• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gulf of Mexico spill may hit coast this weekend

From my POV Obama is handling this problem well and even handedly.
 
Mr. Brown's theory, if in fact the report is accurate, is not helpful. Rather than going to "knee-jerk" approaches e.g., to permit or prohibit deepwater drilling, a genuine regulatory issue arises: what standards should be expected by regulators? In other words, should regulators insist on "best practices" for the activity that is within their regulatory jurisdiction?

From an ABC News blog:

One area of immediate concern, industry experts said, was the lack of a remote system that would have allowed workers to clamp shut Deepwater Horizon's wellhead so it would not continue to gush oil. The rig is now spilling 210,000 gallons of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico.

In a letter sent last year to the Department of the Interior, BP objected to what it called "extensive, prescriptive regulations" proposed in new rules to toughen safety standards. "We believe industry's current safety and environmental statistics demonstrate that the voluntary programs…continue to be very successful."
Click to expand...

The issue involved is a classic example of "tail risks" (very low probability/high-impact events). Just as had been largely rediscovered during the recent financial crisis, tail risk events can have huge adverse consequences when they play out.

IMO, if the net costs of an event are relatively low, then regulatory regimes should be constructed around those realities, among others. However, if the net costs of an event are very high/catastrophic, even if the probability of occurrence is very low, regulators should, at a minimum, probably err on the side of prudence and insist on best practices.

In the meantime, BP should not be vilified. It was not operating the rig in question. Its posture was a widespread one. Appreciation of tail risk events is still emerging and evolving.

Therefore, the lessons from this case should be learned and applied. To be sure, BP should contribute to financing the clean-up, cooperating to help gain better insight into what happened, etc., and to date, there is every indication that the company is working in a cooperative and productive fashion.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Mr. Brown's theory, if in fact the report is accurate, is not helpful. Rather than going to "knee-jerk" approaches e.g., to permit or prohibit deepwater drilling, a genuine regulatory issue arises: what standards should be expected by regulators? In other words, should regulators insist on "best practices" for the activity that is within their regulatory jurisdiction?

From an ABC News blog:



The issue involved is a classic example of "tail risks" (very low probability/high-impact events). Just as had been largely rediscovered during the recent financial crisis, tail risk events can have huge adverse consequences when they play out.

IMO, if the net costs of an event are relatively low, then regulatory regimes should be constructed around those realities, among others. However, if the net costs of an event are very high/catastrophic, even if the probability of occurrence is very low, regulators should, at a minimum, probably err on the side of prudence and insist on best practices.

In the meantime, BP should not be vilified. It was not operating the rig in question. Its posture was a widespread one. Appreciation of tail risk events is still emerging and evolving.

Therefore, the lessons from this case should be learned and applied. To be sure, BP should contribute to financing the clean-up, cooperating to help gain better insight into what happened, etc., and to date, there is every indication that the company is working in a cooperative and productive fashion.
Click to expand...
i agree with you except for one issue.....BP is entirely responsible for the cost of the clean up. period.

they have been trying to turn this into a joint responsbility, and it's clearly not.
 
liblady said:
i agree with you except for one issue.....BP is entirely responsible for the cost of the clean up. period.

they have been trying to turn this into a joint responsbility, and it's clearly not.
Click to expand...

I doubt that. There are many parties involved that will have to pony up up some money. I would think that a prime contributor will be the company that made the shut-off valve that didn't perform as required.
 
Gill said:
I doubt that. There are many parties involved that will have to pony up up some money. I would think that a prime contributor will be the company that made the shut-off valve that didn't perform as required.
Click to expand...
Exactly right, I don't think that many people know just how many companies sub-contract on any single drilling operation. The main company has service companies, mapping companies, transit......etc. etc. But I would think that either the valve company or the company that laid down the base of the rig would be more responsible considering those are considered the two most likely reasons the rig failed.
 
liblady said:
i agree with you except for one issue.....BP is entirely responsible for the cost of the clean up. period.

they have been trying to turn this into a joint responsbility, and it's clearly not.
Click to expand...

Have we determined what, or who, caused this explosion?
 
justabubba said:
ooops
somebody does not seem to recognize that michael brown is the former horse judge, appointed by dubya bin lyin, who failed in the fema efforts to assist new orleans
but i am willing to read how you have determined that he is an Obama adherent, as he is rubbing his hands together over this

ready, set, post
Click to expand...

I know what you wrote; I was just making an observation that this is convenient to Obama's environmental "cap and trade" ideology, that's all.

What caused this explosion? What is accidental, or intentional? Why aren't we burning it off? Why did we send a SWAT team?

And regarding New Orleans, when grown adults don't heed the warnings and leave before the hurricane hits, especially in a disaster-waiting-to-happen like New Orleans, I don't harbor much sympathy. I hate what they went through, but it was self-induced.
 
Erod said:
So why aren't we burning any of this stuff off? What has he done?
Click to expand...

He's left it in the hands of the experts. I believe they are working hard to do what they can. He is putting pressure on the foreign company that we allowed to drill in our territorial waters. He's put a moratorium on new drilling for now.

What do you expect, for him to wave his magic wand? :confused:
 
From what I understand, and maybe I am wrong, BP is responsible for the entire cleanup no matter what part or parts caused the accident and what company they were made by. Is that right or did I misunderstand that somewhere along the way?
 
MyOwnDrum said:
He's left it in the hands of the experts. I believe they are working hard to do what they can. He is putting pressure on the foreign company that we allowed to drill in our territorial waters. He's put a moratorium on new drilling for now.

What do you expect, for him to wave his magic wand? :confused:
Click to expand...

In other words, he essentially done nothing, yet he's being praised by some for it.

I don't blame him a bit, just like I didn't blame Bush for Katrina.
 
Erod said:
In other words, he essentially done nothing, yet he's being praised by some for it.

I don't blame him a bit, just like I didn't blame Bush for Katrina.
Click to expand...

Correct. Bush wasn't to blame for the disorder after Katrina. The president doesn't control everything. He does his best to appoint qualified people, but a lot of things can go wrong.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
Correct. Bush wasn't to blame for the disorder after Katrina. The president doesn't control everything. He does his best to appoint qualified people, but a lot of things can go wrong.
Click to expand...

On that, we agree entirely.

Maybe I'm on an island on this one, but why isn't more attention being paid to what caused the explosion? Did they figure it out and I missed the story?

Could this be an attack of some sort?
 
liblady said:
i agree with you except for one issue.....BP is entirely responsible for the cost of the clean up. period.

they have been trying to turn this into a joint responsbility, and it's clearly not.
Click to expand...

Although I believe the company or companies involved should completely finance the costs of clean-up/economic damage that resulted, a post-accident analysis will determine whether responsibility belongs solely to BP or is joint. For example, what if the blow-out preventer (manufactured by Cameron International) failed due to some flaw. Does the manufacturer bear a degree of responsibility for what would then be a defective product? I would suspect that consistent with product liability law, the manufacturer would bear some degree of responsibility under such circumstances.
 
Erod said:
On that, we agree entirely.

Maybe I'm on an island on this one, but why isn't more attention being paid to what caused the explosion? Did they figure it out and I missed the story?

Could this be an attack of some sort?
Click to expand...

I was wondering that myself. The silence has been deafening regarding the cause of this calamity.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
I was wondering that myself. The silence has been deafening regarding the cause of this calamity.
Click to expand...

And it is THE biggest story, bar none. I don't want a bunch of fish and birds to die either, but if this was a terrorist attack and a sign of things to come, then that is where the focus should primarily be.

Someone did this. Oil platform don't have a history of just blowing up on their own. They withstand hurricanes for pete's sake.
 
Erod said:
And it is THE biggest story, bar none. I don't want a bunch of fish and birds to die either, but if this was a terrorist attack and a sign of things to come, then that is where the focus should primarily be.

Someone did this. Oil platform don't have a history of just blowing up on their own. They withstand hurricanes for pete's sake.
Click to expand...

someone did this you insist

without any proof that it could have been an accident

better stock back up on tin foil
 
Erod said:
Someone did this. Oil platform don't have a history of just blowing up on their own. They withstand hurricanes for pete's sake.
Click to expand...

How do you know they don't? Have you researched it? Does the ability to withstand hurricanes make an oil rig more likely to prevent an accidental explosion? Have you counted the number of oil rig explosions in history?

Or are you just pulling some random idea out of your ass?
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
How do you know they don't? Have you researched it? Does the ability to withstand hurricanes make an oil rig more likely to prevent an accidental explosion? Have you counted the number of oil rig explosions in history?

Or are you just pulling some random idea out of your ass?
Click to expand...

I'd like to vote for option 5, personally. I don't want to know what else is up there, either.
 
that's disgusting and stunningly immature

meanwhile, adults are quite concerned about the white house's completely inept response to this disastrous oil spill in the gulf

SIXTEEN TIMES on the sunday talks dhs napolitano and interior salazar REPEATED their obviously spoon fed TALKING POINTS

we've been "all hands on deck..."

"FROM DAY ONE"

the point---to non partisans, the white house wordsmiths look so WAGGISH

ie, that's NOT good

you really don't want people LAUGHING at you at dangerous times like these which cry out for effective leadership

indeed, pretty much the entire chattering class is noticing

the associated press:

The Associated Press: SPIN METER: There since Day One? Maybe not

politico:

White House in P.R. 'panic' over spill - Glenn Thrush and Mike Allen - POLITICO.com

why does this white house always LOOK so defensive?

the entire cast is incompetent
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
I'd like to vote for option 5, personally. I don't want to know what else is up there, either.
Click to expand...

Why did Obama send a SWAT team?

While we're all freaking out over an oil spill that is days late in harming a beach, nary a word is being said about why this thing exploded in the first place.

THAT should be the story, but we're more concerned about the effect on the mating habits of the dodo bird.
 
Last edited:
The Prof said:
meanwhile, adults are quite concerned about the white house's completely inept response to this disastrous oil spill in the gulf
Click to expand...

You mean adult partisan hacks who are desperate to score any point they can against Obama.
 
misterman said:
How do you know they don't? Have you researched it? Does the ability to withstand hurricanes make an oil rig more likely to prevent an accidental explosion? Have you counted the number of oil rig explosions in history?

Or are you just pulling some random idea out of your ass?
Click to expand...

OK, I'll address the latest insult from the biggest punk on this board.

Where is the reporting on just what caused this? The media is all in a tizzy over this impending oil spill that so far hasn't done diddly (I'm not saying it won't).

Meanwhile, Obama is sending SWAT teams to the rig, not a word is being said, a 40-year-old white male who morphed into a young Pakistani dude tried to blast Manhattan, and illegal immigrants are shooting people in Arizona.

And no, if an oil platform has exploded in the last 40 years, I haven't heard about it. Have you?
 
he's comprehensively clueless

he originally said he would not go to louisiana

then he went

he said his offshore drilling program would proceed (LOL!)

now it's naturally on hold

you want to see the LINKS?

now he's promising bigtime that BP WILL PAY

this morning, however, the white house had to come out and admit that, barring "gross negligence" or "willful misconduct," bp's costs are capped at a piddly 75 mil

W.H.: BP may avoid some costs - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

which is why bob menendez, frank lautenberg and florida's bill nelson have hurriedly introduced legislation to raise the limit to 10 bil

and, of course, the white house is eager to endorse---LOL!
 
Erod said:
OK, I'll address the latest insult from the biggest punk on this board.

Where is the reporting on just what caused this? The media is all in a tizzy over this impending oil spill that so far hasn't done diddly (I'm not saying it won't).

Meanwhile, Obama is sending SWAT teams to the rig, not a word is being said, a 40-year-old white male who morphed into a young Pakistani dude tried to blast Manhattan, and illegal immigrants are shooting people in Arizona.

And no, if an oil platform has exploded in the last 40 years, I haven't heard about it. Have you?
Click to expand...

there you have it
he has connected all the dots


too bad that they are only freckles
tin-foil-hat.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom