http://townhall.com/columnists/Charl..._anyway?page=1
WASHINGTON -- Heres my question: Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?
Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, weve had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
So we go deep, ultra deep -- to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for the April 20 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.
There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, upon which thousands depend for their livelihood, or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. Thats a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?
Not that the environmentalists are the only ones to blame. Not by far. But it is odd that theyve escaped any mention at all.
The other culprits are pretty obvious. It starts with BP, which seems not only to have had an amazing string of perfect-storm engineering lapses but no contingencies to deal with a catastrophic system failure.
However, the railing against BP for its performance since the accident is harder to understand. I attribute no virtue to BP, just self-interest. What possible interest can it have to do anything but cap the well as quickly as possible? Every day that oil is spilled means millions more in losses, cleanup and res ution.
Federal officials who rage against BP would like to deflect attention from their own role in this disaster. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, whose departments laxity in environmental permitting and safety oversight renders it among the many bearing responsibility, expresses outrage at BPs inability to stop the leak, and even threatens to "push them out of the way."
"To replace them with what? asked the estimable, admirably candid Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the national incident commander. No one has the assets and expertise of BP. The federal government can fight wars, conduct a census and hand out billions in earmarks, but it has not a clue how to cap a one-mile-deep out-of-control oil well.
Obama didn't help much with his finger-pointing Rose Garden speech in which he denounced finger-pointing, then proceeded to blame everyone but himself. Even the grace note of admitting some federal responsibility turned sour when he reflexively added that these problems have been going on for a decade or more -- translation: Bush did it -- while, in contrast, his own interior secretary had worked diligently to solve the problem from the day he took office.
Really? Why hadn't we heard a thing about this? What about the September 2009 letter from Obama's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration accusing Interior's Minerals Management Service of understating the "risk and impacts" of a major oil spill? When you get a blowout 15 months into your administration, and your own Interior Department had given BP a "categorical" environmental exemption in April 2009, the buck stops.
In the end, speeches will make no difference. If BP can cap the well in time to prevent an absolute calamity in the Gulf, the president will escape politically. If it doesn't -- if the gusher isn't stopped before the relief wells are completed in August -- it will become Obama's Katrina.
That will be unfair, because Obama is no more responsible for the damage caused by this than Bush was for the damage caused by Katrina. But that's the nature of American politics and its presidential cult of personality: We expect our presidents to play Superman. Helplessness, however undeniable, is no defense.
Moreover, Obama has never been overly modest about his own powers. Two years ago next week, he declared that history will mark his ascent to the presidency as the moment when "our planet began to heal" and "the rise of the oceans began to slow."
Well, when you anoint yourself King Canute, you mustnt be surprised when your subjects expect you to command the tides.
pitbull has already taken this topic. I guess some billioniare-financed stink tank has put out the talking point that BP is not responsible for the leak.
It's the fault of people who are concerned about pollution that caused BP to be so incomptent, so cowboyish, so don't-give-a- about the environment, regulations, and worker safety.
Conservatives and Repugs are NEVER responsible or accountable for anything.
None of this would be a problem if BP had followed safety regulations and not gone against all manner of experienced, expert advice when proceeding to drill in a dangerous environment.
We're drilling there because of environmentalists?
What. The. ?
Between that and Jack in this thread some of you are ing delusional.
BP is drilling there for one reason.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
We're drilling there because of environmentalists?
What. The. ?
Between that and Jack in this thread some of you are ing delusional.
BP is drilling there for one reason.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Do you think its cheaper to drill a mile below the ocean surface?
There are plenty of oil leases on US land, many given away for pennies to the oilcos, but there's not enough oil worth pursuing. Avg US well produces 5 barrels/day.
In fact, the US cannot "drill,baby,drill" its way out of dependence on foreign oil because it controls a tiny %age of the world's reserves, while consuming 20%+ of the world's production.
The US oilcos are going to make 100s of $Bs in windfall profits when Peak Oil can't meet demand, so they are buying off enough legislators and scientists to make sure the US remains helplessly addicted to oil.
The reason Gulf deep sea drilling is attractive (it's even more attractive if you don't spend the money to secure the drilling and the employees) is that all the shallower Gulf reserves are known and being sucked dry by 1000s of wells.
Do you think BP was planning on losing money on this well?
I bet they'd prefer a cheaper and less risky location. Call me crazy.
Are you saying that BP has no undrilled leases in such areas?
Please back up your claim.
Then BP chose to drill in a more risky area over less risky ones.
For profit.
Other than it happening in the Gulf, this does not come close in comparison to Bush's handling of Katrina no matter how badly Republicans want it to.
Our president sent our military. Apparently you still fail to see it.
You're crazy. They prefer the location that makes them more money.
You also act as if its either or. They could do both.
Just kidding though Darrin, you're not crazy.
You're just stupid.
That area of the Gulf, where there is clearly, lots of oil, is called 'The Mississippi Canyon'. It's an underwater canyon carved out by the Mississippi River. It's not off the continental shelf. That's now why it's in deep water. There are platforms 150 miles out in the gulf in less than 200 feet of water. They're drilling the canyon and there are huge oil fields down there. S s Cognac platform is in 1200 foot of water. BP is producing from some wells not far from this blowout...over 1/4 million barrels per day. They're drilling it because there is lots of oil down there. Not because they won't let them drill off the coast of California in shallow water or in ANWR.
no, sorry, but darrin already said it's because of environmentalist. lol
- SpeakEasy - http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy -
BP And Halliburton Try To Buy Off Government Officials Investigating Spill
Posted By Alex Seitz-Wald On June 3, 2010 @ 11:59 am In Uncategorized | 4 Comments
This post originally appeared on Think Progress.
Facing possible jail time for their roles in the largest oil spill in American history, BP and Halliburton are building high-powered legal teams with “deep Department of Justice and White House ties.” But the companies are pursuing other means to defend themselves as well.
Halliburton’s campaign donations have ed as it tries to curry favor with key members of Congress investigating the disaster. The company donated $17,000 in May, making it “the busiest donation month for Halliburton’s PAC since September 2008,” Politico reports. Thirteen of the 14 contributions from May went to Republicans, while seven went to members of Congress who are “on committees withoversight of the oil spill and its aftermath”:
About one week before executive Timothy Probert appeared before the House Energy and Commerce’s investigative subcommittee, Halliburton donated $1,500 to Ranking Republican Joe Barton’s reelection effort. It was Halliburton’s second-largest donation of the month — topped only by $2,500 to former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), who is running for the Senate.
In the Senate, Idaho Republican Mike Crapo, who serves on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Georgia Republican Johnny Isakson, who serves on the Commerce Committee and North Carolina Republican Richard Burr (N.C.), who serves on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, all got $1,000. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) also got $1,000.
Meanwhile, a Hill analysis found that primarily during the Bush administration, BP and other oil companies “paid for dozens of trips and meals for officials” from the Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Homeland Security — agencies deeply involved in the regulation of oil exploration and spill cleanup. BP had the “highest tab for gifts to government officials” of all oil and gas companies:
BP and its affiliates — BP America and BP Exploration — show up in the gift reports at least 16 different times, paying for meals as well as for oil and gas industry seminars and tours of oil facilities. The cost of the gifts totaled more than $7,200.
Only two industry-funded trips took place during the first nine months of President Obama’s administration. In 2004, BP paid for a group of Interior officials to visit an offshore rig in the Gulf of Mexico. The group included then-deputy secretary J. Steven Griles, wholater went to prison for his role in Jack Abramoff scandal. In 2005, BP paid for travel and meals for then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton and then-Minerals Management Service (MMS) Director Johnnie Burton to attended the dedication ceremony of another offshore rig in the Gulf. BP also paid for officials from the EPA and the Fish and Wildlife Service to visit Prudhoe Bay, Alaska over a period of several years. A recent Interior Inspector General report covering 2005 to 2007 found a “culture of lax oversight and cozy ties to industry.” Since January of 2008, BP lobbyists have spent $30 million to influence legislation, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Some coastal governors have benefited from BP as well. BP and other oil companies gave Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) $1.8 million dollars for his campaign, and since the spill, he’s been aggressively downplaying the disaster and encouraging people to visit his state’s oily beaches. Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) traveled to a BP-funded conference in Houston last month “to lobby aggressively to drill for oil and natural gas without delay.” Meanwhile, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) dismissed potential BP negligence by calling the spill an “act of God” at a trade association funded by BP in May.
Article printed from SpeakEasy: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy
URL to article: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/...igating-spill/
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-03-2010 at 04:52 PM.
Oh...so sorry. Never mind.
Yes, all of this is true. After all the costs for this cleanup are added up, I'm sure deep water drilling will seem less attractive to the oil companies.
no, it won't.
Of course it won't. But we have to define 'deep water drilling'. It is defined as anything you can't put a jack-up on, which can drill in 300 feet or less, or build a platform on. We do it all the time. The deepest platform I know of, and it's probably been surpassed, was S s Cognac...1200 or 1400 feet of water. I actually worked for the geologist that discovered that field. Phd in geophysics. He was later my boss in a field that has nothing to do with the oil industry. He left because he made billions for S and they gave him jack for it. We had both left the industry by then but had a lot of chats about that area of the Gulf. There's huge oil deposits in that water. It's in deep water, but it's a gold mine of reserves. I hope we don't stop drilling out there. Mistakes were made. You learn and move on.
I think Krauthammer's logic (and it is not my own) is something along these lines:
Say you are given an apple tree, but you are only allowed to pick fruit from one side. Naturally, you would pick the fruit from the ground and the low hanging fruit first. Only after the easy fruit is depleted would you try to get the fruit in the higher branches. If given access to the other side of the tree, you'd pick the low hanging fruit from that side before going for the high stuff.
Admittedly, it's a bit of a flimsy argument, but I don't even think that was the main point of the article.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
