• 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!

U.S. exempted BP's Gulf of Mexico drilling from environmental impact study

Gill

Gill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Messages
8,713
Reaction score
1,907
Location
The Derby City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The Interior Department exempted BP's calamitous Gulf of Mexico drilling operation from a detailed environmental impact analysis last year, according to government documents, after three reviews of the area concluded that a massive oil spill was unlikely.

The decision by the department's Minerals Management Service (MMS) to give BP's lease at Deepwater Horizon a "categorical exclusion" from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on April 6, 2009 -- and BP's lobbying efforts just 11 days before the explosion to expand those exemptions -- show that neither federal regulators nor the company anticipated an accident of the scale of the one unfolding in the gulf.
Click to expand...
washingtonpost.com

Sounds like someone's got some "splaining" to do. I am 100% for drilling in our offshore waters, but precautions have to be taken. Plans have to be in place to deal with disastrous spills, even if they are highly unlikely.

First we find out that booms to collect the oil for burning were nowhere to be found, despite a plan to use them in case of a spill that was written in 1994, now this. The Feds had to go to the boom manufacturer, who had only one available. They then had to beg other countries for some.

This exemption granted last year is all on the Obama administration, so they can't blame it on Bush.
 
IMO, the regulators bear a degree of responsibility for their policy decision.

I believe when an activity has a risk (even when the probability of its occurrence is very low) of creating a severe or catastrophically damaging outcome, regulators should insist on thorough reviews and implementation of best practices/technology. Costs of compliance should be treated as irrelevant to the policy making process when the gravity of the risk involved, even if it is a low probability one, is extreme or catastrophic. This accident is another example of tail risk playing out (as was the financial crisis).
 
Gill said:
washingtonpost.com

Sounds like someone's got some "splaining" to do. I am 100% for drilling in our offshore waters, but precautions have to be taken. Plans have to be in place to deal with disastrous spills, even if they are highly unlikely.

First we find out that booms to collect the oil for burning were nowhere to be found, despite a plan to use them in case of a spill that was written in 1994, now this. The Feds had to go to the boom manufacturer, who had only one available. They then had to beg other countries for some.

This exemption granted last year is all on the Obama administration, so they can't blame it on Bush.
Click to expand...

I'll be interested to hear/read their "splanation." Tsk tsk
 
aps said:
I'll be interested to hear/read their "splanation." Tsk tsk
Click to expand...

Yep, should be interesting to hear the double speak and watch the finger pointing. My bet is that they'll lay the blame on BP.
 
Good thing they did. Looks like the damned thing leaks oil.

But I'm not surprised in the least that the government would cozy up to big money operations and perhaps put the rest of us at risk/lie to us/falsely report to us in order for them to protect their big money friends. Honestly, is anyone still surprised by this?
 
If the federal government had not granted BP an exemption we'd see a thread here by Libertarian and capitalist friends complaining about how the government is meddling in the free market. But the federal did grant the exemption and did not babysit BP as it was conducting business.

At what point does it become the fault of BP for not meeting the required safety standards? Do we even know what caused the accident yet?
 
From what my dad is telling me about this law is basically it makes you do a study on why you brush your teeth. They already knew about the effect it would have, so it would have been a waste of money.
 
Hatuey said:
If the federal government had not granted BP an exemption we'd see a thread here by Libertarian and capitalist friends complaining about how the government is meddling in the free market. But the federal did grant the exemption and did not babysit BP as it was conducting business.

At what point does it become the fault of BP for not meeting the required safety standards? Do we even know what caused the accident yet?
Click to expand...

I believe most thinking people have placed the blame for the spill on BP since it started. The blame for the response to the spill is another matter.
 
RyrineaHaruno said:
From what my dad is telling me about this law is basically it makes you do a study on why you brush your teeth. They already knew about the effect it would have, so it would have been a waste of money.
Click to expand...

That's funny. I always heard that libs were in favor of Environmental Impact Studies. Guess it depends on the situation, eh?
 
Gill said:
That's funny. I always heard that libs were in favor of Environmental Impact Studies. Guess it depends on the situation, eh?
Click to expand...

Yes it does depend on the situation. I think that, if they have a history of rigs failures then they should do this study.
 
RyrineaHaruno said:
Yes it does depend on the situation. I think that, if they have a history of rigs failures then they should do this study.
Click to expand...

I think the real answer is that Libs only love EISs when they can use them to stop development that they don't approve of.
 
Gill said:
washingtonpost.com

Sounds like someone's got some "splaining" to do. I am 100% for drilling in our offshore waters, but precautions have to be taken. Plans have to be in place to deal with disastrous spills, even if they are highly unlikely.

First we find out that booms to collect the oil for burning were nowhere to be found, despite a plan to use them in case of a spill that was written in 1994, now this. The Feds had to go to the boom manufacturer, who had only one available. They then had to beg other countries for some.

This exemption granted last year is all on the Obama administration, so they can't blame it on Bush.
Click to expand...
i saw this as well. however, it was an impact study they were exempted from, NOT a disaster plan.

i would wager that kind of exemption is not uncommon, although it should be. as for the booms, seems more than one president is responsible.
 
Gill said:
I believe most thinking people have placed the blame for the spill on BP since it started. The blame for the response to the spill is another matter.
Click to expand...

So the blame for the response to BP's mess falls on the government? How convenient.
 
Hatuey said:
So the blame for the response to BP's mess falls on the government? How convenient.
Click to expand...

Maybe you could point out where I said that... good luck. :roll:
 
Gill said:
Maybe you could point out where I said that... good luck. :roll:
Click to expand...

So who does the blame fall on? Who are you blaming for the response to BPs mess? Be upfront about it. Who are you blaming for not properly responding to the mess BP made?
 
Hatuey said:
So you believe the government should clean up BPs mess?
Click to expand...




If you search my posts you will see I think it's BP's responsibility, but we need an all hands on deck approach, and that includes the FEDGOV having a plan to clean this mess since it was they who leased the area to BP and ultimatley are responsible for thier tenents mishaps....


If one of my tenants puts up a hazzard and I don't see it, and someone gets hurt, guess who gets sued.
 
Hatuey said:
So who does the blame fall on? Who are you blaming for the response to BPs mess?
Click to expand...

I blame both parties.

Do you think the government should not respond at all ??? Sounds like it.

HINT:
The Coast Guard is responsible for oil spill prevention and mitigation in federal waters.
 
Gill said:
I blame both parties.

Do you think the government should not respond at all ??? Sounds like it.

HINT:
The Coast Guard is responsible for oil spill prevention and mitigation in federal waters.
Click to expand...
why blame the parties at all? the coast guard is responsible for preventing oil spills? huh?
 
Gill said:
The Coast Guard is responsible for oil spill prevention and mitigation in federal waters.
Click to expand...

I think they're too busy shooting drug runners.
 
Gill said:
I blame both parties.
Click to expand...

Neither party should take blame for a mistake made by BP.

Do you think the government should not respond at all ??? Sounds like it.
Click to expand...

I say 'let the states deal with it'. ;)

HINT:
The Coast Guard is responsible for oil spill prevention and mitigation in federal waters.
Click to expand...

So then you are blaming the federal government for a mistake made by BP? Good to know.
 
Hatuey said:
So then you are blaming the federal government for a mistake made by BP? Good to know.
Click to expand...

You can't seem to comprehend very well. Once again, where did I make that claim ???

...take your time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom