggled to explain why despite the fact that it says it is doing all it can, that has not been enough. They are trying to say -- without actually saying it -- that there is a limit to what government can do.

At yesterday's White House briefing, incident commander Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen said first and foremost it is BP's job to deal with the leak - and the government's job to work with the company to make sure the job is done right......................

[mzteris]

1. because if he reallly WANTED TO

he could just fix the damn leak, you know.

He could magically scoop up all the oil and poof his wand and make it all better.

If he REALLY REALLY WANTED TO!

He just doesn't 'cause he and BP and like || that and somehow they're all profiting off of continuing the oil spew and not cleaning up a damn thing.

[skeptical cynic]

2. The government can "federalize" the spill, and still keep BP

doing the work.

The Federal On-Scene Coordinator becomes the Incident Commander, and assumes primary control.

We'd be hearing less about BP controlling information and access, because they would no longer be making operational decisions.

[Uzybone]

3. and the oil would keep on gushing

and the usual folks would be saying "why isn't the government fixing it??!!!"

The problem is not a camera feed, the problem is the oil gushing out.

[skeptical cynic]

6. This isn't just about the media feed

The problems are:
Environmental assessments never done;
Exaggerated spill response capabilities;
Understated potential for well failure;
Understated potential for environmental impact;
Permits that never should have been issued;
Captured federal agencies in bed with the industries they regulate;
Cost-saving well design and construction;
Tests never performed;
State-of-the-art blowout prevention devices not required or installed;
Inadequate maintenance of the BOP that was used;
Incompetent selection and deployment of boom;
Use of dispersants to hide the magnitude of the spill;
Exaggerated response progress.

Federalizing the spill would put the feds in control. BP would be working for them.

[skeptical cynic]

4. Rather than blame shifting

We should be thinking in terms of blame sharing.

The "funny" part is, this catastrophic discharge is going to have such a significant and long-term effect that all the attempts to manipulate public opinion will backfire.

Like it or not, this event is going to be career-ending for a lot of people.

The only careers anyone should give a damn about are those of the people who had no role in this mess. The industry people responsible for cutting corners to save a buck, the government agency people who allowed and even helped them do it, and the industry-government "partners" bungling this spill response can all join the Deepwater Horizon on the bottom for all anybody should care.

[JuniperLea]

7. That would give BP a good excuse NOT to pay for anything...

And what branch of the government do you think has the wherewithal to do this kind of work?

[skeptical cynic]

9. In Alaska, the state takes control of spill responses

The State On-Scene Coordinator takes control away from the Incident Commander (Responsible Party). The RPcontinues to participate, but loses overall control. The state hires contractors to do the work. The RP gets the bill. The RP always continues to participate if it has the ability, because the State takes a money-is-no-object approach.

The Feds have the same authority, and more.

This isn't as difficult as it sounds. The feds don't need to have the ability to do the work themselves, the expertise is available and for hire.

[JuniperLea]

10. It's a different situation with Alaska

The gulf states don't have that relationship with the offshore oil companies... they don't get monthly checks either. What does the Fed have? From what I can tell, we have nothing even close to an agency that is on top of all this. Our Fed agencies have been asleep at the switch for over 8 years... that's what got us into this mess... to expect they can get us out is, I think, dreaming.

[skeptical cynic]

11. Monthly checks???

Can't argue the the Fed agencies haven't been "asleep at the switch."

The states don't have anything to do with federalizing a spill response.

[JuniperLea]

12. So which Fed agency do you propose suits this need? eom

[skeptical cynic]

13. The Coast Guard is providing the FOSC eom

They are the lead federal agency for marine spill response.

[JuniperLea]

15. And how much "spill" do you suppose they are capable of handling?

Does it make sense to send a band-aid to someone that needs a tourniquet?

I don't believe we have the means to stop this monster... we've never seen this monster before...

[skeptical cynic]

16. You don't understand and you didn't read my previous posts

Assuming the role of incident command puts them in charge.

BP continues to perform operational roles. They don't have the option of pulling out just because the lose the IC role.

The USCG has expertise (probably more than BP) when in comes to the on-water response, which is a separate issue from stopping the discharge.

Nothing changes except ultimate authority.

[JuniperLea]

17. I don't think we know enough to make those assumptions...

There are leases and agreements, levels of authority. When has the American government, at the Federal level, ever taken over like this?

[skeptical cynic]

19. I'm afraid I do have the knowledge to make those assumptions

I've been in the oil industry and spill response for more than twenty years, beginning with the Exxon Valdez.

I know many of the people in the Gulf.
I know the capabilities of the agencies.
I know from the pictures and first-hand accounts how badly basic onwater response is being handled.
I know that failed leadership and corporate influence are the problems, not the expertise of the agencies.

I'm flying to the Gulf myself next week.

That's about all I can say.

[JuniperLea]

20. Well, good luck with that...

I work in PR... I know spin when I smell it... and the news reeks of it now. I'm reading the early releases again... those I can find, anyway.

I don't believe we as humans have the capacity to battle this new monster... this is unlike anything we've ever dealt with in the past. This makes the Exxon Valdez look like a grease spot in a parking lot.

[skeptical cynic]

22. Spin is a very polite word to describe what we're hearing

Incredible damage has yet to be recognized. Most of the oil is under water, not on the surface, due to both the nature of the spill and the nature of the response (dispersants).

Personally, I'm suspicious because we're not seeing fly-over pictures. We're seeing on-water photographs and carefully staged photographs of in-situ burning. We're seeing satellite photos. But we're not seeing many photographs that show what some photos hint at: large clouds of dispersed and neutrally buoyant crude oil below the surface, out of reach of booms and skimmers. The ABC News video released this morning show just this problem.

I think this monster is largely of our own design. BP made a lot of mistakes, but the age of easy "conventional" crude is over and we're still living a culture based on cheap oil. With globalization, we're never going to see a healthy economy and cheap petroleum coexist again. We're going to increasingly seek out oil in more difficult locations and more sensitive habitats. As we are forced to utilize tar sands and shale oil deposits, oil will become increasingly expensive, which will lower public resistance to further exploitation of difficult oil and compromised environmental protection methods. We're already fighting two wars with no justification beyond oil. We're expanding our military presence in Guam and in Columbia because those locations are strategically located near oil reserves.

In the future, when you hear President Obama or any other president say "vital national interests" think "petroleum."

[and-justice-for-all]

5. Believe it or not, but big Oil is making money off this mess...

so of course they are not in a hurry to fix it.

[JuniperLea]

8. Of course they are...

And they are more focused on keeping the well viable than stopping the flow of oil.

[ShortnFiery]

14. Does anyone have the link - site reference - to the LIVE oil spill cam? eom

[robinblue]

18. I looked for it after she made that announcement but can not

find it. She did not give a reason. Just said that BP will be turning it off.

[CreekDog]

21. You should provide a link and in your sloppiness, you said this CBS article was AP

I hate reading stuff without knowing who wrote it.