Merged Judge blocks moratorium on off-shore drilling

[defaultdotxbe]

Again, problems in shallow water wells can be dealt with. We have learned the hard way that there are no viable contingency plans for problems like this in deep water wells.

to me thats kindof liek saying "you cant shoot someone in the head, because it will kill them, but you can stab them in the arm because they can stitch that up at the hospital"

And once the cause of the crash were determined NOT to be a design flaw (or in this case, once a viable contingency plan for deep water well problems is developed), the grounding would be lifted. Again, with new aircraft, this happens a lot. We want to err on the side of safety.

you missed my point, if the problem is with ATC or FAA then ANY aircraft in the air is a problem

and it seems this is a similar issue, with the oversight, not with the equipment or methods


as i said before i really dont care one way or the other, it just seems the justification doesnt match the actions

 

[quadraginta]

Because we don't know exactly what led to the accident, and we do know that the industry in general has done a poor job with contingency plans (relying instead on "fail safes" that we now know are not).



The moratorium was only for those in deep water. A blow out in shallow water can be capped . Apparently there are no viable contingency plans for an accident like this in deep water. (Other than letting the oil spew while relief wells are drilled.)



And the moratorium wasn't for all oil drilling in the Gulf. It was only for similar platforms (that is, in deep water). The judge is using a faulty analogy suggesting that the moratorium would be analogous to grounding all airplanes. It would be more like grounding all of that same aircraft if a design flaw were suspected--at least until the cause of the crash is determined.

I'm not in disagreement with the general point you are making, but I highlighted the above because I think the lessons of Ixtoc 1 should be kept in mind. That spill was almost a perfect duplicate of this one, including methods used to try and stop it. The only significant difference that I've uncovered was that it occurred at ~160 ft. down. That's not a lot deeper than recreational skindiving depth.

The disagreement I have is that it may be hard to criticize the Administration for being too cautious with this moratorium when arguments can be made that it is not being cautious enough on pretty much the same available evidence.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

to me thats kindof liek saying "you cant shoot someone in the head, because it will kill them, but you can stab them in the arm because they can stitch that up at the hospital"

It's not like that in any way whatsoever.

you missed my point, if the problem is with ATC or FAA then ANY aircraft in the air is a problem

You're missing the point. Again, in shallow water wells, there are proven contingency plans for failure, but in these 33 deep water wells, there are not. Even if the cause of the Deepwater Horizon turns out--as you say--to be the fault of government regulators, until we determine that cause and make sure these other wells aren't doing the same thing, it's not safe to let them continue, what with the lack of viable contingency plans.

The problem with your reasoning is that you pretend you already know that the cause of the disaster was oversight and nothing else, but in fact, you don't know that. And even if that were the cause, how do you know that same lack of oversight isn't going to cause a problem in one of these 33 other deep water wells (which also have no viable contingency plans)?

and it seems this is a similar issue, with the oversight, not with the equipment or methods

You're claiming to know more than anyone else in the world, including the people investigating the disaster.

To make the analogy work, imagine an experimental airplane that crashes and the pilot is killed because his seat ejection/parachute fails. Since we've never seen the seat ejection/parachute function in this new plane design, and we don't know what caused the plane to crash, all other planes of this same design are grounded until these two issues (the cause of the crash, and developing a functional seat ejection/parachute) are resolved.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm not in disagreement with the general point you are making, but I highlighted the above because I think the lessons of Ixtoc 1 should be kept in mind. That spill was almost a perfect duplicate of this one, including methods used to try and stop it. The only significant difference that I've uncovered was that it occurred at ~160 ft. down. That's not a lot deeper than recreational skindiving depth.

The disagreement I have is that it may be hard to criticize the Administration for being too cautious with this moratorium when arguments can be made that it is not being cautious enough on pretty much the same available evidence.

I stand corrected. If anything, the moratorium should be expanded to cover more drilling projects until viable contingency plans are in place.

In documents BP submitted to the government in 2009, they claimed to be able to handle a blow out that leaked something like 130,000 barrels per day. We know now that this is utterly false.

Yes, if anything the problem is broader than the deep water wells, and the moratorium should include more drilling projects.

But addressing the moratorium as it is (applying only to 33 wells), it's not at all analogous to grounding all airplanes because one plane crashes.

ETA: Did they try the gigantic cap thingy on Ixtoc? I thought the only reason it failed on Deepwater Horizon was the formation of hydrates due to the depth. Do hydrates form even at depths shallower than 500 ft? (Perhaps I'm relying too much on BP's optimism.)

 

[rwguinn]

so why shut down all drilling if it was BPs lack of safety that led to the accident? why not shut down BP drilling


how many of the 3567 remaining rigs are operated by BP? do we know they follow proper safety procedures?


...)

You are confusing "production" with "Drilling". There are not 3567 rigs DRILLING in the Gulf.

 

[funk de fino]

No. It targets the most potentially disasterous scenario first. Just the fact that they are deep enough to cause particular threats to all life on earth and the fact that their start-up was overseen by a gang of drongos appointed by a corrupt moron must give us all pause. Let's be sure they haven't screwed up as badly on the other deep-water rigs and, if they have, take all safety measures now, before we have more oil spilling into the ocean than it can ever absorb.

Your posts are increasingly idiotic and childish. This sort of stuff makes you look worse than those you castigate.

 

[funk de fino]

You are confusing "production" with "Drilling". There are not 3567 rigs DRILLING in the Gulf.

Another case of the media lapdogs and the slurpers being woefully uninformed about the whole thing.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You are confusing "production" with "Drilling". There are not 3567 rigs DRILLING in the Gulf.

But the numbers refer to the economic impact to coast residents (particularly Louisiana). Most oil rig workers are still at work.

Even the judge's analogy to grounding all airplanes shows this misunderstanding. The moratorium wouldn't affect very many workers in the Gulf [ETA:relatively speaking].

ETA: BTW, the moratorium would only have affected 22 previously started drilling projects. The other 11 were previously permitted projects that hadn't started drilling yet.

ETA: Here's a bit of fact checking on the economic impact the moratorium would have had: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs...s-economic-impact-of-deep-water-drilling-ban/

 

[NoScotsman]

It's kind of silly when you think about it ... drilling miles under the ocean ... far from shore. Especially, when there's so much oil on land waiting to be drilled.

And as for drilling on land ... I don't understand why we scar the earth with oil wells in populated places, but prohibit ourselves from drilling in barren wastelands above the arctic circle. Personally, I'd like to protect the land in the lower48 ...

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And as for drilling on land ... I don't understand why we scar the earth with oil wells in populated places, but prohibit ourselves from drilling in barren wastelands above the arctic circle. Personally, I'd like to protect the land in the lower48 ...

I'm not defending the practices, but I think the idea is that it's better to "scar the earth" in areas that have already been developed and populated by humans rather than sensitive biomes (like tundras or coastal wetlands). Just as no one complains about farming land that's already being farmed, but many complain when you chop down Amazon rain forest to farm the land.

 

[funk de fino]

It's kind of silly when you think about it ... drilling miles under the ocean ... far from shore. Especially, when there's so much oil on land waiting to be drilled.

And as for drilling on land ... I don't understand why we scar the earth with oil wells in populated places, but prohibit ourselves from drilling in barren wastelands above the arctic circle. Personally, I'd like to protect the land in the lower48 ...

With even more lax safety standards and regulations

 

[funk de fino]

But the numbers refer to the economic impact to coast residents (particularly Louisiana). Most oil rig workers are still at work.

Even the judge's analogy to grounding all airplanes shows this misunderstanding. The moratorium wouldn't affect very many workers in the Gulf [ETA:relatively speaking].

ETA: BTW, the moratorium would only have affected 22 previously started drilling projects. The other 11 were previously permitted projects that hadn't started drilling yet.

ETA: Here's a bit of fact checking on the economic impact the moratorium would have had: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs...s-economic-impact-of-deep-water-drilling-ban/

Quite a few of our guys have been moved overseas. All the crews on any rigs which pick up contracts outside the gulf will also move. They will not sit idle in the GOM waiting when someone will pay them a million dollars a day.

I agree with the halt even though it affects my business. We need to make sure everything is hunky dorey. There will be problems found on the rigs. Mostly procedural.

 

[Metullus]

As I understand the ruling the judge is pointing out that Salazar has presented no factual basis justifying a moratorium since the justification that was presented relied on a blatant misrepresentation of the views of Salazar's own experts.

If there is a cogent argument for the moratorium Salazar should make it. That he felt it necessary to misrepresent the consensus of his own experts in order to sell the moratorium is not encouraging.

 

[quadraginta]

It's kind of silly when you think about it ... drilling miles under the ocean ... far from shore. Especially, when there's so much oil on land waiting to be drilled.

And as for drilling on land ... I don't understand why we scar the earth with oil wells in populated places, but prohibit ourselves from drilling in barren wastelands above the arctic circle. Personally, I'd like to protect the land in the lower48 ...

Me too.

From "Mountaintop removal mining^WP"...

 

[Drysdale]

Does this moratorium only affect American companies?

If so what's really the point?

 

[Newtons Bit]

But the numbers refer to the economic impact to coast residents (particularly Louisiana). Most oil rig workers are still at work.

Even the judge's analogy to grounding all airplanes shows this misunderstanding. The moratorium wouldn't affect very many workers in the Gulf [ETA:relatively speaking].

ETA: BTW, the moratorium would only have affected 22 previously started drilling projects. The other 11 were previously permitted projects that hadn't started drilling yet.

ETA: Here's a bit of fact checking on the economic impact the moratorium would have had: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs...s-economic-impact-of-deep-water-drilling-ban/

33 rigs at $500,000/day comes out to $6 billion a year. $6 billion that would have gone into US jobs and services. That doesn't include economic value of the oil going to refineries, or taxes levied on the extracted oil.

But hey, if you're okay just throwing that kind of money away because you think the oil companies need a "time out", go for it. Me? I'll read the report by the experts and be satisfied by their recommendation that the moratorium is NOT necessary.

 

[rwguinn]

33 rigs at $500,000/day comes out to $6 billion a year. $6 billion that would have gone into US jobs and services. That doesn't include economic value of the oil going to refineries, or taxes levied on the extracted oil.

But hey, if you're okay just throwing that kind of money away because you think the oil companies need a "time out", go for it. Me? I'll read the report by the experts and be satisfied by their recommendation that the moratorium is NOT necessary.

JTJ has trouble differentiation between Production rig and Drilling rig.
Never mind "floating platform" and fixed platform...

 

[leftysergeant]

Your posts are increasingly idiotic and childish. This sort of stuff makes you look worse than those you castigate.

You cannot escape the fact that the Shrub utrterly corrupterd everything he ever touched. It is a matter of public safety that the corruption be investigated and the results on the sea bottom be assessed and corrected before any further drilling goes on. We cannot afford a mistake, and the results of a mistake are not corrrectible by money in any amount.

The world runs on FOOD, not oil.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

33 rigs at $500,000/day comes out to $6 billion a year. $6 billion that would have gone into US jobs and services. That doesn't include economic value of the oil going to refineries, or taxes levied on the extracted oil.

More fact checking: the moratorium wasn't necessarily going to be longer than 6 months. The $500,000 per day figure is the revenue of the well owner, right? If we're talking about BP, most of that money does NOT go into the local economy. (See the link I posted earlier on the economic effects of the moratorium.)

But hey, if you're okay just throwing that kind of money away because you think the oil companies need a "time out", go for it. Me? I'll read the report by the experts and be satisfied by their recommendation that the moratorium is NOT necessary.

Straw man. Nobody is suggesting the moratorium as a punishment for the industry. It's about safety.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

JTJ has trouble differentiation between Production rig and Drilling rig.
Never mind "floating platform" and fixed platform...

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.