The news that the Environmental Protection Agency prevented early clean-up of floating oil in the Gulf by refusing to waive its “clean water” limit of 15 parts per million should make us all focus on the job killing structure in Washington, D.C. Just three days after the BP spill, the Dutch government offered their oil-skimming ships and ocean oil-cleansing technology, but were rejected because the cleaned ocean water would not reach the EPA’s limits of being 99.9985 percent pure. Imagine if even half the oil had been skimmed off; the rest probably would not have even reached shore because oil degrades quickly in warm ocean water. But because oil did reach the shore, Washington ordered a moratorium on all deep water drilling over 500 feet in the Gulf, and a moratorium on all offshore drilling in Alaska and off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. In Louisiana, the order is causing an estimated loss of tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of oil production over the next two years. Blue-collar jobs on Gulf oil rigs earn an average of $60,000 per year.
An economic crisis with high unemployment is the best time to confront and even possibly reform Washington’s job-killing laws. Most Americans are either uninformed about the quantity and consequences of these laws or they regard them as normal. So now is the time to recognize, enumerate, and challenge the worst of them. But to reform bad laws, first you need to get them debated in public.
All too often we hear that cheap Chinese labor is wrecking havoc with our industries. In reality, it is a host of costly, job-killing burdens from Washington that are responsible. How many investments and job creations are not made because of compliance costs associated with excessively strict regulations (and the lawsuits they generate)? It’s no wonder that our great achievements nowadays are in fields such as electronics, movies, and games, where entrepreneurs and innovators face less government obstructions, lawsuits, and labor costs. Compare this to an investor trying to build new factories or mines.
For example, in a remote area of Alaska, efforts to start up one of the world’s richest copper and gold mines is stymied by unending Kafkaesque regulations and lawsuits. In Utah, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar arbitrarily cancelled 77 previously issued oil/gas leases because the smell produced by the drilling might affect air quality in the desert near national parks. New mining ventures today have mostly moved to Canada to avoid such unnecessary hassles.
Another prime example is nuclear electric power, which could be cheap and abundant. China is building 60 new nuclear plants over the next 10 years, while in Washington it takes 10 years to build even a single plant. Both the Chinese and the French build them in a bit over 3 years. President Barack Obama said he favored such plants and proposed billions of dollars in subsidies, but he made no mention of the obstructive permitting process that makes nuclear power so uneconomical. Remember also that nuclear energy plants are an established technology. Why does each plant have to go through such a bureaucratic rigmarole?
The EPA’s extremism and vicious fines and penalties are a primary reason why America is falling behind much of the world. Yet we hear complaints from the usual suspects that the only jobs America produces are service ones. The consequence of that view is growing trade protectionism, since we blame foreigners for “unfair” competition. This causes even more job losses: Witness the inability of Congress to ratify new trade agreements with Korea and Colombia.
Showing posts with label Gulf oil spill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gulf oil spill. Show all posts
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Thursday, August 12, 2010
"There is a distinctly Titanic-like feel to the Obama presidency"
Can it get any worse for President Obama? Undoubtedly yes. Here are 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in serious trouble, and why its prospects are unlikely to improve between now and the November mid-terms.
1. The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people
In a previous post I noted how the Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime, extravagant, decaying and out of touch with ordinary Americans. The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Spain at a time of widespread economic hardship was symbolic of a White House that barely gives a second thought to public opinion on many issues, and frequently projects a distinctly elitist image. The “let them eat cake” approach didn’t play well over two centuries ago, and it won’t succeed today.
2. Most Americans don’t have confidence in the president’s leadership
This deficit of trust in Obama’s leadership is central to his decline. According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, “nearly six in ten voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country”, and two thirds “say they are disillusioned with or angry about the way the federal government is working.” The poll showed that a staggering 58 per cent of Americans say they do not have confidence in the president’s decision-making, with just 42 per cent saying they do.
3. Obama fails to inspire
In contrast to the soaring rhetoric of his 2006 Convention speech in Chicago which succeeded in impressing millions of television viewers at the time, America is no longer inspired by Barack Obama’s flat, monotonous and often dull presidential speeches and statements delivered via teleprompter. From his extraordinarily uninspiring Afghanistan speech at West Point to his flat State of the Union address, President Obama has failed to touch the heart of America. Even Jimmy Carter was more moving.
4. The United States is drowning in debt
The Congressional Budget Office Long-Term Budget Outlook offers a frightening picture of the scale of America’s national debt. Under its alternative fiscal scenario, the CBO projects that US debt could rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2020, 109 percent by 2025, and 185 percent in 2035. While much of Europe, led by Britain and Germany, are aggressively cutting their deficits, the Obama administration is actively growing America’s debt, and has no plan in place to avert a looming Greek-style financial crisis.
5. Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat
The relentless emphasis on bailouts and stimulus spending has done little to spur economic growth or create jobs, but has greatly advanced the power of the federal government in America. This is not an approach that is proving popular with the American public, and even most European governments have long ditched this tax and spend approach to saving their own economies.
6. Obama’s support for socialised health care is a huge political mistake
In an extraordinary act of political Harakiri, President Obama leant his full support to the hugely controversial, unpopular and divisive health care reform bill, with a monstrous price tag of $940 billion, whose repeal is now supported by 55 per cent of likely US voters. As I wrote at the time of its passing, the legislation is “a great leap forward by the United States towards a European-style vision of universal health care, which will only lead to soaring costs, higher taxes, and a surge in red tape for small businesses. This reckless legislation dramatically expands the power of the state over the lives of individuals, and could not be further from the vision of America’s founding fathers.”
7. Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive
While much of the spilled oil in the Gulf has now been thankfully cleared up, the political damage for the White House will be long-lasting. Instead of showing real leadership on the matter by acing decisively and drawing upon offers of international support, the Obama administration settled on a more convenient strategy of relentlessly bashing an Anglo-American company while largely sitting on its hands. Significantly, a poll of Louisiana voters gave George W. Bush higher marks for his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, with 62 percent disapproving of Obama’s performance on the Gulf oil spill.
8. US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration
It is hard to think of a single foreign policy success for the Obama administration, but there have been plenty of missteps which have weakened American global power as well as the standing of the United States. The surrender to Moscow on Third Site missile defence, the failure to aggressively stand up to Iran’s nuclear programme, the decision to side with ousted Marxists in Honduras, the slap in the face for Great Britain over the Falklands, have all contributed to the image of a US administration completely out of its depth in international affairs. The Obama administration’s high risk strategy of appeasing America’s enemies while kicking traditional US allies has only succeeded in weakening the United States while strengthening her adversaries.
9. President Obama is muddled and confused on national security
From the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the War on Terror, President Obama’s leadership has often been muddled and confused. On Afghanistan he rightly sent tens of thousands of additional troops to the battlefield. At the same time however he bizarrely announced a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces beginning in July 2011, handing the initiative to the Taliban. On Iraq he has announced an end to combat operations and the withdrawal of all but 50,000 troops despite a recent upsurge in terrorist violence and political instability, and without the Iraqi military and police ready to take over. In addition he has ditched the concept of a War on Terror, replacing it with an Overseas Contingency Operation, hardly the right message to send in the midst of a long-war against Al-Qaeda.
10. Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness
Barack Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism, and has made apologising for his country into an art form. In a speech to the United Nations last September he stated that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.” It is difficult to see how a US president who holds these views and does not even accept America’s greatness in history can actually lead the world’s only superpower with force and conviction.
There is a distinctly Titanic-like feel to the Obama presidency and it’s not hard to see why.
1. The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people
In a previous post I noted how the Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime, extravagant, decaying and out of touch with ordinary Americans. The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Spain at a time of widespread economic hardship was symbolic of a White House that barely gives a second thought to public opinion on many issues, and frequently projects a distinctly elitist image. The “let them eat cake” approach didn’t play well over two centuries ago, and it won’t succeed today.
2. Most Americans don’t have confidence in the president’s leadership
This deficit of trust in Obama’s leadership is central to his decline. According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, “nearly six in ten voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country”, and two thirds “say they are disillusioned with or angry about the way the federal government is working.” The poll showed that a staggering 58 per cent of Americans say they do not have confidence in the president’s decision-making, with just 42 per cent saying they do.
3. Obama fails to inspire
In contrast to the soaring rhetoric of his 2006 Convention speech in Chicago which succeeded in impressing millions of television viewers at the time, America is no longer inspired by Barack Obama’s flat, monotonous and often dull presidential speeches and statements delivered via teleprompter. From his extraordinarily uninspiring Afghanistan speech at West Point to his flat State of the Union address, President Obama has failed to touch the heart of America. Even Jimmy Carter was more moving.
4. The United States is drowning in debt
The Congressional Budget Office Long-Term Budget Outlook offers a frightening picture of the scale of America’s national debt. Under its alternative fiscal scenario, the CBO projects that US debt could rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2020, 109 percent by 2025, and 185 percent in 2035. While much of Europe, led by Britain and Germany, are aggressively cutting their deficits, the Obama administration is actively growing America’s debt, and has no plan in place to avert a looming Greek-style financial crisis.
5. Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat
The relentless emphasis on bailouts and stimulus spending has done little to spur economic growth or create jobs, but has greatly advanced the power of the federal government in America. This is not an approach that is proving popular with the American public, and even most European governments have long ditched this tax and spend approach to saving their own economies.
6. Obama’s support for socialised health care is a huge political mistake
In an extraordinary act of political Harakiri, President Obama leant his full support to the hugely controversial, unpopular and divisive health care reform bill, with a monstrous price tag of $940 billion, whose repeal is now supported by 55 per cent of likely US voters. As I wrote at the time of its passing, the legislation is “a great leap forward by the United States towards a European-style vision of universal health care, which will only lead to soaring costs, higher taxes, and a surge in red tape for small businesses. This reckless legislation dramatically expands the power of the state over the lives of individuals, and could not be further from the vision of America’s founding fathers.”
7. Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive
While much of the spilled oil in the Gulf has now been thankfully cleared up, the political damage for the White House will be long-lasting. Instead of showing real leadership on the matter by acing decisively and drawing upon offers of international support, the Obama administration settled on a more convenient strategy of relentlessly bashing an Anglo-American company while largely sitting on its hands. Significantly, a poll of Louisiana voters gave George W. Bush higher marks for his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, with 62 percent disapproving of Obama’s performance on the Gulf oil spill.
8. US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration
It is hard to think of a single foreign policy success for the Obama administration, but there have been plenty of missteps which have weakened American global power as well as the standing of the United States. The surrender to Moscow on Third Site missile defence, the failure to aggressively stand up to Iran’s nuclear programme, the decision to side with ousted Marxists in Honduras, the slap in the face for Great Britain over the Falklands, have all contributed to the image of a US administration completely out of its depth in international affairs. The Obama administration’s high risk strategy of appeasing America’s enemies while kicking traditional US allies has only succeeded in weakening the United States while strengthening her adversaries.
9. President Obama is muddled and confused on national security
From the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the War on Terror, President Obama’s leadership has often been muddled and confused. On Afghanistan he rightly sent tens of thousands of additional troops to the battlefield. At the same time however he bizarrely announced a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces beginning in July 2011, handing the initiative to the Taliban. On Iraq he has announced an end to combat operations and the withdrawal of all but 50,000 troops despite a recent upsurge in terrorist violence and political instability, and without the Iraqi military and police ready to take over. In addition he has ditched the concept of a War on Terror, replacing it with an Overseas Contingency Operation, hardly the right message to send in the midst of a long-war against Al-Qaeda.
10. Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness
Barack Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism, and has made apologising for his country into an art form. In a speech to the United Nations last September he stated that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.” It is difficult to see how a US president who holds these views and does not even accept America’s greatness in history can actually lead the world’s only superpower with force and conviction.
There is a distinctly Titanic-like feel to the Obama presidency and it’s not hard to see why.
Monday, July 26, 2010
After fumbling oil spill, White House tries to control backlash
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — The White House has quietly launched an effort to confront the political backlash along the Gulf Coast over its handling of the BP oil spill — giving special attention to Florida, the only state in the region President Barack Obama won in 2008 and one he will need again when he runs for reelection in 2012.
The White House dispatched political and communications aides to the Gulf Coast states on July 12, with Alabama and Mississippi receiving one each, sources familiar with the effort said. Some aides went to Louisiana, while Florida received four.
That battleground state will be a heavy lift. In interviews conducted along the coast, Florida Democrats accused the administration of largely ignoring their calls and letters and complained of a White House that’s out of touch.
Alex Sink, Florida’s chief financial officer and the state’s presumptive Democratic gubernatorial nominee, even characterized Vice President Joe Biden’s recent visit to the state as “a screw-up,” saying she was “embarrassed” by his speech.
“It was just so off target and out of touch with the reality of what’s going on over there,” Sink said in an interview at the Florida Democratic Party headquarters in Tallahassee.
It’s the type of criticism the White House wants to avoid. The administration aides in Florida function similarly to a campaign. They do rapid response and media coordination, and they report back to senior aides in the West Wing in nearly real time about what they’re hearing on the ground.
The effort came about after the White House grew concerned over political damage from not having a permanent presence in the Gulf Coast states. Obama’s top advisers summoned a small group of young former campaign staffers working in the administration to the White House for a meeting, said a source with knowledge of the meeting. No one mentioned 2012 specifically, but it was clear the administration’s approach to the oil spill had the potential to hurt the president’s reelection campaign and that the issue required more hands-on attention.
“Someone recognized that all we were doing was playing defense,” said an administration official. The aides were sent to the Gulf Coast five days after the meeting.
The White House dispatched political and communications aides to the Gulf Coast states on July 12, with Alabama and Mississippi receiving one each, sources familiar with the effort said. Some aides went to Louisiana, while Florida received four.
That battleground state will be a heavy lift. In interviews conducted along the coast, Florida Democrats accused the administration of largely ignoring their calls and letters and complained of a White House that’s out of touch.
Alex Sink, Florida’s chief financial officer and the state’s presumptive Democratic gubernatorial nominee, even characterized Vice President Joe Biden’s recent visit to the state as “a screw-up,” saying she was “embarrassed” by his speech.
“It was just so off target and out of touch with the reality of what’s going on over there,” Sink said in an interview at the Florida Democratic Party headquarters in Tallahassee.
It’s the type of criticism the White House wants to avoid. The administration aides in Florida function similarly to a campaign. They do rapid response and media coordination, and they report back to senior aides in the West Wing in nearly real time about what they’re hearing on the ground.
The effort came about after the White House grew concerned over political damage from not having a permanent presence in the Gulf Coast states. Obama’s top advisers summoned a small group of young former campaign staffers working in the administration to the White House for a meeting, said a source with knowledge of the meeting. No one mentioned 2012 specifically, but it was clear the administration’s approach to the oil spill had the potential to hurt the president’s reelection campaign and that the issue required more hands-on attention.
“Someone recognized that all we were doing was playing defense,” said an administration official. The aides were sent to the Gulf Coast five days after the meeting.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
If cap-and-trade was enacted, we'd still drill for oil and gas
Prior to the Gulf disaster, the American Power Act (the Senate version of cap-and- trade) seemed all but dead. This is as it should be. But with the Senate back from the July 4 recess, either the American Power Act will be explicitly taken up or another clean energy bill will be proffered to which the key provisions of the American Power Act will be attached.
The problem is that there is no real link between cap-and-trade regulations and the crisis in the Gulf. As President Obama himself admitted in a speech at Andrews Air Force Base in March of this year:
"The bottom line is this: Given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth, produce jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we're going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy (emphasis added)."
Therefore, even if cap-and-trade legislation were passed, we will still need to drill for oil and natural gas. Furthermore, cap- and-trade regulations do not fix the problems that led to the Gulf crisis in the first place, so we will still need to fix these problems.
All that would change if cap-and-trade legislation were passed is that President Obama and Congress would have chosen the worst possible time to impose job-killing legislation on the economy.
The U.S. economy has been growing thus far in 2010, but not at the robust pace one would expect at this phase of an economic recovery, and the joblessness rate remains unacceptably high.
The problem is that there is no real link between cap-and-trade regulations and the crisis in the Gulf. As President Obama himself admitted in a speech at Andrews Air Force Base in March of this year:
"The bottom line is this: Given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth, produce jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we're going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy (emphasis added)."
Therefore, even if cap-and-trade legislation were passed, we will still need to drill for oil and natural gas. Furthermore, cap- and-trade regulations do not fix the problems that led to the Gulf crisis in the first place, so we will still need to fix these problems.
All that would change if cap-and-trade legislation were passed is that President Obama and Congress would have chosen the worst possible time to impose job-killing legislation on the economy.
The U.S. economy has been growing thus far in 2010, but not at the robust pace one would expect at this phase of an economic recovery, and the joblessness rate remains unacceptably high.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Government bans press to minimize embarrassing Gulf photos
As CNN is now reporting, the U.S. government has issued a new rule that would make it a felony crime for any journalist, reporter, blogger or photographer to approach any oil cleanup operation, equipment or vessel in the Gulf of Mexico. Anyone caught is subject to arrest, a $40,000 fine and prosecution for a federal felony crime.
CNN reporter Anderson Cooper says, “A new law passed today, and back by the force of law and the threat of fines and felony charges, … will prevent reporters and photographers from getting anywhere close to booms and oil-soaked wildlife just about any place we need to be. By now you’re probably familiar with cleanup crews stiff-arming the media, private security blocking cameras, ordinary workers clamming up, some not even saying who they’re working for because they’re afraid of losing their jobs.”
The rule, of course, is designed to restrict the media’s access to cleanup operations in order to keep images of oil-covered seabirds off the nation’s televisions. With this, the Gulf Coast cleanup operation has now entered a weird Orwellian reality where the news is shaped, censored and controlled by the government in order to prevent the public from learning the truth about what’s really happening in the Gulf.
CNN reporter Anderson Cooper says, “A new law passed today, and back by the force of law and the threat of fines and felony charges, … will prevent reporters and photographers from getting anywhere close to booms and oil-soaked wildlife just about any place we need to be. By now you’re probably familiar with cleanup crews stiff-arming the media, private security blocking cameras, ordinary workers clamming up, some not even saying who they’re working for because they’re afraid of losing their jobs.”
The rule, of course, is designed to restrict the media’s access to cleanup operations in order to keep images of oil-covered seabirds off the nation’s televisions. With this, the Gulf Coast cleanup operation has now entered a weird Orwellian reality where the news is shaped, censored and controlled by the government in order to prevent the public from learning the truth about what’s really happening in the Gulf.
This text will be replaced by the player
Friday, July 2, 2010
It's time to end on-the-job training for the inept in lofty posts
Last week's flap involving Gen. Stanley McChrystal was notable for many things, but what stands out most in my opinion was how it reflects the declining respect that so many Americans have for those in leadership positions.
While decorum can be imposed by fiat, it is genuine respect that prompts teams to achieve in all fields, and which must be earned. I'm not going to defend the general, who clearly overstepped his bounds and had to be dismissed to maintain civilian control over the military. But he was (and I am) clearly frustrated with micromanagement of the Afghan campaign by politicians lacking military experience and situated thousands of miles away.
In recent years, we have seen far too much of this situation, where those with little or no pertinent experience or knowledge impose their views upon the country and in the process undermine respect for major institutions with their ineptitude.
For example:
•We currently see a Supreme Court nominee with virtually no experience in the law, outside academia and the White House, and none as a judge.
•We have the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee considering the Elena Kagan nomination focusing ad nauseam on her handling of the gays in the military issue years ago at Harvard Law School, and largely disregarding issues that are of real significance to Americans today -- such as her views on the implications of the Constitution's Commerce Clause for the new health care law.
•In House hearings on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, we have noted experts in petroleum engineering -- Reps. Henry Waxman and Edward Markey -- making determinations as to which well-drilling method was preferable.
•We have a treasury secretary with no private sector experience and who had trouble filing an accurate tax return.
•And last year we saw our president -- with no experience running a business -- deciding to oust the CEO of General Motors.
If our country is going to get back on track, we need to redevelop confidence in and respect for our leaders and institutions. This means first and foremost electing and appointing people who command this respect by virtue of their bona fide achievements and not simply their paper credentials.
In recent years, far too many people with prestigious degrees and titles have made far too many horrible decisions that have caused great harm to Americans everywhere. We need people who have shown through their actual performance in business, the military, government or academia (preferably in multiple areas that pertain to the problems we face) that they can and will handle pressure and act at all times with integrity and good judgment.
The time for on the job training in lofty positions is over.
While decorum can be imposed by fiat, it is genuine respect that prompts teams to achieve in all fields, and which must be earned. I'm not going to defend the general, who clearly overstepped his bounds and had to be dismissed to maintain civilian control over the military. But he was (and I am) clearly frustrated with micromanagement of the Afghan campaign by politicians lacking military experience and situated thousands of miles away.
In recent years, we have seen far too much of this situation, where those with little or no pertinent experience or knowledge impose their views upon the country and in the process undermine respect for major institutions with their ineptitude.
For example:
•We currently see a Supreme Court nominee with virtually no experience in the law, outside academia and the White House, and none as a judge.
•We have the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee considering the Elena Kagan nomination focusing ad nauseam on her handling of the gays in the military issue years ago at Harvard Law School, and largely disregarding issues that are of real significance to Americans today -- such as her views on the implications of the Constitution's Commerce Clause for the new health care law.
•In House hearings on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, we have noted experts in petroleum engineering -- Reps. Henry Waxman and Edward Markey -- making determinations as to which well-drilling method was preferable.
•We have a treasury secretary with no private sector experience and who had trouble filing an accurate tax return.
•And last year we saw our president -- with no experience running a business -- deciding to oust the CEO of General Motors.
If our country is going to get back on track, we need to redevelop confidence in and respect for our leaders and institutions. This means first and foremost electing and appointing people who command this respect by virtue of their bona fide achievements and not simply their paper credentials.
In recent years, far too many people with prestigious degrees and titles have made far too many horrible decisions that have caused great harm to Americans everywhere. We need people who have shown through their actual performance in business, the military, government or academia (preferably in multiple areas that pertain to the problems we face) that they can and will handle pressure and act at all times with integrity and good judgment.
The time for on the job training in lofty positions is over.
Monday, June 28, 2010
As the oil spill spreads, college kids using daddy's boat search for oil, the Coast Guard counts life preservers, and others "do squat"
So far, the effort to contain the spill has been pathetic. Oil washes up, and after a while a truck arrives with a cleaning crew hired from distant states, who mop-up or shovel it into plastic bags that may or may not get picked up later. They then return to sit under a tent until the next call comes or, as has happened in a few cases, a sheriff arrives to arrest them on outstanding warrants. Meantime, fleets of college kids using daddy’s fishing boat are being paid up to $2,000 a day to tool around looking for oil.
Each morning seems to bring a new fool’s errand. On June 18, for example, the U.S. Coast Guard apprehended a dozen oil-skimming barges in the midst of performing their duty, and shut down their operations for the rest of the day in order to determine if they were carrying the proper number of life preservers and fire extinguishers. If the Coast Guard was so worried about safety, why not simply take a big pile of life preservers and fire extinguishers out to these craft and hand them around, so that the skimmers could keep at their essential job?
But that is not the way government operates. At least not this government, which has created a perfect storm of bureaucratic and regulatory gridlock around the Deep-water Horizon disaster. Whatever is done to prevent the oil from coming ashore must be approved by the EPA, OSHA, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, and a host of lesser bureaucracies.
The world has watched the excruciating process unfold and learned strange new expressions such as “Top Hat,” “Junk Shot,” and “Top Kill.” Nothing worked until finally some sort of contraption was lowered over the leaking well, which now captures much of the oil. But why did this all drag out so long, with weeks passing in between BP’s various attempts to stem the flow? Apparently BP would wait until one effort failed before starting another, instead of having everything in place for a new attempt as soon as they gave up on the last. What were our leaders thinking?
All the while, a gargantuan mass of oil has been accumulating in the Gulf of Mexico—not as a monolithic slick, but in many forms. It comes sometimes as thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of foamy fingers of “orange mousse” or as a sheen or as tarballs or in thick brown globs or pods of oily slab hundreds of acres (or even miles) wide. Day and night it drifts out there, twisting and turning amorphously with the wind, tides, and currents, and washing ashore from Louisiana to Florida—soiling, stinking, killing. And what were the responsible parties doing all this time—those institutions that are supposed to be protecting citizens from this kind of nightmare? From all appearances, they were doing squat!
Each morning seems to bring a new fool’s errand. On June 18, for example, the U.S. Coast Guard apprehended a dozen oil-skimming barges in the midst of performing their duty, and shut down their operations for the rest of the day in order to determine if they were carrying the proper number of life preservers and fire extinguishers. If the Coast Guard was so worried about safety, why not simply take a big pile of life preservers and fire extinguishers out to these craft and hand them around, so that the skimmers could keep at their essential job?
But that is not the way government operates. At least not this government, which has created a perfect storm of bureaucratic and regulatory gridlock around the Deep-water Horizon disaster. Whatever is done to prevent the oil from coming ashore must be approved by the EPA, OSHA, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, and a host of lesser bureaucracies.
The world has watched the excruciating process unfold and learned strange new expressions such as “Top Hat,” “Junk Shot,” and “Top Kill.” Nothing worked until finally some sort of contraption was lowered over the leaking well, which now captures much of the oil. But why did this all drag out so long, with weeks passing in between BP’s various attempts to stem the flow? Apparently BP would wait until one effort failed before starting another, instead of having everything in place for a new attempt as soon as they gave up on the last. What were our leaders thinking?
All the while, a gargantuan mass of oil has been accumulating in the Gulf of Mexico—not as a monolithic slick, but in many forms. It comes sometimes as thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of foamy fingers of “orange mousse” or as a sheen or as tarballs or in thick brown globs or pods of oily slab hundreds of acres (or even miles) wide. Day and night it drifts out there, twisting and turning amorphously with the wind, tides, and currents, and washing ashore from Louisiana to Florida—soiling, stinking, killing. And what were the responsible parties doing all this time—those institutions that are supposed to be protecting citizens from this kind of nightmare? From all appearances, they were doing squat!
Pioneering 350-foot Taiwanese oil skimmer sails for Gulf spill
With no assurances it will be allowed to join the Gulf of Mexico oil spill cleanup, a Taiwanese-owned ship billed as the world’s largest skimming vessel was preparing to sail Friday evening to the scene of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
The ship—the length of 3 1/2 football fields and 10 stories high—is designed to collect up to 500,000 barrels of oily water a day through 12 vents on either side of its bow. It docked in Norfolk en route to the Gulf from Portugal, where it was retrofitted to skim the seas. The ship and its crew of 32 were to leave Virginia waters Friday evening.
The owners of the “A Whale” said the ship features a new skimming approach that has never been attempted on such a large scale. They are anxious to put it to its first test in the Gulf.
“We really have to start showing people what we can do,“ said Bob Grantham, project coordinator for TMT Group, a Taiwan-based shipping company.
The company is still negotiating with the Coast Guard to join the cleanup and does not have a contract with BP to perform cleanup work. The company also needs environmental approval and waiver of a nearly century-old law aimed at protecting U.S. shipping interests.
Environmental Protection Agency approval is required because some of the seawater returned to the Gulf would have traces of oil.
The Coast Guard, which has received more than 2,000 cleanup proposals, said the supertanker skimmer had survived a preliminary review and was being studied further.
Capt. Ron LaBrec said that initial review involves a number of government agencies, including the EPA.
One question, he said, is: “Will a large vessel like this be able to operate this in this kind of area?“
If the ship passes the additional review, its owners could then negotiate terms with BP. He could not provide an estimated timetable for the review would be completed.
The company said it also needs a waiver of the 1920 Jones Act, which limits the activities of foreign-flagged ships in coastal U.S. waters. The A Whale is Liberian-flagged vessel.
Grantham said TMT was hopeful it could secure the necessary approvals during the ship’s three-day passage to the Gulf.
The converted oil tanker has the capacity of holding 2 million barrels, but would limit its holding tanks to 1 million barrels for environmental reasons. Oil skimmed up by the tanker would be separated from seawater, then transferred to another vessel.
Its owners claim the ship could gulp oily water at a daily rate that nearly matches the skimming total to date in the Gulf.
Nobu Su, CEO and founder of TMT group, compared the massive ship to a whale scooping up small fish. He said cappuccino-colored oily water would be processed through several tanks to extract oil the color of espresso.
He said the ship was engineered to skim oil shortly after its construction in South Korea this year after he recognized the “catastrophic” oil spill would require extraordinary measures.
“I believe this spill is unprecedented and you need an unprecedented solution,“ said T.K. Ong, senior vice president for TMT.
The effort received the endorsement of at least one Louisiana resident.
Edward Overton, a professor emeritus from Louisiana State University, was among the visitors at the port where the A Whale was berthed. He called the current cleanup inadequate.
The ship—the length of 3 1/2 football fields and 10 stories high—is designed to collect up to 500,000 barrels of oily water a day through 12 vents on either side of its bow. It docked in Norfolk en route to the Gulf from Portugal, where it was retrofitted to skim the seas. The ship and its crew of 32 were to leave Virginia waters Friday evening.
The owners of the “A Whale” said the ship features a new skimming approach that has never been attempted on such a large scale. They are anxious to put it to its first test in the Gulf.
“We really have to start showing people what we can do,“ said Bob Grantham, project coordinator for TMT Group, a Taiwan-based shipping company.
The company is still negotiating with the Coast Guard to join the cleanup and does not have a contract with BP to perform cleanup work. The company also needs environmental approval and waiver of a nearly century-old law aimed at protecting U.S. shipping interests.
Environmental Protection Agency approval is required because some of the seawater returned to the Gulf would have traces of oil.
The Coast Guard, which has received more than 2,000 cleanup proposals, said the supertanker skimmer had survived a preliminary review and was being studied further.
Capt. Ron LaBrec said that initial review involves a number of government agencies, including the EPA.
One question, he said, is: “Will a large vessel like this be able to operate this in this kind of area?“
If the ship passes the additional review, its owners could then negotiate terms with BP. He could not provide an estimated timetable for the review would be completed.
The company said it also needs a waiver of the 1920 Jones Act, which limits the activities of foreign-flagged ships in coastal U.S. waters. The A Whale is Liberian-flagged vessel.
Grantham said TMT was hopeful it could secure the necessary approvals during the ship’s three-day passage to the Gulf.
The converted oil tanker has the capacity of holding 2 million barrels, but would limit its holding tanks to 1 million barrels for environmental reasons. Oil skimmed up by the tanker would be separated from seawater, then transferred to another vessel.
Its owners claim the ship could gulp oily water at a daily rate that nearly matches the skimming total to date in the Gulf.
Nobu Su, CEO and founder of TMT group, compared the massive ship to a whale scooping up small fish. He said cappuccino-colored oily water would be processed through several tanks to extract oil the color of espresso.
He said the ship was engineered to skim oil shortly after its construction in South Korea this year after he recognized the “catastrophic” oil spill would require extraordinary measures.
“I believe this spill is unprecedented and you need an unprecedented solution,“ said T.K. Ong, senior vice president for TMT.
The effort received the endorsement of at least one Louisiana resident.
Edward Overton, a professor emeritus from Louisiana State University, was among the visitors at the port where the A Whale was berthed. He called the current cleanup inadequate.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Whereever we look - the Gulf, the economy, Afghanistan - Big Government arrogance and incompetence are on display
It's not just millions of gallons of black gold spilling into the Gulf of Mexico that are being lost. Also disappearing into watery despair are the last shreds of credibility for progressive Big Government.
It's Day 65 of the Deepwater Horizon spill and the only hope of stopping the flow of thick, gooey crude remains the relief well being drilled by the private sector.
None of the ass-kicking political speeches by President Obama, bureaucratic edicts by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar or EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, or hypocritical posturing for the cameras in Congress has plugged the hole to stop the flow of suffocating oil headed to the beaches.
We see this week a remarkable confluence of events signaling the eventual end of Big Government: The bureaucrats and politicians can spend trillions but they can't plug the Gulf oil spill, agree on a budget in Congress or end the Great Recession's foreclosures and unemployment.
We've been here before. In the 1950s and '60s, Detroit's Big Three automakers utterly dominated the market. Americans bought only Chevys, Fords and Plymouths because our cars and trucks were "the standard of the world."
Detroit auto execs just laughed when Volkswagen Beetles trickled over here from Germany. Then, as Toyota and Honda began attracting serious attention from early adopting consumers, the Big Three confidently vowed to push the new invaders back to Japan.
It didn't happen. Instead, Detroit steadily lost the ability to produce quality products. By the 1970s, late-night comedians joked that every new Chrysler came with its very own union worker to reattach the chrome pieces as they fell off.
Imports couldn't be rolled back because General Motors, Ford and Chrysler were hamstrung by executive hubris and the endless demands of the United Auto Workers union for higher pay, more generous benefits and permanent job security. Give us the welfare state in microcosm or we will shut down the assembly lines, the union bosses shouted.
The execs caved, so American cars cost on average $2,000 more to build than those from Japan, and the union refused to give up the insanely complicated work rules that robbed management of needed flexibility to respond to a changing marketplace.
Predictably, when consumers compared Detroit's costlier offerings with cheaper, better-made Japanese products, they logically chose the latter. GM went from 60 percent market share to less than half that in the 1980s. Ford barely evaded bankruptcy and Chrysler survived only because Washington bailed it out.
Now it's Big Government that needs a bailout because its progressive politicians and bureaucrats can't stop doing what they've always done -- spending more, taxing more, regulating more, grabbing more power for themselves and their special interest buddies.
Just as most Americans stopped trusting Detroit to build the world's best cars, we no longer believe the grand promises that more massive, wasteful government will bring prosperity and good health for our families, security in our old age and a better life for our kids. We see the Gulf.
It's Day 65 of the Deepwater Horizon spill and the only hope of stopping the flow of thick, gooey crude remains the relief well being drilled by the private sector.
None of the ass-kicking political speeches by President Obama, bureaucratic edicts by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar or EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, or hypocritical posturing for the cameras in Congress has plugged the hole to stop the flow of suffocating oil headed to the beaches.
We see this week a remarkable confluence of events signaling the eventual end of Big Government: The bureaucrats and politicians can spend trillions but they can't plug the Gulf oil spill, agree on a budget in Congress or end the Great Recession's foreclosures and unemployment.
We've been here before. In the 1950s and '60s, Detroit's Big Three automakers utterly dominated the market. Americans bought only Chevys, Fords and Plymouths because our cars and trucks were "the standard of the world."
Detroit auto execs just laughed when Volkswagen Beetles trickled over here from Germany. Then, as Toyota and Honda began attracting serious attention from early adopting consumers, the Big Three confidently vowed to push the new invaders back to Japan.
It didn't happen. Instead, Detroit steadily lost the ability to produce quality products. By the 1970s, late-night comedians joked that every new Chrysler came with its very own union worker to reattach the chrome pieces as they fell off.
Imports couldn't be rolled back because General Motors, Ford and Chrysler were hamstrung by executive hubris and the endless demands of the United Auto Workers union for higher pay, more generous benefits and permanent job security. Give us the welfare state in microcosm or we will shut down the assembly lines, the union bosses shouted.
The execs caved, so American cars cost on average $2,000 more to build than those from Japan, and the union refused to give up the insanely complicated work rules that robbed management of needed flexibility to respond to a changing marketplace.
Predictably, when consumers compared Detroit's costlier offerings with cheaper, better-made Japanese products, they logically chose the latter. GM went from 60 percent market share to less than half that in the 1980s. Ford barely evaded bankruptcy and Chrysler survived only because Washington bailed it out.
Now it's Big Government that needs a bailout because its progressive politicians and bureaucrats can't stop doing what they've always done -- spending more, taxing more, regulating more, grabbing more power for themselves and their special interest buddies.
Just as most Americans stopped trusting Detroit to build the world's best cars, we no longer believe the grand promises that more massive, wasteful government will bring prosperity and good health for our families, security in our old age and a better life for our kids. We see the Gulf.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
WH transforms Gulf oil spill and BP's money into jobs program
In the Obama White House's ongoing quest to create the appearance that it is fixing the economy, the administration has asked the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS), Interior, Defense, Energy, and the Small Business Administration, to look for hiring opportunities related to the BP Gulf oil spill cleanup.
Each agency has some role in the oil spill response and cleanup process, though others, like the U.S. Coast Guard and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, have not been asked to consider new permanent or temporary hiring. The Obama Administration is also said to be considering whether its volunteer programs can somehow be used to place recent college graduates in government-funded jobs in the Gulf region.
"We're not talking about taxpayer dollars creating these jobs," says a White House aide. "This is BP paying for the jobs; we're just sending them the bill. If DHS or Interior has to hire someone down there, it's BP that is going to pay. What happens down the road after the cleanup is complete is anyone's guess."
Homeland Security and Interior have identified potential work opportunities in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Texas, as well as work in Washington, D.C. and several other regional offices, where claims review and other management duties might be filled. Already, both agencies have been given lists of current U.S. Census temporary workers in those states, who will be given first crack at any cleanup jobs that become available.
Each agency has some role in the oil spill response and cleanup process, though others, like the U.S. Coast Guard and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, have not been asked to consider new permanent or temporary hiring. The Obama Administration is also said to be considering whether its volunteer programs can somehow be used to place recent college graduates in government-funded jobs in the Gulf region.
"We're not talking about taxpayer dollars creating these jobs," says a White House aide. "This is BP paying for the jobs; we're just sending them the bill. If DHS or Interior has to hire someone down there, it's BP that is going to pay. What happens down the road after the cleanup is complete is anyone's guess."
Homeland Security and Interior have identified potential work opportunities in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Texas, as well as work in Washington, D.C. and several other regional offices, where claims review and other management duties might be filled. Already, both agencies have been given lists of current U.S. Census temporary workers in those states, who will be given first crack at any cleanup jobs that become available.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Pamela Geller, of Atlas Shrugs, on Obama: "...he's a dolt...the ass that Barack Obama should be kicking is his own"
...it was not Tony Hayward, it was Obama who did nothing for days, weeks, while whole swaths of coast were destroyed. He used the opportunity to kill all offshore drilling. So many bright, creative ideas were tossed aside, much the way Obama has tossed aside all things redolent of capitalism, American exceptionalism and American sovereignty. Such incompetence is indicative of complete stupidity and head-in-posterior paralysis, or something more sinister and destructive. Either way, it ain’t good.
I think it’s the former … he’s a dolt. But he is also a true believer in hard-left socialism. And in any crisis, the policies of the left always fail, without exception because you need the producers, the object of the left’s destruction.
Predictably, Obama is going after the producers: not even an hour after the media went into vacation mode for the Memorial Day weekend, so that what would be done would be largely out of sight, the House of Representatives votes 215 to 204 to increase the tax on every oil barrel from 8 cents to 34 cents.
This will cause across-the-board inflation, as everyone tries to make everyone else absorb the cost of the increase. It is a new impossible burden placed on American businesses.
Where is all the money they have already sucked out of the guts of this great nation? Where the hell is all our dough?
They are robbing us blind. And Obama is blaming George W. Bush for the spill. Got that?
Obama has also seized the opportunity of this disaster to say no to new oil drilling. Nothing like using a crisis to aid and abet the global jihad, which is financed by our oil revenue, and to hold America hostage to jihad oil-producing countries.
He also sent SWAT teams to the Gulf “to inspect all platforms and rigs.” SWAT teams? Was the oil leak a terrorist attack? Or is this just more sabotage to kill any oil drilling and exploration in the United States?
The ass that Barack Obama should be kicking is his own.
I think it’s the former … he’s a dolt. But he is also a true believer in hard-left socialism. And in any crisis, the policies of the left always fail, without exception because you need the producers, the object of the left’s destruction.
Predictably, Obama is going after the producers: not even an hour after the media went into vacation mode for the Memorial Day weekend, so that what would be done would be largely out of sight, the House of Representatives votes 215 to 204 to increase the tax on every oil barrel from 8 cents to 34 cents.
This will cause across-the-board inflation, as everyone tries to make everyone else absorb the cost of the increase. It is a new impossible burden placed on American businesses.
Where is all the money they have already sucked out of the guts of this great nation? Where the hell is all our dough?
They are robbing us blind. And Obama is blaming George W. Bush for the spill. Got that?
Obama has also seized the opportunity of this disaster to say no to new oil drilling. Nothing like using a crisis to aid and abet the global jihad, which is financed by our oil revenue, and to hold America hostage to jihad oil-producing countries.
He also sent SWAT teams to the Gulf “to inspect all platforms and rigs.” SWAT teams? Was the oil leak a terrorist attack? Or is this just more sabotage to kill any oil drilling and exploration in the United States?
The ass that Barack Obama should be kicking is his own.
A caustic, but realistic, look at regulated companies and the politicians they have to pay for protection from government
Does anyone find it curious that the areas of business we have the most problems with are the ones most “regulated”? The financial sector, banks, health care, automobile manufacturing—and now energy—fall into this category. “Regulated” in America just means you have to hire more lobbyists and pay more politicians to protect you—from the government.
It seems we never have any issues with the truly free enterprise sectors of our economy, represented by Wal-Mart, Coca Cola, Caterpillar, FedEx, Google, Intel, Starbucks, Proctor & Gamble, Taco Bell and Apple. Hmmm—I wonder if there is a reason for that?
When an industry is forced into bed with the government over regulation they come out as slimy as those birds in the Gulf now. The result is that the customer and society are forgotten in favor of “pay to play” politics and the buying of political cover for anything that might go wrong.
BP gave the most money to Obama. Ditto for Goldman Sachs. And, in fairness to Obama, if the Republicans had not lost power for becoming Democrats, BP and Goldman Sachs would be their largest contributors. These folks have no political ideology. They are just buying indulgent politicians, which is their best use of capital expenditure dollars when they are that heavily regulated.
BP had 97 percent of all flagrant violations found in the oil business by government safety inspectors, including 759 citations for “egregious, willful” violations, compared to only eight for the two companies tied for second. So BP was clearly spending their money on politicians, not safety.
If you buy Obama’s stern speeches threatening the very businesses that donate heavily to him, then you believe that WWF wrestler who makes bravado based predictions about the demise of his opponent before their “wrestling” match. In reality, they go out for drinks afterwards and laugh at us for believing them.
BP has and will pay for this. And they should. At least when a business pays for its mistakes it does it with earnings, not like the federal government that does it by borrowing money that future generations will have to pay back. I am sure Obama will make BP pay money on this, probably to the thug SEIU or unions in Detroit so hurt by Gulf of Mexico spill.
It seems we never have any issues with the truly free enterprise sectors of our economy, represented by Wal-Mart, Coca Cola, Caterpillar, FedEx, Google, Intel, Starbucks, Proctor & Gamble, Taco Bell and Apple. Hmmm—I wonder if there is a reason for that?
When an industry is forced into bed with the government over regulation they come out as slimy as those birds in the Gulf now. The result is that the customer and society are forgotten in favor of “pay to play” politics and the buying of political cover for anything that might go wrong.
BP gave the most money to Obama. Ditto for Goldman Sachs. And, in fairness to Obama, if the Republicans had not lost power for becoming Democrats, BP and Goldman Sachs would be their largest contributors. These folks have no political ideology. They are just buying indulgent politicians, which is their best use of capital expenditure dollars when they are that heavily regulated.
BP had 97 percent of all flagrant violations found in the oil business by government safety inspectors, including 759 citations for “egregious, willful” violations, compared to only eight for the two companies tied for second. So BP was clearly spending their money on politicians, not safety.
If you buy Obama’s stern speeches threatening the very businesses that donate heavily to him, then you believe that WWF wrestler who makes bravado based predictions about the demise of his opponent before their “wrestling” match. In reality, they go out for drinks afterwards and laugh at us for believing them.
BP has and will pay for this. And they should. At least when a business pays for its mistakes it does it with earnings, not like the federal government that does it by borrowing money that future generations will have to pay back. I am sure Obama will make BP pay money on this, probably to the thug SEIU or unions in Detroit so hurt by Gulf of Mexico spill.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Public more critical of feds' response to oil spill than to Katrina
By more than a 2-to-1 margin, Americans support the pursuit of criminal charges in the nation's worst oil spill , with increasing numbers calling it a major environmental disaster. Eight in 10 criticize the way BP's handled it – and more people give the federal government's response a negative rating than did the response to Hurricane Katrina.
Beaches across four Gulf shore states brace for oil onslaught. A month and a half after the spill began, 69 percent in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll rate the federal response negatively. That compares with a 62 negative rating for the response to Katrina two weeks after the August 2005 hurricane.
BP's response to the spill draws even broader criticism – 81 percent rate it negatively. And 64 percent say the government should pursue criminal charges against BP and other companies involved in the spill, which has poured oil into the Gulf from a well 5,000 feet beneath the surface since an explosion and fire destroyed the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig April 20.
Beaches across four Gulf shore states brace for oil onslaught. A month and a half after the spill began, 69 percent in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll rate the federal response negatively. That compares with a 62 negative rating for the response to Katrina two weeks after the August 2005 hurricane.
BP's response to the spill draws even broader criticism – 81 percent rate it negatively. And 64 percent say the government should pursue criminal charges against BP and other companies involved in the spill, which has poured oil into the Gulf from a well 5,000 feet beneath the surface since an explosion and fire destroyed the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig April 20.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Exxon paid $125 million criminal fine for Exxon Valdez; in the Gulf oil spill, an outraged public expects billions in penalties
If the spill had resulted from a hurricane or lightning strike, or if it had been an unavoidable accident — an equipment failure that happened without warning — it wouldn’t warrant criminal prosecution. Increasingly, however, it appears that there was negligence or worse in the events leading to the explosion of the rig.
News reports have described warning signs that went unheeded and deviations from standard industry practice: Gas was seeping into the well. The blowout preventer was leaking. Concerns were raised about the well casing. There were signs of trouble with the cement in the well. Mud circulation was limited. A final concrete plug was not properly installed. And when disaster struck, the blowout preventer failed.
Prosecutors must examine all witness statements, internal documents and any physical evidence that remains after the explosion. But if the news articles are accurate, the Justice Department should bring criminal charges against BP, and possibly Transocean and Halliburton, for violations of the Clean Water Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Refuse Act — the same charges brought in the Exxon Valdez case. Exxon ultimately paid a criminal fine of $125 million, the largest ever for an environmental crime.
In this case, though, a fine of that size may not satisfy the many people who are outraged by the gulf spill. The public expects felony charges and multibillion-dollar fines.
All three of the environmental laws that may have been broken provide for criminal penalties, but only the Clean Water Act includes felony charges. For the government to prove a felony violation of the act it would need to demonstrate that the defendant knew oil would be discharged into United States waters. A felony violation can be easy to prove when a business dumps waste into a river, but it’s harder in the case of an oil spill.
News reports have described warning signs that went unheeded and deviations from standard industry practice: Gas was seeping into the well. The blowout preventer was leaking. Concerns were raised about the well casing. There were signs of trouble with the cement in the well. Mud circulation was limited. A final concrete plug was not properly installed. And when disaster struck, the blowout preventer failed.
Prosecutors must examine all witness statements, internal documents and any physical evidence that remains after the explosion. But if the news articles are accurate, the Justice Department should bring criminal charges against BP, and possibly Transocean and Halliburton, for violations of the Clean Water Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Refuse Act — the same charges brought in the Exxon Valdez case. Exxon ultimately paid a criminal fine of $125 million, the largest ever for an environmental crime.
In this case, though, a fine of that size may not satisfy the many people who are outraged by the gulf spill. The public expects felony charges and multibillion-dollar fines.
All three of the environmental laws that may have been broken provide for criminal penalties, but only the Clean Water Act includes felony charges. For the government to prove a felony violation of the act it would need to demonstrate that the defendant knew oil would be discharged into United States waters. A felony violation can be easy to prove when a business dumps waste into a river, but it’s harder in the case of an oil spill.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Instead of devoting its efforts to social engineering, why hasn't the EPA required that drillers develop remedies for calamities?
Reckless capitalism resulted in the Gulf oil explosion and resulting spill, which will do incalculable damage before it is remediated.
Reckless social engineering, inspired by leftist schemes to place all human activity under governmental control, bears responsibility for the failure to have control mechanisms in place to deal with the oil platform explosion and resulting catastrophe.
The event itself was predictable, if not in detail. Something, somewhere, was going to interfere with completion of a deep-sea oil well. What would happen then? Were there any shut-off valves spaced along the completed portions of the pipeline. Was there a system in place to cap the pipeline at the break?
In a rational political system, the Environmental Protection Agency, which is, after all, charged with protecting the natural environment, might have asked such questions and acted on the answers.
The EPA, however, is not much interested in such mundane questions. The EPA is more interested in seeing that carbon dioxide, which plants inhale before exhaling oxygen, in a natural process essential to life, be designated a dangerous gas that eventually will cause the oceans to boil.
That is the entry-level argument that the EPA makes in its effort to persuade American voters to cede their preferences, including their source of power supply, to the government, which could then shut coal mines and nuclear power plants and dot the countryside with windmills.
In other words, the EPA wants the United States to adopt a policy that has proved to be a catastrophic failure in Spain.
Why hasn't the EPA spent its time insisting that deep-sea oil drillers have mechanisms and plans in place to deal with an explosion that results in oil gushing from a pipeline one mile deep in the Gulf of Mexico?
The real answer is that there is no romance and little applause to be had from providing practical answers to inevitable calamities.
The romance lies in reengineering American society so that the leftists who provide the plans can determine how people live, what they buy, and when they die.
This plan is readily available. It's called the Obama agenda.
Reckless social engineering, inspired by leftist schemes to place all human activity under governmental control, bears responsibility for the failure to have control mechanisms in place to deal with the oil platform explosion and resulting catastrophe.
The event itself was predictable, if not in detail. Something, somewhere, was going to interfere with completion of a deep-sea oil well. What would happen then? Were there any shut-off valves spaced along the completed portions of the pipeline. Was there a system in place to cap the pipeline at the break?
In a rational political system, the Environmental Protection Agency, which is, after all, charged with protecting the natural environment, might have asked such questions and acted on the answers.
The EPA, however, is not much interested in such mundane questions. The EPA is more interested in seeing that carbon dioxide, which plants inhale before exhaling oxygen, in a natural process essential to life, be designated a dangerous gas that eventually will cause the oceans to boil.
That is the entry-level argument that the EPA makes in its effort to persuade American voters to cede their preferences, including their source of power supply, to the government, which could then shut coal mines and nuclear power plants and dot the countryside with windmills.
In other words, the EPA wants the United States to adopt a policy that has proved to be a catastrophic failure in Spain.
Why hasn't the EPA spent its time insisting that deep-sea oil drillers have mechanisms and plans in place to deal with an explosion that results in oil gushing from a pipeline one mile deep in the Gulf of Mexico?
The real answer is that there is no romance and little applause to be had from providing practical answers to inevitable calamities.
The romance lies in reengineering American society so that the leftists who provide the plans can determine how people live, what they buy, and when they die.
This plan is readily available. It's called the Obama agenda.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
BP has made a sizeable investment in the good will of government officials who will judge its culpability in the Gulf
BP and others in the oil and gas industry have paid for dozens of trips and meals for officials at federal agencies deeply involved in Washington’s response to the catastrophic Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
A review by The Hill of gift reports on file at the Office of Government Ethics shows oil and gas companies picked up the tab for tours by federal officials of offshore oil rigs in the Gulf along with oil facilities in Alaska.
Companies and industry trade groups took care of food and lodging for officials and also paid for them to attend business conferences. The records cover gift reports filed by employees at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Interior Department and the Homeland Security Department, which all have dealings with oil and gas companies.
The bulk of the trips occurred under President George W. Bush’s administration. Only two industry-funded trips took place during the first nine months of President Barack Obama’s administration.
BP, the company at the center of what has been called the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, picked up the highest tab for gifts to government officials among oil companies, according to the reports.
BP and its affiliates — BP America and BP Exploration — show up in the gift reports at least 16 different times, paying for meals as well as for oil and gas industry seminars and tours of oil facilities. The cost of the gifts totaled more than $7,200.
In June 2004, BP paid for meals and airfare for a trio of Interior Department officials, including then-Deputy Secretary J. Steven Griles, while they visited an offshore oil rig off New Orleans. BP split the cost with the National Ocean Industries Association.
Griles later pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice for his involvement in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, and was sentenced to 10 months in prison.
In February 2005, then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton and then-Minerals Management Service (MMS) Director Johnnie Burton attended a dedication ceremony for BP’s Thunder Horse oil rig off the coast of Texas. BP paid for travel and meals for the officials.
BP also paid for airfare and lodging in 2006 and 2007 for a trip by officials from the Fish and Wildlife Service to Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, for “maintenance of video surveillance at polar bear den” and a “polar bear study,” according to documents.
In August 2004, six EPA officials attended a meeting on Alaska’s North Slope near Prudhoe Bay, where they stayed at BP facilities. In 2006, BP was responsible for a large oil spill in Prudhoe Bay.
A review by The Hill of gift reports on file at the Office of Government Ethics shows oil and gas companies picked up the tab for tours by federal officials of offshore oil rigs in the Gulf along with oil facilities in Alaska.
Companies and industry trade groups took care of food and lodging for officials and also paid for them to attend business conferences. The records cover gift reports filed by employees at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Interior Department and the Homeland Security Department, which all have dealings with oil and gas companies.
The bulk of the trips occurred under President George W. Bush’s administration. Only two industry-funded trips took place during the first nine months of President Barack Obama’s administration.
BP, the company at the center of what has been called the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, picked up the highest tab for gifts to government officials among oil companies, according to the reports.
BP and its affiliates — BP America and BP Exploration — show up in the gift reports at least 16 different times, paying for meals as well as for oil and gas industry seminars and tours of oil facilities. The cost of the gifts totaled more than $7,200.
In June 2004, BP paid for meals and airfare for a trio of Interior Department officials, including then-Deputy Secretary J. Steven Griles, while they visited an offshore oil rig off New Orleans. BP split the cost with the National Ocean Industries Association.
Griles later pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice for his involvement in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, and was sentenced to 10 months in prison.
In February 2005, then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton and then-Minerals Management Service (MMS) Director Johnnie Burton attended a dedication ceremony for BP’s Thunder Horse oil rig off the coast of Texas. BP paid for travel and meals for the officials.
BP also paid for airfare and lodging in 2006 and 2007 for a trip by officials from the Fish and Wildlife Service to Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, for “maintenance of video surveillance at polar bear den” and a “polar bear study,” according to documents.
In August 2004, six EPA officials attended a meeting on Alaska’s North Slope near Prudhoe Bay, where they stayed at BP facilities. In 2006, BP was responsible for a large oil spill in Prudhoe Bay.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Daily Caller finds Obama even-handed on Gulf and golf
Critics have called the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion “Obama’s Katrina,” and argued that the disaster could signal the decline of Obama’s presidency. Their evidence? The president is visiting the affected areas for just a second time*— 38 days after the Deepwater burst into flames. Below you’ll find a parallel of timeline juxtaposing the tragedy in the gulf and the president’s golf games.
April 22: The Deepwater Horizon drilling platform, which had been burning for two days, sinks into the gulf. President Obama, after speaking in New York about the significance of financial regulatory legislation, hosts an Earth Day celebration in the Rose Garden.
April 23: The U.S. Coastguard pronounces 11 Deepwater workers dead after traveling almost 2,000 miles throughout the gulf in search of their bodies. The president and First Lady Michelle Obama travel to North Carolina for a brief vacation, where they enjoy BBQ.
April 24: Coast Guard Rear Admiral Mary Landry announces that the Deepwater wellhead is spewing crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The president and first lady continue to enjoy their vacation in North Carolina.
April 26: A remote sub fails to stop the leak. Just four days after the explosion, the spill covers an area the size of Rhode Island. After hosting a ceremony for the New York Yankees, Obama travels to Andrews Air Force Base for a game of golf.
April 22: The Deepwater Horizon drilling platform, which had been burning for two days, sinks into the gulf. President Obama, after speaking in New York about the significance of financial regulatory legislation, hosts an Earth Day celebration in the Rose Garden.
April 23: The U.S. Coastguard pronounces 11 Deepwater workers dead after traveling almost 2,000 miles throughout the gulf in search of their bodies. The president and First Lady Michelle Obama travel to North Carolina for a brief vacation, where they enjoy BBQ.
April 24: Coast Guard Rear Admiral Mary Landry announces that the Deepwater wellhead is spewing crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The president and first lady continue to enjoy their vacation in North Carolina.
April 26: A remote sub fails to stop the leak. Just four days after the explosion, the spill covers an area the size of Rhode Island. After hosting a ceremony for the New York Yankees, Obama travels to Andrews Air Force Base for a game of golf.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Cutoff valve that failed, sinking the Deepwater Horizon, has been a frequent problem since regulators weakened testing
LOS ANGELES – The federal agency responsible for ensuring that the Deepwater Horizon was operating safely before it exploded last month fell well short of its own policy that the rig be inspected at least once per month, an Associated Press investigation shows.
In fact, the agency's inspection frequency on the Deepwater Horizon fell dramatically over the past five years, according to federal Minerals Management Service records. The rig blew up April 20, killing 11 people before sinking and triggering a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Since January 2005, inspectors issued just one minor infraction for the rig. That strong track record led the agency last year to herald the Deepwater Horizon as an industry model for safety.
The inspection gaps are the latest in a series of questions raised about the agency's oversight of the oil drilling industry. Members of Congress and President Barack Obama have criticized what they call the cozy relationship between regulators and oil companies and vowed to reform MMS, which both regulates the industry and collects billions in royalties from it.
Earlier AP investigations have shown that the doomed rig was allowed to operate without safety documentation required by MMS regulations for the exact disaster scenario that occurred; that the cutoff valve which failed has repeatedly broken down at other wells in the years since regulators weakened testing requirements; and that regulation is so lax that some key safety aspects on rigs are decided almost entirely by the companies doing the work.
In fact, the agency's inspection frequency on the Deepwater Horizon fell dramatically over the past five years, according to federal Minerals Management Service records. The rig blew up April 20, killing 11 people before sinking and triggering a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Since January 2005, inspectors issued just one minor infraction for the rig. That strong track record led the agency last year to herald the Deepwater Horizon as an industry model for safety.
The inspection gaps are the latest in a series of questions raised about the agency's oversight of the oil drilling industry. Members of Congress and President Barack Obama have criticized what they call the cozy relationship between regulators and oil companies and vowed to reform MMS, which both regulates the industry and collects billions in royalties from it.
Earlier AP investigations have shown that the doomed rig was allowed to operate without safety documentation required by MMS regulations for the exact disaster scenario that occurred; that the cutoff valve which failed has repeatedly broken down at other wells in the years since regulators weakened testing requirements; and that regulation is so lax that some key safety aspects on rigs are decided almost entirely by the companies doing the work.
Monday, May 3, 2010
BP says it will pay for Gulf oil cleanup, including claims for property damage
VENICE, La. (AP) - BP PLC said Monday that it will pay for all the cleanup costs from a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that could continue spewing crude for at least another week.
Meanwhile, chief executive Tony Hayward said Monday that chemical dispersants have worked to some degree to keep oil from flowing to the surface, though he did not elaborate. He said on ABC's "Good Morning America" that the new approach seemed to be having a significant impact.
The company posted a fact sheet on its Web site saying it took responsibility for the response to the Deepwater Horizon spill and would pay compensation for legitimate claims for property damage, personal injury and commercial losses.
"We are responsible, not for the accident, but we are responsible for the oil and for dealing with it and cleaning the situation up," Hayward said. He said the equipment that failed on the rig and led to the spill belonged to owner Transocean Ltd., not BP, which operated the rig.
The update on the dispersants came as BP was preparing a system never tried nearly a mile under water to siphon away the geyser of crude from a blown-out well a mile under Gulf of Mexico waters. However, the plan to lower 74-ton, concrete-and-metal boxes being built to capture the oil and siphon it to a barge waiting at the surface will need at least another six to eight days to get it in place.
Meanwhile, chief executive Tony Hayward said Monday that chemical dispersants have worked to some degree to keep oil from flowing to the surface, though he did not elaborate. He said on ABC's "Good Morning America" that the new approach seemed to be having a significant impact.
The company posted a fact sheet on its Web site saying it took responsibility for the response to the Deepwater Horizon spill and would pay compensation for legitimate claims for property damage, personal injury and commercial losses.
"We are responsible, not for the accident, but we are responsible for the oil and for dealing with it and cleaning the situation up," Hayward said. He said the equipment that failed on the rig and led to the spill belonged to owner Transocean Ltd., not BP, which operated the rig.
The update on the dispersants came as BP was preparing a system never tried nearly a mile under water to siphon away the geyser of crude from a blown-out well a mile under Gulf of Mexico waters. However, the plan to lower 74-ton, concrete-and-metal boxes being built to capture the oil and siphon it to a barge waiting at the surface will need at least another six to eight days to get it in place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
