Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

BP's oil spill - should Statism come to the rescue?

Options
  • 25-05-2010 3:52pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭


    It has now been over 30 days that BP's deep water oil spill has been spewing into the Gulf of Mexico.
    They've tried a few mitigation techniques, none have worked, bar the insertion of another tube to capture some of the oil.
    BP has consistently lied about the quantity of the oil spewing and how much they are capturing.

    There is a growing chorus of people calling for the US Government to take over. Infact the opposition in the US - The Republicans are taking (political) shots at Obama for not taking control.

    from CNN:
    With the Obama administration under increasing criticism for its handling of the spill, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the government considers BP the responsible party.
    "But we are on them, watching them," she said after a flyover of the affected area Monday.

    Republican Strategist Mary Matalin, who toured the damage by boat Sunday, said the White House should cease "saying they have their boot on the neck of BP. They don't have a ballet slipper on the neck of anybody."

    Presidential historian Doug Brinkley, a longtime resident of New Orleans, Louisiana, warned that Obama's political stock could hinge on the administration's response.
    "I think that the president has to get control over this situation," he said Monday night. "Right now, there is a feeling in the country that BP's in charge, but BP is the one that has been grossly negligent."

    But Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Thad Allen, the Obama administration's point person in the Gulf, said removing BP from the cleanup efforts is not an option.

    The government, he said, has neither the equipment nor the expertise to undertake the operation itself.

    "To push BP out of the way would raise a question, to replace them with what," he told reporters at a White House briefing.

    Are people right to ask Statism to take-over?
    BP have not done a particularly good job so far and people no longer trust them.
    While it's certainly a good point that the Government may not have the equipment, experience or expertise in this area (who does?), i believe they could take-over the operation and force BP's hand.

    Or, do you think the best course of action is for the government to remain sidlined and let "the market" solve this problem?
    But how would that happen?


«134

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    <offtopic but curious>

    Where did this "statism" thing come from? It's been occasionally popping up lately like a lingering odour. Virtually no-one is using it in a way that reflects the general meaning of the word, which under most definitions reflects a little more than mere government interference, meddling or pushed direction.

    </offtopic but curious>


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    sceptre wrote: »
    <offtopic but curious>

    Where did this "statism" thing come from? It's been occasionally popping up lately like a lingering odour. Virtually no-one is using it in a way that reflects the general meaning of the word, which under most definitions reflects a little more than mere government interference, meddling or pushed direction.

    </offtopic but curious>

    It comes from Ayn Rand.
    But more specifically around here, it's been penned by Donegalfella and his Libertarian soapboxing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 462 ✭✭SlabMurphy


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    Or, do you think the best course of action is for the government to remain sidlined and let "the market" solve this problem?
    But how would that happen?
    :D Well Libertarianism always has comes up with the comment about how the utopia known as "the market" can solve everything.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    SlabMurphy wrote: »
    :D Well Libertarianism always has comes up with the comment about how the utopia known as "the market" can solve everything.

    I hear the Russians offered to blow up a small nuke to seal the well :D as they have done on several occasions in the past

    for a small fee of course...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 81,732 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    TBH I seriously dont understand why the Obama Administration has held out this long. I figured he'd jump at the chance to go Superhero on this and give BP the bill after the fact.

    Frankly this is not a Private Sector snafu, its an Ecological Disaster. And frankly screw the turtles for a moment, but the Tourism sector across the Gulf has shut down and its not going to recover this year thanks in whole to this.

    On a perverse level I almost wonder if this is a Democrat response to Drill Baby Drill - almost as if they want some example to placard for the next 30 years about why oil is a bad thing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Overheal wrote: »
    TBH I seriously dont understand why the Obama Administration has held out this long. I figured he'd jump at the chance to go Superhero on this and give BP the bill after the fact.

    The fact is that the govt can do no more than BP can. They are the world leaders in this field. Obama doesn't want to take over and be seen to do the same, or even worse than BP. So he is now content with some saber rattling about stepping in, so when BP do fix it people can say "wow the pressure really paid off" Don't be alarmed though, when a situation arises were Obama can be sure there wont be a humiliating failure he will jump on it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    But there are things the government could do.
    They could put the boot on BP's throat.
    They could repeal that law that protects oil firms from damages litigation.
    They could descend on them with auidtors and inspectors.
    They could shut down other BP operations.
    They could threaten that company with penalites.
    They could freeze the assets of that company.

    Just use your imagination.

    Plus the government has resources of manpower far exceeding what BP is doing regarding cleanup.
    They could call up the National Guard and put hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground (and in the water).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    This post has been deleted.



    And if I recall it was actually a subcontractor. I am sure BP could have engaged in long legal battle to get out of this but to be fair to them they have faced up to it and maintain that they will foot the bill.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    This post has been deleted.
    I'm not sure how exactly putting the National Guard on cleanup duty equals shutting down BP.

    But FYI i am only brainstorming things that the government could do, i am not arguing (at this point) what they should do.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    This post has been deleted.
    It's certainly in USA's best interest to find out if BP is running deepwater drilling platforms in other locations. Maybe they've doctored their safety reports and this incident could be repeated.

    Aside from the environmental damage presently occuring, lets not forget that 11 workers also died.
    What sort of safety record is that?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 117 ✭✭Knarr


    Are people right to ask Statism to take-over?

    No. The free market will solve it. (Mathew 4:11)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 117 ✭✭Knarr


    This post has been deleted.

    So what is the 'non-statist' solution to this environmental catastrophe Donegalfella?

    If there were more 'statism' there could have been better regulation in every regard relating tto the oil platform, its procedures, its manufacture etc.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10 JamieBly


    I read that the oil platform won a safety award from the US gov't last year...

    Edit: At the bottom of this article (which talks about how the federal inspections weren't any help)

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100516/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_inspections


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 117 ✭✭Knarr


    JamieBly wrote: »
    I read that the oil platform won a safety award from the US gov't last year...

    With criteria based upon what safety limits?
    What is defined as 'safe' is arbitrary.


    That article is an example of why a lack of state intervention fails.

    "In fact, the agency's inspection frequency on the Deepwater Horizon fell dramatically over the past five years"

    Less state activity regulating safety = disaster.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10 JamieBly


    yeah that's what i thought too... :/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    SlabMurphy wrote: »
    :D Well Libertarianism always has comes up with the comment about how the utopia known as "the market" can solve everything.

    It's actually the invisible divine hand of the market.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭Anonymous1987


    Overheal wrote: »
    TBH I seriously dont understand why the Obama Administration has held out this long. I figured he'd jump at the chance to go Superhero on this and give BP the bill after the fact.

    Frankly this is not a Private Sector snafu, its an Ecological Disaster. And frankly screw the turtles for a moment, but the Tourism sector across the Gulf has shut down and its not going to recover this year thanks in whole to this.

    On a perverse level I almost wonder if this is a Democrat response to Drill Baby Drill - almost as if they want some example to placard for the next 30 years about why oil is a bad thing.
    The Obama administration may be worried about their plans to open the east coast from Maryland to Florida as part of the new climate bill. I guess this throws a spanner in the works for it. Might explain it a bit, initially it was thought the oil spill was minor and maybe they thought it wouldn't significantly impact on their proposals but know it won't seem as attractive.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    From FAIR, a nice review of what the corporate media have been at:
    You know, there are a lot of serious people looking at, "Are there ways that we can do drilling and we can do nuclear that are--that are nowhere near as risky as what they were 10 or 15 or 20 years ago?" Offshore drilling today is a lot more safer, in many ways, environmentally, today than it was 20 years ago.
    --David Gergen, CNN's Situation Room (3/31/10)

    Some Americans have an opinion of offshore drilling that was first formed decades ago with those pictures of oil on the beaches in Santa Barbara, California. Others see it differently. They say time and technology have changed things. They say in order to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and keep gas prices low, we've got to bring more of it out of the ground and from under the sea.
    --Brian Williams, NBC Nightly News (3/31/10)

    The technology of oil drilling has made huge advances.... The time has come for my fellow environmentalists to reassess their stand on offshore oil. It is not clear that the risks of offshore oil drilling still outweigh the benefits. The risk of oil spills in the United States is quite low.
    --Eric Smith, Washington Post op-ed (4/2/10)

    Some of the most ironic objections come from those who say offshore exploration will destroy beaches and coastlines, citing the devastating 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska as an example. The last serious spill from a drilling accident in U.S. waters was in 1969, off Santa Barbara, California.
    --USA Today editorial (4/2/10)

    Since the big spill off the coast of California about three decades ago, the big oil companies have really put a lot of time, money and resources into making sure that their drilling is a lot more safe and environmentally sound.
    --Monica Crowley, Fox Business Happy Hour (3/31/10)

    Drilling could be conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner. We already drill in an environmentally sensitive manner.
    --Sean Hannity, Fox News' Hannity (4/1/10)

    And even in terms of the environment, we're going to consume oil one way or the other. It's safer for the planet if it's done under our strict controls and high technology in America as opposed to Nigeria.... We've got a ton of drilling happening every day today in the Gulf of Mexico in a hurricane area and it's successful.
    --Charles Krauthammer, WJLA's Inside Washington (4/4/10)

    We had a hurricane on the Gulf Coast and there was no oil spill. If Katrina didn't cause an oil spill with all those oil wells in the Gulf....
    --Dick Morris, Fox News' O'Reilly Factor (3/31/10)

    The two main reasons oil and other fossil fuels became environmentally incorrect in the 1970s--air pollution and risk of oil spills--are largely obsolete. Improvements in drilling technology have greatly reduced the risk of the kind of offshore spill that occurred off Santa Barbara in 1969.... To fear oil spills from offshore rigs today is analogous to fearing air travel now because of prop plane crashes.
    --Steven F. Hayward, Weekly Standard (4/26/10)

    And these messages didn't entirely disappear after the Gulf of Mexico disaster unfolded. In its May 10 issue, Time magazine had a small box headlined, "Offshore-Drilling Disasters: Rare But Deadly," which listed a mere four incidents--the most recent in 1988. But it doesn't take too much research to turn up a slew of other incidents that raise concerns: the Unocal-owned Seacrest drillship that capsized in 1989, killing 91 people; Phillips Petroleum's Alexander Kielland rig that collapsed in 1980, killing 123, and more. The list managed to overlook at least three well disasters in the Gulf of Mexico that resulted in oil spills--two incidents off the Louisiana coast in 1999, and the Usumacinta spill in Mexican waters in 2007.

    A previous Time.com story (4/24/10) had noted that the Minerals Management Service, which oversees offshore drilling, reported 39 fires or explosions in the first five months of 2009 alone; though the magazine said the "good news" is that "most of these" did not result in death. The website Oil Rig Disasters tallies 184 incidents, dozens of which involved fatalities--and 73 of which occurred after 1988.

    Clearly there are different ways to measure such things, but it's hard not to feel that Time's point was to suggest that drilling disasters are really too rare to worry about.

    Since the BP/Deepwater disaster, many news outlets have run investigative pieces detailing the long history of negligent oversight of the offshore drilling industry. But when the New York Times tells readers (5/25/10) about the "enduring laxity of federal regulation of offshore operations," one can't help but wonder why this apparently well-known problem got so little attention before the environmental catastrophe.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 117 ✭✭Knarr


    This post has been deleted.

    The state has the capacity to direct greater resources towards disasters such as this.

    I mean, what you are asking is like if my house is on fire, and private individuals are responsible for sorting out their own fire management, how would the state be better prepared/positioned to deal with it.

    Well my answer is that it would not be. But neither would I, and thats why the state must be prepared for potential disasters/fires in the first place by having a fire brigade service or nationally co-ordinated oil disaster teams, equipment and facilities.

    Unfortunately this was left to the market/private sector and BP cant deal with it. Profit margins and all that.
    Indeed. Maybe we should just regulate ocean drilling out of existence,

    Nah, sure who needs regulation. If people feel so strongly about oil pollution and a bad safety reputation then they will not buy oil from those companies. The free market will solve things. If only.
    and adopt the "statist" solution to oil shortages: dropping bombs in the Middle East.

    :confused: I would have thought the USA was a market economy. Maybe im wrong.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,732 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    This post has been deleted.
    I really dont know how i missed that political cartoon but it was a goodie.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    This post has been deleted.
    I'm going to cut to the chase here and use my psychic abilities:

    BP only wants money, ergo safety and everything else is put to the side, endangering everyone and everything that get between them and their cash.

    The government only wants to step and protect innocent victims of BP's cruel profit motive.

    This was a tremendous disaster and someone will eventually take full responsibility for it, just like the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989. Using this as some sort of example to show us how the "free market" is bad is missing the point entirely and I think it's a shame to try and profiteer ideologically from this incident.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Valmont wrote: »
    I'm going to cut to the chase here and use my psychic abilities:

    BP only wants money, ergo safety and everything else is put to the side, endangering everyone and everything that get between them and their cash.

    The government only wants to step and protect innocent victims of BP's cruel profit motive.

    This was a tremendous disaster and someone will eventually take full responsibility for it, just like the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989. Using this as some sort of example to show us how the "free market" is bad is missing the point entirely and I think it's a shame to try and profiteer ideologically from this incident.

    That's a load of bollocks. One of the great weaknesses of the free market model so beloved of libertarians and other right-wingers is the problem of externalities, and pollution is an important externality. It hardly counts as ideological profiteering to point to a dramatic illustration of the problem.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 117 ✭✭Knarr


    Valmont wrote: »
    BP only wants money, ergo safety and everything else is put to the side, endangering everyone and everything that get between them and their cash.

    Sounds like what happened in Bhopal.
    The government only wants to step and protect innocent victims of BP's cruel profit motive.

    If only statism did that before the Bhopal disaster.
    This was a tremendous disaster and someone will eventually take full responsibility for it,

    Like Bhopal. How many have served time for that again?
    Using this as some sort of example to show us how the "free market" is bad is missing the point entirely and I think it's a shame to try and profiteer ideologically from this incident.

    Shame on those calling for greater safety regulation and intervention in the operations of private companies, Shame!

    Come off it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Err, BP are losing a fortune each day as their prime commodity pours into the sea, why would they not want to clean it up.

    I worked for BP for a while and their attention to safety is, at times, restrictive as they are paranoid about it. Making a rig safe is a lot cheaper than forking out millions to 11 dead workers families.

    I think they seriously underestimated the original extent of the spill at the beginning, but I have no doubt that money is now no object when it comes to sorting this out. The government can kick them aroind, freeze assets or do whatever it likes, it isn't going to ehlp with the immediate objective which is sorting this mess out.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 117 ✭✭Knarr


    Err, BP are losing a fortune each day as their prime commodity pours into the sea, why would they not want to clean it up.

    They dont have the resources, facilities and equipment to clean it up.

    I worked for BP for a while and their attention to safety is, at times, restrictive as they are paranoid about it. Making a rig safe is a lot cheaper than forking out millions to 11 dead workers families.

    You could say that about the Bhopal disaster too. 16,000 died.

    The fact is - without state regulationa and intervention - safety comes after profits. Disasters caused by lack of regulation demonstrate this.
    I think they seriously underestimated the original extent of the spill at the beginning, but I have no doubt that money is now no object when it comes to sorting this out.


    Its kinda too late isnt it.

    Thats like saying "oh I wish I had forked out a fortune on private healthcare insurance before I got a serious illness." - you didnt - and that market rationalising beforehand wont save you now.

    Hence why ""statism"" is needed beforehand rather than relying on market and private sector forces.

    The government can kick them aroind, freeze assets or do whatever it likes, it isn't going to ehlp with the immediate objective which is sorting this mess out.

    Your right. But they should have had the ''statism'' in place before the disadter happend.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement