LA Times editorial: Drilling moratorium shouldn't be second-guessed

[ProSense]

Drilling moratorium shouldn't be second-guessed

Erring on the side of caution is a better option than chancing another spill.

When President Obama imposed a six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling, his primary concern was safety. When a U.S. District judge in Louisiana overturned that ban Tuesday, his chief concern was jobs, and a failure by the government to prove that shutting down the floating rigs would protect workers or the environment.

So who was right? To some extent, both. But the president is more right. His focus on preventing another devastating accident is appropriate, and his administration's decisions should not be second-guessed by the federal judiciary — at least when the facts are as uncertain as they are in this case.

The drilling moratorium imposed late last month does seem to be generating economic hardship in Louisiana. Although it affects only 33 floating rigs in the Gulf of Mexico (while about 3,600 standing structures can continue to operate), some idled rigs are likely to be sent to other parts of the world, leading to a permanent loss of jobs. In the face of this harm, Judge Martin Feldman argued, the government presented little evidence of danger that these rigs would suffer the same failure that caused the disastrous BP spill. Moreover, the government's choice of 500 feet as the threshold for its definition of "deep-water" drilling, and its failure to consider alternatives to a complete ban, show that the moratorium was "arbitrary and capricious," the judge ruled.

That's one way of looking at it. But because we don't yet know for sure what caused the BP spill — and probably won't until multiple investigations are completed months from now — it's impossible to determine whether other floating rigs are susceptible to the same risk. Definitions of what constitutes deep-water drilling vary among experts, and 500 feet is as good a threshold as any. And there are no alternatives that could reduce the risk as much as a moratorium; anything less would raise the possibility of another catastrophe.

What the case comes down to is deciding an appropriate response in the face of massive uncertainty. If Obama is wrong, and there is no particular risk from the other floating platforms, an estimated 11,000 Louisianans might lose their jobs for nothing. If Feldman is wrong, another spill could occur that would further ravage the environment of Louisiana and surrounding states, perhaps for decades, devastating their tourism and fishing industries and costing many thousands more jobs.

We'd rather err on the side of caution. So should the justices of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case will next be heard.

One issue: If Obama is wrong, they will not have lost their jobs for nothing. That's like saying ensuring safety is a waste of time.