Some things about the Gulf Gusher I think we all agree on

[WeDidIt]

1) We would all hope that Top Kill works.

2) We all want the well to stop gushing oil and destroying the environment.

3) We all believe what BP has done is criminal and the reaction by the government should be approached that way.

4) We all believe that if the government does not take advantage of this opportunity to implement sweeping new regulations and reform on the oil industry, the government will be criminal in their response.

I would like to see this thread become a dialogue on what we can all agree on.

Let's please discuss these four points in a rational manner and add points we can all agree on to be discussed. Each point added should become a subthread of rational discourse.

Either that, or this will erupt in yet another flamefest.

I'm hoping for a meaningful dialogue.

[scheming daemons]

1. We all agree that the "drill, baby, drill" crowd needs to STFU for a while

..

[RandomThoughts]

2. To be honest.

The leaking of oil in the gulf not as a metaphor, but the actual oil spill, is a non issue to me. I do not think on it in any form.

Weather it stops or keeps going is of no concern, since it is not on the top of the priority list.

There are far worse issues that have to be corrected, so I can say that I do not know if any of those things you listed apply to my thought.

The actual oil spill in the gulf is a non issue since it is so minor compared to what else has been going on in many sectors. Almost a non issue compared to the secrecy and corruption in the other sectors that try to create systems of control without justifiable systems of distribution.


Yes it is bad, and should be cleaned up, but not thinking on that issue.

[karynnj]

12. The oil spill threatens the ecostructure

It will harm plant and animal life, human health and the economy. All of this is important.

Working for increased transparency and honesty in government is important, but you still have to deal with the spill - just as you had to deal with Katrina.

[NYC_SKP]

3. I think none of us appreciated how thoroughly exploited the Gulf of Mexico is.

I've forgotten the numbers, but more than 50,000 wells and holes, 3,701 active platforms, and 43,000 MILES of pipeline out there, just off three states.

[WeDidIt]

5. I hope they require a side by side relief well for all exploratory wells

and two for evey exploratory well in deeper than 2000 feet of water.

BP will stop drilling because they think that shit's too expensive.

[tekisui]

13. No more offshore wells. Period.

The risk is far too great. I we can't learn that obvious lesson, we have no hope.

[Cha]

4. Rec for your obvious sincerity.

[boppers]

6. On point number 3, we need to find Mens Rea.

Accusations aren't enough, we need evidence that they *knew* what they were doing was wrong, and did it anyways.

[Karenina]

7. That's what those commission thingies are for.

;-)

[Karenina]

8. I'd prefer the "top kill" not go ahead

unless BP can guarantee 100% that it will not exacerbate the situation.

Canada requires iirc that relief wells be drilled SIMULTANEOUSLY to avoid weeks of lag time. That was not done in this instance, so people will have to accept that oil will spew until it IS done. We're looking at August.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. I don't think that's the correct standard of evidence to require.

The question should not be "is it 100% certain not to make things worse" but "is the balance of probabilities that it will improve things"; at the moment there's no such thing as playing it safe.

[Karenina]

14. Playing it safe would be concentrating on containment

and getting as much oil out of the water as possible while the relief wells are drilled.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. Self -delete - wrong place

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. What are the laws involved?

I know very little about the laws governing oil drilling in the US, but I haven't seen any allegations that BP has broken any of them, and if they haven't then what they've done is not criminal, by definition. So I'm not sure about 3

It wouldn't surprise me if they turn out to have been cutting corners and breaching mandatory safety requirements, but I haven't seen any news stories to that effect as yet (here in the UK the oil spill isn't such headline news as I suspect it may be in the US).


I think that 4 may be true, but may not be. What I think should definately be avoided is reform for the sake of reform - I don't want the government to pass new laws for the sake of being seen to be doing something. I can see three possible scenarios:

1) BP was not using all the legally required safety precautions - in this case, no new laws are required, all that is required is enforcement of the existing ones.

2) BP was using all the legally required safety precautions, but there are obvious flaws in those precautions that make things like this more likey than necessary - in this case, I the law should be changed to require those precautions.

3) BP was using all or most of the effective precautions anyone can think up, and this still happened - at this point, a cost-benefit analysis of drilling for oil needs to be run, taking into account this new data point - how much benefit to the economy vs how many major ecological catastrophes per decade - and drilling should probably either continue unchecked or be totally suspended (or possibly the same decision on a site-by-site basis).

[karynnj]

11. I agree completely on one and two

Number 3 can be broken into two pieces - leading up to the explosion and afterward. For the first, it depends on whether BP followed all the requirements The government had in place. There have been some articles speaking of skipping some tests or steps that are typically done. Whether that is criminal depends on if they violated any requirements. If it is not technically illegal, they might still be guilty of negligence in that they did not take prudent steps that were standard. Beyond that, they are clearly responsible for all the damage and everyone from the President down has said so.

For the second piece, after the explosion, it is clear that for weeks they did not provide the government with the full data they had. Their minimizing what had happened might have led to less initial action than would have happened had they told the full truth. (OT - but reading Sorkin's book on the financial collapse, there was the same attitude that they knew better than the elected government) I would think that lying to the government at that point is criminal, but I suspect that they simply were too vague (though I think the 5 million was their estimate) I also think that continuing to use the more toxic dispersants after being told not to could be a crime.

Number 4 is absolutely true - I suspect that the startling damage to BP's reputation and assets will lead to the industry being ready to develop best practices that minimize the likelihood of this ever happening again. (I also wonder if the increased cost for insurance will do what Senators won't - lead to the end of off shore drilling.)