Merged Judge blocks moratorium on off-shore drilling

[JoeTheJuggler]

I noticed you never answered my question. Do you think Hayward was lying when he told Congress that BP's investigations are incomplete, and the causes of the disaster are unknown?

So since you're so certain you know the cause of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, do you have a way to contain the oil and stop the leak? We know the contingency plans submitted by BP (and the other oil companies) are not viable. Since these plans were part of the documentation required for a permit, I will happily oppose the moratorium if you have a viable contingency plan.

 

[AlBell]

So you're saying these things aren't very safe?

Deepwater drilling is as safe as current technology and existing MMS regulations can make it. No complex technological effort is ever 100% safe, and will not become so under any scenario of "more regulation".

Adding an additional and unneeded well offers more chance for human error to enter the effort.

And I strongly doubt MMS will be granting exceptions to existing regulations as was done leading up to the Deepwater Horizon failure.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's as safe as it can be with current techs and regulations? If that's the case, we should stop all off-shore drilling until it's safe enough not to cause spills of this caliber.

 

[AlBell]

It's as safe as it can be with current techs and regulations? If that's the case, we should stop all off-shore drilling until it's safe enough not to cause spills of this caliber.

We can agree to disagree, and tptb will do as they will in any case.

 

[leftysergeant]

Adding an additional and unneeded well offers more chance for human error to enter the effort.

Bull flops. Canada does it now without incident. It is a matter of oversight.

And I strongly doubt MMS will be granting exceptions to existing regulations as was done leading up to the Deepwater Horizon failure.

Yeah, but those already wrongly granted have the potential to kill just about everything in the ocean. It is worth it to the rest of the world to see whether any improper waiverswere granted or any other inspections pencil-whipped before entering the reservoirs.

Does it cost the oil companies money? Sure, but so what. They do not have a right to prosper at the risk of greater harm to us.

The idiots act as though it was their oil. Childish.

 

[bit_pattern]

Damned activist judges!

Good. Now the government won't be unnecessarily putting lots of people out of work before we actually know whether there's a problem.

Except that there are no deep sea drilling projects that would have otherwise come online in the next six months so no jobs are being threatened.

 

[quadraginta]

Damned activist judges!

Good. Now the government won't be unnecessarily putting lots of people out of work before we actually know whether there's a problem.

Except that there are no deep sea drilling projects that would have otherwise come online in the next six months so no jobs are being threatened.

You mean ...

You mean ...

The injunction was just a political stunt??!!!??



Well shut my mouth. Who'da thunk it.

Surely you don't think that a Reagan appointee to a Louisiana District would make a judgment calculated solely to poke the Obama Administration in the eye.

Nah. That's just too far-fetched.

 

[funk de fino]

I noticed you never answered my question. Do you think Hayward was lying when he told Congress that BP's investigations are incomplete, and the causes of the disaster are unknown?

Were you lying when you said I was against the moratorium/halt?

 

[leftysergeant]

Surely you don't think that a Reagan appointee to a Louisiana District would make a judgment calculated solely to poke the Obama Administration in the eye.

Nah. That's just too far-fetched.

Not the least likely scenario in the world, I would say.

I am wondering, though, whether this case even passes one of the simplest of tests. Does the case even have merit?

The MMS has the authority to grant or deny permits for various activities. They are expected to act in the interest of public safety.

A new threat to public safety has been discovered, rooted in corruption of certain functionaries within the agency. It is known that most, if not all, permits have been issued without certain safeguards in place. The government were, then, in violation of a far greater trust to allow the drilling to go forward until it is determined that the permits were not granted improperly.

The judge is saying, in essence, that the federal government is not entitled to correct a mistake, which is possibly one of the most absurd positions that any judge not already showing symptoms of Alzheimers could possibly take.

 

[Lurker]

The mysterious "THEY" of your conspiracy theories.

While I am loath to agree with Lefty he is actually correct here. Oil companies are in deepwater no matter what environmentalists say. They have not been pushed there - that is where the oil is.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The judge is saying, in essence, that the federal government is not entitled to correct a mistake, which is possibly one of the most absurd positions that any judge not already showing symptoms of Alzheimers could possibly take.

No, he's not. The judge is saying that the government needs to prove it's case and that the current rationale used for the moratorium is not enough. The biggest "poke in the eye" regarding this is the governments claim that they had experts from the NAE peer-review their recommendations, including the 6-month moratorium. They didn't review that part of the recommendations. The government got caught lying, that's why they didn't win.

The government is welcome to try a different line of argument, such as the one you're trying to make, but the previous one was bull and based on a fabrication.

How does it make you feel, to know that the Obama administration lied rather than use your line of logic?

 

[Beerina]

Just grounding Airbuses will do quite nicely.

Correct. Not other models. Same for the drilling rigs.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I noticed you never answered my question. Do you think Hayward was lying when he told Congress that BP's investigations are incomplete, and the causes of the disaster are unknown?

Were you lying when you said I was against the moratorium/halt?

My question was directed to Newton's Bit (not you) who several times claimed that we already know all we need to know about the causes of the Deepwater Horizon disaster to guarantee the safety of the other rigs in the Gulf, contrary to what Hayward told Congress.

To answer your question: I don't think I ever claimed you held any particular position on the moratorium. If I did, perhaps you can quote where I did so. If I said that (and I don't believe I did), then I take it back. I think in one of your first posts on the thread you said the moratorium was probably a good idea (or something like that).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's as safe as it can be with current techs and regulations? If that's the case, we should stop all off-shore drilling until it's safe enough not to cause spills of this caliber.

It does sound like attempted arguments against the moratorium generally support the position that it actually didn't go far enough!

I think the lack of viable contingency plans alone is reason enough to revoke all licenses granted based on bogus contingency plans.

Legally, it's a no-brainer. If one of the requirements for a permit wasn't met, then no permit. By analogy, if someone lies about their age to get a driver's license, and then is found to be underage, you revoke the license (at the very least).

 

[Newtons Bit]

It does sound like attempted arguments against the moratorium generally support the position that it actually didn't go far enough!

I think the lack of viable contingency plans alone is reason enough to revoke all licenses granted based on bogus contingency plans.

Legally, it's a no-brainer. If one of the requirements for a permit wasn't met, then no permit. By analogy, if someone lies about their age to get a driver's license, and then is found to be underage, you revoke the license (at the very least).

And if someone lies about the facts in issuing a moratorium you revoke the moratorium?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And if someone lies about the facts in issuing a moratorium you revoke the moratorium?

Only if the requirements to get the permits are complete. If one of the requirements is a viable contingency plan in the event of a blow out, and BP and the other companies still have no such plans, then we should at the very least suspend those permits temporarily. Seems like a prudent move that doesn't go as far as it could, legally.

I notice you still haven't answered my question. Hayward told Congress he couldn't answer their questions about the causes of the Deepwater Horizon disaster because investigations aren't complete and the causes are not known.

You claim we know all we need to know to guarantee the safety on other rigs operating in the Gulf.

Was Hayward lying?

 

[DC]

Nukes are actually greener than wind and solar. Strange but true!

evidence?

 

[Lurker]

I notice you still haven't answered my question. Hayward told Congress he couldn't answer their questions about the causes of the Deepwater Horizon disaster because investigations aren't complete and the causes are not known.

You claim we know all we need to know to guarantee the safety on other rigs operating in the Gulf.

Was Hayward lying?

I would say that Hayward is doing what any CEO would do in his circumstances and what his lawyers probably told him to do. Until the investigation is complete, not comment on causes. Surely you see the wisdom in that, don't you?

So Hayward wanting to wait until ALL the facts are in is understandable. Meanwhile, as facts have come dribbling in we can assess those facts ourselves without fear of biasing investigations against ourselves.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Only if the requirements to get the permits are complete. If one of the requirements is a viable contingency plan in the event of a blow out, and BP and the other companies still have no such plans, then we should at the very least suspend those permits temporarily. Seems like a prudent move that doesn't go as far as it could, legally.

I notice you still haven't answered my question. Hayward told Congress he couldn't answer their questions about the causes of the Deepwater Horizon disaster because investigations aren't complete and the causes are not known.

You claim we know all we need to know to guarantee the safety on other rigs operating in the Gulf.

Was Hayward lying?

He was dodging. And so are you. You're making an appeal to perfection. It's the difference between knowing why WTC1&2 collapsed on 9/11 and knowing exactly which columns were overstressed.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I would say that Hayward is doing what any CEO would do in his circumstances and what his lawyers probably told him to do. Until the investigation is complete, not comment on causes. Surely you see the wisdom in that, don't you?

So Hayward wanting to wait until ALL the facts are in is understandable. Meanwhile, as facts have come dribbling in we can assess those facts ourselves without fear of biasing investigations against ourselves.

That, and if he were to answer honestly he'd have to say, "Well, Senator, the spill was caused by a bunch of dumb's who repeatedly ignored safety standards. Which is why I'm calling them dumb's. Furthermore, mr. Senator, since I am their boss, I am also a dumb for letting the corporate culture get to the point of allowing dumb's to make decisions as important as the ones that they 'd up."