EPA's Responsibility for Gulf Oil Spill

Discussion in 'Politics' started by sailaway, Jun 2, 2010.

  1. sailaway

    sailaway Well-Known Member

    1,922
    0
    I've been thinking about the oil spill in the gulf and feel the EPA is partially responsible for this run away well. They are the ones who have required all of the oil companies drill so far off shore. A well drilled near or on shore would probably be capped by now. How much responsibility should they bare?:scratch
     
  2. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    3,698
    70
    If the EPA was negligent in their duties I'd say they carry some of the responsibility. Sounds like there will be a federal investigation of the whole mess. Hopefully it's not just to find a scapegoat. Sometimes, like the old bumper sticker says, "**** happens." BP isn't doing too well in this mess either so it's one of those situations where they should just get the thing stopped ASAP and make whatever reparations are needed. It isn't the time to go on a witch hunt.
     

  3. TechAdmin

    TechAdmin Administrator Staff Member

    2,244
    47
    But if they couldn't all the oil would be on land by now, killing everything there. As more about the rig gets released I'm starting to think everyone that ever touched it is partly responsible.
     
  4. jrg24

    jrg24 Member

    22
    0
    I do think every one who touched it is responsible. including the government, and in particular the mineral management service who signed off on BP's plan to drill even though there was no contingency plan for this kind of event because, as BP said, the likelihood of it is "very remote".

    BP, Transocean, and Halliburton all have their share of the blame, but the government as well as all of us do to. I am not necessarily against offshore drilling, but I am against anyone, private corporations or government to use our natural resources as an experiment for deep water drilling.

    If there were plans in place and some sort of research went into emergency response in case something like this happened, and then the worst did happen, I think then and only then can we say that "**** happens." Without any type of plan in place I think it is plain and simple negligence by everyone involved.

    It isnt to much to ask that some sort of contingency be in place in the event of an accident like this. No preparation at all was made and this is why it has me beside myself.
     
  5. kogneto

    kogneto The Skeptic

    280
    0
    I just like how they're talking about not drilling in ANWR when it seems pretty obvious that it would solve many of the problems.

    course I'm biased for my permanent fund dividend to double when they open a new pipeline :D
     
  6. horseman09

    horseman09 Well-Known Member

    1,240
    4
    Not drilling in ANWR is like shooting your horse because the goat ate your garden.

    The feds want to regulate individual citizens smack dab into BigBrotherhood, but they can't promulgate reasonable regulations for the oil industry that would prevent, or failing prevention, promptly and effectively deal with off shore ruptures?

    I am not anti-business or anti-oil company. But it seems incredibly short sighted on BP's part that this sort of scenario hasn't been anticipated and solutions researched and tried in mock ruptures.
     
  7. Expeditioner

    Expeditioner Well-Known Member

    482
    0
    Oh heck there is plenty of blame to go around for this disaster. I think the main thing right now is to mitigate the damages and sort the rest out later. The only reason they are drilling in deep water is that they cannot drill on land or closer to shore.

    Would the damage be greater if the rig had been closer to shore?.....maybe maybe not. A very basic model would be damage = volume X duration of leak (does not include other factors that determine the extent and severity of the damage).
     
  8. kogneto

    kogneto The Skeptic

    280
    0
    expeditioner - it would have been much less, the main limiting factor is that everything they build has to work a mile below the surface of the water
     
  9. allen_idaho

    allen_idaho Well-Known Member

    348
    0
    I feel that the EPA did their job. They are the ones who moved the drilling offshore so you could enjoy all of those national parks. They are the ones who required annual inspections of the rigs.

    But they are not the ones who did the inspections. And they are not the ones who took the generous bribes to look the other way. The blame should fall on the party responsible. BP Oil.

    The company is the one who paid them. Who knew it was more cost effective to not maintain their rigs.

    If anything, the EPA should step in and seize all of their assets. Kick them back to the UK without a portion of their multi-billion dollar cash cow.
     
  10. sailaway

    sailaway Well-Known Member

    1,922
    0
    Had we drilled closser to shore or even on shore I feel damage would have been alot less. The well would have been capped weeks ago if it were on land. It would probably would never have happened if it were on land. There isn't a diver around who can go down a mile and do an inspection.
     
  11. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    3,698
    70
    It's my understanding that the reason they're drilling so far off shore is because people don't want them drilling on or close to land. So, when a disaster happens it's much more difficult to control it or recover from it. :gaah:

    It's kind of like people wanting to have their cake and eat it too. Like the so-called "war against drugs," if there wasn't a market for drugs there wouldn't be any profit in supplying them. Maybe the best first step for reducing these problems would be to reduce the demand for oil. :scratch

    Some of the online comments on the articles concerning the spill are interesting too. On one hand the gov't. is reviled for sticking it's nose too much into our business yet now people are whining that the gov't. should be solving the problem and blaming them for it happening in the first place. :gaah:
     
  12. horseman09

    horseman09 Well-Known Member

    1,240
    4
    Well.............there is a difference between the govt infringing upon individual rights vs the govt regulating general industry and commerce that could have a profound negative impact on all of us.

    The old saying that you have the right to swing your fist but only so far as it does not hit my nose applies here. For example, as a law abiding citizen, the fact that I own any number of firearms is none of the govt's business; but if I owned a gunpowder manufacturing company, it would certainly be in the public interest to impose certain regulations and restrictions and on my company to safeguard the community from catastophy.

    Same with deep water oil drilling. Proper regulatory oversight may or may not have prevented the rupture, but it sure should have had equipment and procedures in place to mitigate it long before Christmas!!!
     
  13. Jeani

    Jeani Member

    15
    0
    I'm from Texas,and we 'love' seeing any kind of oil rigs.

    I've been to an oil rig museum,and the technology is unbelieveable...

    My father was a 'tool pusher',and my brother is a 'petroleum engineer.'

    Since this oil spill, many Texans have lost their jobs...

    Many Americans have lost their jobs because our government put 'stop' to all drilling...

    We’ve placed promising areas like the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the East Coast, offshore California, offshore Alaska and ANWR off limits.

    This current spill will provide ammunition for the anti development folks.

    But since our collective thirst for petroleum will be unabated, that will mean more oil and refined products will have to be imported in tankers, with their accompanying risk of spill.

    BP looked for oil in the deepwater off Louisiana, partly because that’s where the oil is, but also, domestically, it’s one of the few places where they had access.

    The only place in the U.S. that is both welcoming to the petroleum industry and highly prospective for large discoveries is the deepwater Gulf of Mexico.

    In the last few years, successful drilling has indicated the potential of billions of barrels of reserves. But drilling there has its risks, as we have all learned.

    And there’s the frustration.

    Some will want use this spill in 5,000 feet of water as the reason to stop drilling anywhere domestically.

    Deepwater drilling is challenging for several reasons.

    Geomechanically, the wells are more challenging to drill than land wells, requiring more casing strings to be set for hole stability.

    On land or in shallow water, the blowout preventer is at the surface; in deepwater they are on the seafloor, much less accessible by men & equipment.

    Divers can dive to fix things in 50 feet of water, but not 5,000.

    What is really weird to me is....

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said that BP, the energy company responsible for the ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, helped craft the bill (cap N trade) proposed by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) that would tax businesses for carbon emissions and raise the cost of fuel for American consumers BEFORE THE OIL SPILL...

    “Let me say that again. A major part of the Kerry-Lieberman bill was written by BP.

    CNSNews.com - McConnell Charges That