SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: stockman_scott who wrote (76142)5/26/2010 6:48:16 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 149317
 
1. In explaining and defending your decision in March to open up additional offshore areas to drilling, you argued that improvements in technology have made drilling significantly less risky. Just 18 days before the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, you said: "It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don't cause spills. They are technologically very advanced." What kind of assurances were you given that this was the case and by whom? What do you think of those assumptions now?

We have had offshore oil drilling for nearly 70 years. This is the first major disaster in all those years in spite of countless hurricanes. The record speaks for itself and gave Obama what has turned out to be false comfort.

2. BP is now in the position of making many of the key decisions on how to deal with it -- a situation that is drawing growing criticism. White House officials note the administration is following a process established under the 1990 Oil Spill Act, which was passed in response to the Exxon Valdez incident; they also concede that the government, effectively, has no choice but to let BP take the lead because it lacks the equipment and expertise to do the job. In at least one instance in which the federal government has attempted to overrule BP, which was over its use of dispersant chemicals that the Environmental Protection Agency says are too toxic, the company has not complied. What do you say to those who say too much control has been ceded to BP? And what kind of changes, if any, should be made in the process for dealing with future oil spills?

There is no one better to stop an oil spill than with oil people. In fact, oil people from the other oil companies have joined BP in the GOM and in Houston to try and solve the problem. Who in the gov't has their level of expertise? The short answer is no one.

3. Salazar has pledged reform of the Minerals Management Service, the agency responsible for offshore drilling, which is now recognized as having been too compliant with the wishes of the oil industry. But his proposals -- for instance, splitting the agency into separate leasing, revenue collection and oversight -- have dealt largely with the organizaton of the MMS. If the problem is, as you have said, a cozy culture in the agency, is it enough simply to redraw the organization chart? How can you quickly change a culture that has taken decades to develop?

You may not be able to change the culture quickly but you do let them know that there is a new sheriff in town and if they want to hold their job, they best clean up their act.

4. On May 6, Salazar announced a moratorium on the issuance of final permits for "new offshore drilling activity." Critics such as the Center for Biological Diversity note, however, that this policy has never been put into writing, and that its definition "has become steadily narrower as the Interior Department changes it to exclude whatever drilling permits MMS issues on any given day." And the New York Times has reported that since the April 20 explosion on the rig, waivers have continued to be granted for drilling projects. What, exactly, does this moratorium cover?

Forget what the NY Times has reported, it stops all oil drilling. The president has made that very clear.

5. Should anyone in the government be fired as the result of this disaster?

People already have been fird and more will be fired if they are found to be complicit.



To: stockman_scott who wrote (76142)5/26/2010 6:51:07 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 149317
 
The Centre for American Progress's Wonk Room blog has a good piece on what the federal government should be doing as of now:

But if government has little choice but to keep the perpetrator on the job at the immediate crime scene, it does have a choice when it comes to operations beyond the urgent task of quelling the erupting well. In addition to the efforts to stop the leaks, BP now controls claims processing, environmental contractors on land and sea, volunteer assistance, access to the disaster site, and data collection.

Federal and state governments in the gulf must take greater charge of containing the ecological impacts and coordinating the response, as the President has full authority to do.