The libertarian's guide to externality costing. What do we do about the oil spill?

Yep, it was never going to be for "us" really. I was just saying how it was estimated the oil that could be extracted was tiny compared to what we use over almost any time frame.
 
GOLER: It wasn’t just Fox calling this your Katrina.
GIBBS: No, but Fox had the very special and unique interview with Michael Brown — you opened it and I had to do it — who, for those weren’t let in on the big secret, Mr. Brown — FEMA director Brown under Katrina — intimated on Fox — and it wasn’t, I will editorially say, appear to be pushed back on real hard — that this spill was leaked on purpose in order for us to walk back our environmental and drilling decisions, and that the leak that we did on purpose got out of control and now is too big to contain. So, suffice to say —
GOLER: What is Mr. Brown’s attribution?
GIBBS: I can only wish that the network that you work for asked that prior to interviewing him yesterday.
GOLER: The reporters in here asked that. So I’m asking you —
GIBBS: You should call headquarters, my friend, and ask for somebody who makes the decisions to put people like that — because I’ve got to tell you Wendall, I’m not entirely sure a factual answer that I might give to any one of your questions is going to change the notion that your network put out the former FEMA director to make an accusation that the well had been purposefully set off in order to change an offshore drilling decision.
​
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100506/ts_csm/299480

]Big Oil's money goes to the very top. President Obama was the top recipient of BP campaign contributions over the past 20 years, according to Politico. The White House counters that Mr. Obama did not take any PAC money during his 2008 presidential campaign and has pushed, more than any other president, for clean energy alternatives to oil. Obama is hardly alone, though. Some $2.89 million flowed into political candidacies over that same period from BP-related political action committees (PACs).

"Make no mistake: BP ranks among the most powerful corporate forces in US politics,” Dave Levinthal, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, tells Politico.
Click to expand...

I guess its a requirement that to be presedient in the US, someone in the oval office needs to be paid off by the oil companies.
 
[quote name='Ruined']I guess its a requirement that to be presedient in the US, someone in the oval office needs to be paid off by the oil companies.[/QUOTE]
I don't see anything up to this point that suggests they're getting a sweet deal. Do you?
 
[quote name='speedracer']I don't see anything up to this point that suggests they're getting a sweet deal. Do you?[/QUOTE]

Obama got the highest campaign contributions for the past 20yrs from BP, the article demonstrates government regulation over BP was ineffective, and the Obama administration arguably acted slowly and played down this BP oil spill when it first occurred. They did not get tough until it was clear it was going to be a full on ecological disaster, probably the worst in a long time. Prior to the disaster, Obama also opened the gulf to more off-shore drilling, if you recall.

If anything, the above article I linked is the strongest argument against cap and trade. It shows the government sucks at their job and gets paid off by the corps - with a likelihood that those two things are linked. If someone fails at a job, you don't promote them. Good argument for smaller government, as apparently bigger government/more regulation just means bigger payoffs with no benefit to the people except a lighter wallet.
 
If anyone is curious about the technical aspects of what happened, an engineer on board during the explosion called in to the Mark Levin show (of all places) and explained it pretty well.

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=92765

He ends the conversation by basically saying that any suggestion other than a well fault or a sudden burst of pressure is wrong. He also says that the Coast Guard reacted quickly to help.

Not that that will put to bed all the horse shit being spewed by certain individuals.
 
[quote name='Ruined']the article demonstrates government regulation over BP was ineffective, and the Obama administration arguably acted slowly and played down this BP oil spill when it first occurred.[/QUOTE]

Chickens *arguably* are made of beef.

Something being arguable doesn't provide it with merit.

Also, I read the article and agree that corporations willfully overlook gov't regulation. Which is why corporations, now that they're citizens (Citizens United case), should be subject to criminal laws, incarcerated and executed. Sarbanes-Oxley is a slap on the wrist; subject corporations who violate the law or overlook regulations the death penalty. (I mean that seriously - no, don't execute CEOs, that's ridiculous - I mean dissolve corporations and distribute their assets at the very least).

OH NO THAT MIGHT CREATE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. So what?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Something being arguable doesn't provide it with merit.[/QUOTE]

Are you trying to bring down the entire vs. forum?
 
[quote name='Ruined']Obama got the highest campaign contributions for the past 20yrs from BP, the article demonstrates government regulation over BP was ineffective, and the Obama administration arguably acted slowly and played down this BP oil spill when it first occurred. They did not get tough until it was clear it was going to be a full on ecological disaster, probably the worst in a long time. Prior to the disaster, Obama also opened the gulf to more off-shore drilling, if you recall.[/quote]
I think there's a political angle that has to be honestly appreciated here. Anything a Democratic president does to the oils is going to be aggressively attacked by free marketeers. If Obama dropped the regulation hammer all over their faces in his first year, he would have been mercilessly hounded. So then this thing happens. If Obama demands the government swoop in, he's again painted as a nationalizing socialist psycho just waiting for an opportunity to git em. I think you've rightly portrayed the situation as a slow response and STILL Obama's being tagged in the media for now taking BP at their word when BP gave initial numbers AND AT THE SAME TIME being tagged for using the crisis to forward his own agenda. What the hell? It seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
If anything, the above article I linked is the strongest argument against cap and trade. It shows the government sucks at their job and gets paid off by the corps - with a likelihood that those two things are linked. If someone fails at a job, you don't promote them. Good argument for smaller government, as apparently bigger government/more regulation just means bigger payoffs with no benefit to the people except a lighter wallet.
Click to expand...
And like I alluded to earlier, if he would have brought down the hammer, we'd be talking about how he hates free enterprise and the government is trying to take over everything in sight. Politics aside, I don't fault him for the choice he made, even as I disagree with it.
 
[quote name='Ruined']It shows the government sucks at their job and gets paid off by the corps - with a likelihood that those two things are linked. If someone fails at a job, you don't promote them. Good argument for smaller government, as apparently bigger government/more regulation just means bigger payoffs with no benefit to the people except a lighter wallet.[/QUOTE]
I would like to also point out for the hundredth time that it's unfair to have an administration that doesn't give two fucks about good governance dick up everything they touch regulation wise... then argue that government and regulations don't work. Sure, Obama got epic loot drops from BP, but which do you think contributed most directly? Obama moneyz, or:

January, 2007:
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation had not been announced publicly, said investigators were worried that senior government officials had been steering huge oil-trading contracts to favored companies.

Any such favoritism would probably reduce the money that the federal government receives on nearly $4 billion worth of oil and gas, because it would reduce competition among companies that compete to sell the fuel on behalf of the government.

If the allegations prove correct, they would constitute a major new blot on the Interior Department’s much-criticized effort to properly collect royalties on vast amounts of oil and gas produced on land or in coastal waters.

The Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service, which oversees royalty collections, is now the target of multiple investigations by Congress and the Interior Department’s inspector general.

Those investigations are focused on allegations that the agency ordered its own auditors to abandon claims of cheating by large oil companies
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/30/w...1185c179b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Also January, 2007:
Uh-oh. The Interior Department's internal watchdog says top officials at the agency knew about problems costing taxpayers as much as $10 billion in revenue, but tried to hide the problem from the public, according to Congressional Quarterly's Jeff Tollefson.

One official may even have lied to Congress about when she knew things were screwy with her agency's energy contracts, which have allowed companies like ExxonMobil and Shell to pay billions less than they should have to extract oil and gas from federal lands, CQ reports:
Click to expand...

November, 2008:
The Interior Department has taken disciplinary action against more than a half dozen workers who accepted lavish gifts, partied and in some cases had sex with employees from the energy companies they regulated.

The actions announced Friday range from a warning letter to termination. The Interior Department would not confirm how many employees were fired, citing privacy.

The eight employees at one time worked in a Denver Minerals Management Service office in charge of collecting billions of dollars in federal oil royalties.

An Interior Department Inspector General investigation issued in September referred to a "culture of substance abuse and promiscuity" in the office from 2002 through 2006. During that time, the report found that some employees were getting drunk and having sex with oil company personnel. The report also highlights instances where co-workers in the office used cocaine and marijuana.
Click to expand...
Remember when the Bush administration took strong measures to clean up government and clean up regulation? Yea. Me neither.

We can feign shock and pretend Obama's Interior Dept. is screwing up, but there's no history of that. To say there's a history means putting it in context, and that means sheepishly pointing out the fucking disaster that was Bush's Interior Dept.

The feeble minded will demand that we scrub Bush from the conversation but if that's the case, what is the case against the Obama Interior?
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx'] Are you trying to bring down the entire vs. forum?[/QUOTE]

I am! Time to quote Jon Stewart:

"Irrationality cannot be fought with empirical evidence."
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Really? How's life in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?[/QUOTE]
Sorry, missed this earlier.

Quite livable, actually. My GF lived in Hiroshima for two years. I can't speak directly to Nagasaki.
 
We can feign shock and pretend Obama's Interior Dept. is screwing up, but there's no history of that. To say there's a history means putting it in context, and that means sheepishly pointing out the ing disaster that was Bush's Interior Dept.
Click to expand...

You say that as if Obama is allowed to appoint people.

The right shit their pants in apoplexy when Obama tried to appoint someone friendly to labor in the department of labor.
 
[quote name='Ruined']If anything, the above article I linked is the strongest argument against cap and trade. It shows the government sucks at their job and gets paid off by the corps - with a likelihood that those two things are linked. If someone fails at a job, you don't promote them. Good argument for smaller government, as apparently bigger government/more regulation just means bigger payoffs with no benefit to the people except a lighter wallet.[/QUOTE]

Nope, the strongest argument against cap and trade is that it will inflict trillions of dollars in economic damage, squeeze the poor, and at the same time result in close to zero benefit, even according to supporters.
 
So was this posted here?

What is this crap? Possible at all?

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1367.htm

US Orders Blackout Over North Korean Torpedoing Of Gulf Of Mexico Oil Rig

A grim report circulating in the Kremlin today written by Russia’s Northern Fleet is reporting that the United States has ordered a complete media blackout over North Korea’s torpedoing of the giant Deepwater Horizon oil platform owned by the World’s largest offshore drilling contractor Transocean that was built and financed by South Korea’s Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd., that has caused great loss of life, untold billions in economic damage to the South Korean economy, and an environmental catastrophe to the United States.

Most important to understand about this latest attack by North Korea against its South Korean enemy is that under the existing “laws of war” it was a permissible action as they remain in a state of war against each other due to South Korea’s refusal to sign the 1953 Armistice ending the Korean War.

To the attack itself, these reports continue, the North Korean “cargo vessel” Dai Hong Dan believed to be staffed by 17th Sniper Corps “suicide” troops left Cuba’s Empresa Terminales Mambisas de La Habana (Port of Havana) on April 18th whereupon it “severely deviated” from its intended course for Venezuela’s Puerto Cabello bringing it to within 209 kilometers (130 miles) of the Deepwater Horizon oil platform which was located 80 kilometers (50 miles) off the coast of the US State of Louisiana where it launched an SSC Sang-o Class Mini Submarine (Yugo class) estimated to have an operational range of 321 kilometers (200 miles).

On the night of April 20th the North Korean Mini Submarine manned by these “suicidal” 17th Sniper Corps soldiers attacked the Deepwater Horizon with what are believed to be 2 incendiary torpedoes causing a massive explosion and resulting in 11 workers on this giant oil rig being killed outright. Barely 48 hours later, on April 22nd , this North Korean Mini Submarine committed its final atrocity by exploding itself directly beneath the Deepwater Horizon causing this $1 Billion oil rig to sink beneath the seas and marking 2010’s celebration of Earth Day with one of the largest environmental catastrophes our World has ever seen.

To the reason for North Korea attacking the Deepwater Horizon, these reports say, was to present US President Obama with an “impossible dilemma” prior to the opening of the United Nations Review Conference of the Parties to the Treat on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) set to begin May 3rd in New York.

This “impossible dilemma” facing Obama is indeed real as the decision he is faced with is either to allow the continuation of this massive oil leak catastrophe to continue for months, or immediately stop it by the only known and proven means possible, the detonation of a thermonuclear device.

Russian Navy atomic experts in these reports state that should Obama choose the “nuclear option” the most viable weapon at his disposal is the United States B83 (Mk-83) strategic thermonuclear bomb having a variable yield (Low Kiloton Range to 1,200 Kilotons) which with its 12 foot length and 18 inch diameter, and weighing just over 2,400 pounds, is readily able to be deployed and detonated by a remote controlled mini-sub.

Should Obama choose the “nuclear option” it appears that he would be supported by the International Court of Justice who on July 8, 1996 issued an advisory opinion on the use of nuclear weapons stating that they could not conclude definitively on these weapons use in “extreme circumstances” or “self defense”.

On the other hand, if Obama chooses the “nuclear option” it would leave the UN’s nuclear conference in shambles with every Nation in the World having oil rigs off their coasts demanding an equal right to atomic weapons to protect their environment from catastrophes too, including Iran.

To whatever decision Obama makes it remains a fact that with each passing hour this environmental catastrophe grows worse. And even though Obama has ordered military SWAT teams to protect other oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico from any further attack, and further ordered that all drilling in the Gulf of Mexico be immediately stopped, this massive oil spill has already reached the shores of America and with high waves and more bad weather forecast the likelihood of it being stopped from destroying thousands of miles of US coastland and wildlife appears unstoppable.

And not just to the environmental catastrophe that is unfolding the only devastation to be wrecked upon the United States and South Korea by this North Korean attack as the economic liabilities associated with this disaster are estimated by these Russian reports to be between $500 Billion to $1.5 Trillion, and which only a declaration of this disaster being an “act of war” would free some the World’s largest corporations from bankruptcy.

Important to note too in all of these events was that this was the second attack by North Korea on its South Korean enemy, and US ally, in a month as we had reported on in our March 28th report titled “Obama Orders ‘Immediate Stand-down’ After Deadly North Korean Attack” and which to date neither the Americans or South Korea have retaliated for and giving one senior North Korean party leader the courage to openly state that the North Korean military took “gratifying revenge” on South Korea.

And for those believing that things couldn’t get worse, they couldn’t be more mistaken as new reports coming from Japanese military sources are stating that North Korea is preparing for new launches of its 1,300 kilometer (807 miles) intermediate range ballistic “Rodong” missile which Russian Space Forces experts state is able to “deploy and detonate” an atomic electromagnetic pulse (EMP) device, and which if detonated high in the atmosphere could effectively destroy the American economy for years, if not decades, to come.


http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=1790422&spid=32364

Clip of caller just after it happened... saying "the bomb"


Spill size is now questioned... given the new videos:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37141752/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times
 
Media blackout in the US? Seems plausible, but blaming North Korea instead of sloppy maintenance would be a boon to BP. So, I would see the US pushing it was an act of war even if it wasn't.

EDIT: I'm curious how detonating a nuclear device in the middle of combustible materials is a good idea?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']EDIT: I'm curious how detonating a nuclear device in the middle of combustible materials is a good idea?[/QUOTE]

As opposed to all those other great places to detonate a nuclear device?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']As opposed to all those other great places to detonate a nuclear device?[/QUOTE]

Dude, you could cause an explosion.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']As opposed to all those other great places to detonate a nuclear device?[/QUOTE]

When you set a person or concrete on fire, it is relatively contained.
 
From today's FOX News Sunday:
WILLIAMS: But I think it will damage the environment in the gulf and damage tourism and damage fishing. I don’t think there’s any question this is in excess of anything we’ve previously asked the ocean to absorb.
HUME: We’ll see if it is. We’ll see if it is. The ocean absorbs a lot, Juan, an awful lot. The ocean absorbs a lot.
WILLIAMS: I think Rush Limbaugh went down this road, “The ocean can handle it.” I think we have to take some responsibility for the environment and be responsible to people who live in the area, vacation in that area, fish in that area. It’s just wrong to think, “You know what? Dump it on the ocean and let the ocean handle it.”
HUME: Who said that? Who is saying that? No one’s making that argument.
Click to expand...
 
Hume was PISSED because he thought Williams was making a starman argument. I think Williams thought he was just summarizing the Limbaugh argument (so someone DID make the argument that 'the ocean will take care of it.')
 
Surprise!

BP has said the amount of oil recovered from a leaking Gulf of Mexico oil well on Thursday was less than half an earlier estimate.

BP said it siphoned 2,200 barrels in the 24-hour period to midnight on Thursday, down from an estimate of 5,000 barrels earlier in the day.
Click to expand...
But I thought only 5,000 barrels were leaking per day? At this point, you can tell they're lying when their lips are moving. An entire company of fantastically paid and educated engineers of every discipline and they suddenly turn deaf, dumb, and blind when a flow analysis (which happens to be their fucking specialty) is needed.

Big oil law friend (who is not connected to BP) told me that BP's lawyers have certainly told BP not to do anything that could materially help with an estimate of the spill because it will be used in court against them. Without an accurate assessment, liability becomes a moving target and easier to argue against in court because they can walk in an army of engineer experts to lowball the flow numbers anyone else puts out.

Your free market at its best.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Surprise!


But I thought only 5,000 barrels were leaking per day? At this point, you can tell they're lying when their lips are moving. An entire company of fantastically paid and educated engineers of every discipline and they suddenly turn deaf, dumb, and blind when a flow analysis (which happens to be their fucking specialty) is needed.

Big oil law friend (who is not connected to BP) told me that BP's lawyers have certainly told BP not to do anything that could materially help with an estimate of the spill because it will be used in court against them. Without an accurate assessment, liability becomes a moving target and easier to argue against in court because they can walk in an army of engineer experts to lowball the flow numbers anyone else puts out.

Your free market at its best.[/QUOTE]

So you're saying a company that has been criminally negligent and is lying to the public while polluting public property is a typical example of the free market?
 
[quote name='IRHari']someones a little naive...[/QUOTE]

Okay, since no response yet there, do you agree with that statement? Or is it naive to establish someone's argument before attempting a counter-argument?
 
sorry I thought you were assuming that it was atypical for a company to be criminally negligent and lying to the public while polluting property. i just read what you wrote incorrectly.

i think it's unfair to paint BP and this oil spill as a typical example of the free market.
 
[quote name='IRHari']sorry I thought you were assuming that it was atypical for a company to be criminally negligent and lying to the public while polluting property. i just read what you wrote incorrectly[/QUOTE]

Nah, I'm familiar with history (recent history even) ;)
 
MOAR SURPRISES!
This week, BP plans to take another stab at stopping the gusher in the Gulf of Mexico, after more than four weeks of trying. The company's large containment dome idea failed, and it abandoned plans to try a smaller dome, or top hat. Sometime this week BP is going to try to inject heavy drilling fluids into the well to plug it, and then cement over it – a procedure known as a "top kill."

But by all accounts that procedure will be tough; although it's fairly common in the oil industry, it's never been done at this depth. If it fails, oil could continue hemorrhaging into the gulf all summer. The company is at work on two relief wells, which entails digging down near the leaking well and intersecting the hole in order to plug it. But we're talking a very deep hole -- 3.5 miles under the sea floor – and it has to tap into a well that's just 7 inches wide. It probably wouldn't be done until August. David Rensink, incoming president of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, tells me these relief wells aren't commonly used and are difficult to execute, especially at this depth. With those efforts underway, the spill, he said, "will probably continue at roughly this rate for a while."
Click to expand...
The relief wells suddenly look like they're not a for sure solution. Years of oil!

Some day a fine libertarian will explain how exactly we cost something like this and how the lazy fair market will make it all better. Any day now I'm sure.
 
[quote name='SpazX']So, uh, that $500k valve would've probably prevented this?[/QUOTE]

Possibly, not drilling past the depth they should have been at might have sidestepped the problem as well.
 
And if only the government just left them alone and let them do what they wanted none of this would have happened.
 
Yep, yep, yep. Free market means let everyone do whatever they want. It means total chaos and anarchy with no controls, no rules, no laws, and no justice. Yep, that's EXACTLY what free market means. Yep, yep, yep. And then something bad happens and the only way to make everything better is to take away ALL freedom. Yep, yep, yep. 'Cause freedom's bad, you see. People making their own choices is wrong, see.

Yep, yep, we need to run everything the way it SHOULD be run. Yep, yep, yep. Come up with the MASTER 5 YEAR PLAN for everyone. Yep, yep, UTOPIA, here we come. Share that wealth. Yep, yep, it belongs to ALL OF US, see.
 
[quote name='VipFREAK']I haven't read... all the posts but... how much does this hurt our "total" oil available[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Msut77']Uh... V the oil we would have gotten from offshore drilling was practically negligible to begin with.[/QUOTE]

So this hasn't changed?
 
[quote name='VipFREAK']So this hasn't changed?[/QUOTE]

The US consumes ~13-14,000 barrels of oil a minute.

(and even if it's leaking a ton that doesn't mean that rig could have processed as much as it's leaking)
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Yep, yep, yep. Free market means let everyone do whatever they want. It means total chaos and anarchy with no controls, no rules, no laws, and no justice. Yep, that's EXACTLY what free market means. Yep, yep, yep. And then something bad happens and the only way to make everything better is to take away ALL freedom. Yep, yep, yep. 'Cause freedom's bad, you see. People making their own choices is wrong, see.

Yep, yep, we need to run everything the way it SHOULD be run. Yep, yep, yep. Come up with the MASTER 5 YEAR PLAN for everyone. Yep, yep, UTOPIA, here we come. Share that wealth. Yep, yep, it belongs to ALL OF US, see.[/QUOTE]
The only people saying things that stupid are people that don't live near the spill. Even Gulf hyper partisan Republicans are looking down the barrel at this thing and realizing we're fucked and we gotta do something serious and permanent to make sure it doesn't happen again.
bmulligan
Location: the village, brighton, MI
Click to expand...
Of course.

Also, surprise!
In its 2009 exploration plan for the Deepwater Horizon well, BP PLC states that the company could handle a spill involving as much as 12.6 million gallons of oil per day, a number 60 times higher than its current estimate of the ongoing Gulf disaster.

In associated documents filed with the U.S. Minerals Management Service, the company says that it would be able to skim 17.6 million gallons of oil a day from the Gulf in the event of a spill.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='elprincipe']So you're saying a company that has been criminally negligent and is lying to the public while polluting public property is a typical example of the free market?[/QUOTE]
Sorry, missed your question.

No, I wouldn't say they are a typical example of the totality of the market. Just the carbon based energy segment. All of it.

Between worst mining disasters in generations due to faulty safety equipment, importing guards to drilling sites that proceed to rape and murder locals, bribery on a massive scale (do I even need to link this allegation?), this little spill in the gulf, the lease sellers to oil companies who happen to be among the worst countries on Earth, dumping oil waste in Ecuador’s rainforest for 26 years, etc. etc. etc. And we both know I'm not even pretending to scratch the surface here. Environmental disasters, political murder, intimidation, bribery on massive scales, wanton disregard for worker safety, price collusion, begging to do business with the worst regimes on the planet... Hell, is there any corporate crime we can honestly suggest they aren't guilty of on a daily basis?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did we say 5,000 barrels? Who said 5,000 barrels (of course we wouldn't give a number, we'd get sued!)?

Robert Dudley last night, Managing Director at BP:
Well, the estimates of the well rates have never been BP's estimates. They have been the joint unified command, working with government agencies and BP. They have been based on satellite pictures of the oil at the surface, visuals of the plume, and then taking into account the high concentrations of gas.
Click to expand...
Ok then Bob. But let's be real here. What's the worst case scenario?
there's no reason of anything that has happened that would suggest those higher figures. And I -- I say they're alarming because I think they raise the specter of devastation all across the Gulf, all the way over to Florida and places.

And that's very premature. I think those estimates are impacting the tourism industry in Florida. And that's unwarranted, what we see.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you can't have real numbers because it might impact tourism and they're going to sue our faces off.

But can we get real numbers plz?
BP has repeatedly said that its highest priority is stopping the leak, not measuring it. “There’s just no way to measure it,” Kent Wells, a BP senior vice president, said in a recent briefing.
Click to expand...
Oh. Fair enough. What does the BP playbook on spills say to do?
"In the event of a significant release of oil," the 583-page plan says on Page 2, "an accurate estimation of the spill's total volume . . . is essential in providing preliminary data to plan and initiate cleanup operations."
Click to expand...
Huh. Well that's... weird. Why would they deviate from their predetermined spill plan?
Legal experts said that not having a credible official estimate of the leak's size provides another benefit for BP: The amount of oil spilled is certain to be key evidence in the court battles that are likely to result from the disaster. The size of the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, for example, was a significant factor that the jury considered when it assessed damages against Exxon.

"If they put off measuring, then it's going to be a battle of dueling experts after the fact trying to extrapolate how much spilled after it has all sunk or has been carried away," said Lloyd Benton Miller, one of the lead plaintiffs' lawyers in the Exxon Valdez spill litigation. "The ability to measure how much oil was released will be impossible."

"It's always a bottom-line issue," said Marilyn Heiman, a former Clinton administration Interior Department official who now heads the Arctic Program for the Pew Environment Group. "Any company wouldn't have an interest in having this kind of measurement if they can help it."
Click to expand...
Insert surprise! comment here.

The market will self correct. I can't wait to see it.
 
Was just gchatting a friend at Shell about the spill and I asked why they didn't try a top kill first since it seems to be most likely to work. He said if you top kill the well then you can never cost effectively use that site again but if you can find a different way to staunch it, you could continue to use it in the future and it would save a bunch of money.

Supris... ah, fuck it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top