Merged Judge blocks moratorium on off-shore drilling

[rwguinn]

So how does a drilling project earn $500,000 per day?

And I have no problem distinguishing the two. Opponents of the moratorium seem to have the problem you're speaking of. To hear them talk, the moratorium would have shut down all oil companies working in the Gulf.

Let's see:
JoeTheJuggler drilling, inc. has an offshore drilling platform.
BP wants a hole drilled in the Gulf of Mexico.
JTG drilling, Inc, says "sure. I'll do it and you don't have to pay us a cent"
That's how it DOESN'T generate $500,000 per day.

 

[thaiboxerken]

33 rigs at $500,000/day comes out to $6 billion a year.

How much would it cost if 1 or 2 of those rigs blew up and caused another oil eruption underwater?

 

[Newtons Bit]

How much would it cost if 1 or 2 of those rigs blew up and caused another oil eruption underwater?

You're JAQ'ing off. The expert witnesses in this case did not feel that a moratorium was necessary. What you're asking is non-sequitur.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You're JAQ'ing off. The expert witnesses in this case did not feel that a moratorium was necessary.

What would it cost if another spill like the one going on happens?

 

[AlBell]

What would it cost if another spill like the one going on happens?

Considering the current mess, hard to tell. The Gulf is already destroyed.

Probably could be argued, nothing like the liability facing BP/Anadarco/Mitsui/Transocean.

People I believe estimate cost of the 6 mo moratorium at 40,000+ jobs, $15 billion +-.

 

[leftysergeant]

You're JAQ'ing off. The expert witnesses in this case did not feel that a moratorium was necessary. What you're asking is non-sequitur.

The expert may be saying that without having inspected any of the rigs himself, which is just plain stupid. The rigs look good on paper, but remember that that paper was generated by a thoroughly corrupted office.

The judge stepped outside his area of expertise and authority. If it turns out that he is vested in any of the companies involved, he needs to hang up his robe and leave the gavel on the bench for someone with a conscience.

Or Congress can kick him to the curb in disgrace.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The expert may be saying that without having inspected any of the rigs himself, which is just plain stupid. The rigs look good on paper, but remember that that paper was generated by a thoroughly corrupted office.

It's not one expert. It was a peer-review panel of 7. 5 of them do not approve of the 6-month moratorium. They are all upset that the report claims that they supported the 6-month moratorium. That part was added after their peer review. When a person uses someone elses work as their own, it's called plagiarism. What do you call knowingly attributing a statement to someone who never made it? Lying? Fraud?

The judge stepped outside his area of expertise and authority.

Lawyers are supposed to defer to experts in fields they're not experts in (which is all but law). Unless there's judges who are also engineers somewhere?

If it turns out that he is vested in any of the companies involved, he needs to hang up his robe and leave the gavel on the bench for someone with a conscience.

Sure, that's an obvious conflict of interest and an ethical violation. You just need to prove it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Considering the current mess, hard to tell. The Gulf is already destroyed.

Probably could be argued, nothing like the liability facing BP/Anadarco/Mitsui/Transocean.

People I believe estimate cost of the 6 mo moratorium at 40,000+ jobs, $15 billion +-.

You don't think another spill in the Gulf would increase the chance of destroying more shorelines outside of the gulf?

 

[AlBell]

You don't think another spill in the Gulf would increase the chance of destroying more shorelines outside of the gulf?

I agree it might.

If the Yellowstone super volcano awakes, or the San Andres fault looses the Big One, or a we take 50 mile diameter asteroid strike, or even if 3 Mile Island burps bad things would also occur.

Drilling activities in deep water -- not only in the Gulf -- are now being examined by operators & rig owners to the best of their abilities, and conducted with nothing but safe operations in mind for all concerned.

The renamed/restructured MMS, and govt oversight, will remain a joke as always.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Drilling activities in deep water -- not only in the Gulf -- are now being examined by operators & rig owners to the best of their abilities, and conducted with nothing but safe operations in mind for all concerned.

I doubt it. We've heard this story before. This isn't the first time the oil industry has destroyed the environment.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You're JAQ'ing off. The expert witnesses in this case did not feel that a moratorium was necessary. What you're asking is non-sequitur.

Whose experts?

Also, aren't these the same experts who said that Deepwater Horizon was virtually fail-safe? The same experts who claimed BP had the ability to handle a worst case scenario leak? The same experts who insisted that the leak was only 5,000 barrels per day when independent experts said that based on the video of the leak it was much higher than that?

Congress' investigation is still underway, and no one is asserting any conclusions, as you suggest. That's why a moratorium is appropriate. If anyone can guarantee that whatever happened at Deepwater Horizon cannot happen at another deep water well, they are being less than honest.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The renamed/restructured MMS, and govt oversight, will remain a joke as always.

As long as they are still in bed (literally and figuratively) with the industry they regulate, you are right.

I don't believe this has to be the case.

If you think government oversight is not possible, are you suggesting we should just trust the industry?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Whose experts?

They are the ones that the Obama Administration explicitly asked to peer-review the paper. They're the Obama administration experts.

“the recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.”

I'll wait to read your other statements until after you catch up on what the facts actually are.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Have these "experts" been to every one of those 33 sites and investigated the safety of their operations?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

They are the ones that the Obama Administration explicitly asked to peer-review the paper. They're the Obama administration experts.

So what about the rest of my questions? Aren't these the same experts the industry relies on?

Again, Congress' investigation is not yet complete. BP themselves say that they don't know how key decisions were made or what led to the disaster.

Their investigation is unlikely to rely strictly on one single source of information.

Why not stop the drilling in these 22 deep water wells and wait until we find out what went wrong with Deepwater Horizon? No way 6 months will be more economically devastating than the disaster itself--and certainly less difficult than a repeat of the disaster.

 

[leftysergeant]

Drilling activities in deep water -- not only in the Gulf -- are now being examined by operators & rig owners to the best of their abilities, and conducted with nothing but safe operations in mind for all concerned.

That's what they say. No way in hell am I going to accept it, given what private industry does when they think nobody is watching. They are not to be trusted when lives are at stake. They have just screwed up too often in the past and there is not a doubt in the mind of a rational person that they will again if they think they can get away with cutting a corner.

The renamed/restructured MMS, and govt oversight, will remain a joke as always.

If the Republicants get back into power, certainly. Wait and see how it operates after Obama takes out the trash from the Shrub years.

 

[leftysergeant]

They are the ones that the Obama Administration explicitly asked to peer-review the paper. They're the Obama administration experts.

Sounds as though, rather than the consensus, the administration acted on the worst-case scenario. You never go wrong betting on the worst case and ceasing operations if lives are at stake by proceding, but not from ceasing. Always pick the course which kills the fewest people if it is wrong.

 

[Newtons Bit]

So what about the rest of my questions? Aren't these the same experts the industry relies on?

I take it that you decided NOT to educate yourself. Definitely an odd choice.

Why not stop the drilling in these 22 deep water wells and wait until we find out what went wrong with Deepwater Horizon? No way 6 months will be more economically devastating than the disaster itself--and certainly less difficult than a repeat of the disaster.

We already know what went wrong.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Sounds as though, rather than the consensus, the administration acted on the worst-case scenario. You never go wrong betting on the worst case and ceasing operations if lives are at stake by proceding, but not from ceasing. Always pick the course which kills the fewest people if it is wrong.

Sure, let's ban all cars, because face it, people die in car accidents. Let's ban all planes, food (it causes cancer), going outside (causes cancer), excercising (people die from heart attacks during it) until we figure out how to make it fail-safe.

The point I'm making is that you need to understand what the risk is. If a minuscule risk isn't acceptable, then we might as well stop living. The panel from the NAE thought it was acceptable with some additional safety measures.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So, Newton. Is it your position that, since the Gulf is already messed up, screw safety and drill, baby, drill?