Obama's Katrina!

[joobz]

I was speaking in general you can be well regulated with less regulation.

Less is a superlative. less to what exactly?

So if there were 2 impact studies and they also said minimum impact then would you need more regulation which would require 5 impact studies.

Was the impact study actually incorrect or did it say the likelihood of more than minimal shore impact was low which might have been correct.

You raise exactly the right point. To do further studies could be considered to be "wasteful" or worse, "delay tactics".
http://marcellusdrilling.com/2010/0...ively-oppose-drilling-in-the-marcellus-shale/
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/02/environmental_groups_turn_to_n.html
http://trib.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_2643744a-8931-548a-88f9-18c0bde7075d.html

Yet, here we have a direct example of where "MORE" regulation (additional impact studies on the exact well plans) would have resulted in BETTER outcomes (better regulation).


So while your point is understood in the general, it clearly isn't relevant here.

 

[leftysergeant]

Also keep in mind that FEMA had prepositioned 3 days food and water for 15,000 people at the Superdome, but they hadn't planned on New Orleans and the state of Louisiana failing to properly follow the emergency response plans that existed. Had New Orleans' and state officials implimented the existing evacuation plan in a timely manner, and initiated contra-flow on highways earlier, the number of people stranded in the city would have been far less, in which case the FEMA supplies would have been more than adequate for the situation.

And you want to blame Bush for this?

Evacuate a whole city on school buses? Right. And what about all the ice that was rolling around the country on trucks that never seemed to be able to find NO?

I also blame the Shrub because the National Guard was over-deployed fighting his idiotic wars.

To further prove how unfair, inconsistent, and dishonest you liberals are, part of the delay in FEMA response was because official requests for help through proper channels were not forthcoming due to local and state delays in submitting them, even after local and state officials were approached by FEMA.

Blanco says she submitted requests long before landfall. Stop that.

And you want to blame Bush for that?

And by the way, the solution to Obama's Katrina wasn't all that difficult either. An ounce of prevention. Just make BP do a good environmental impact analysis (as required by law), have an emergency response plan in place to handle the eventualities (and the material needed to impliment it), properly test the equipment that was to be used, and follow proven standards as far as materials instead of cost cutting. And most likely this oil disaster would never have happened. In contrast, there is no way that Bush or FEMA could have prevented what happened in New Orleans.

You assume that these things had not been signed off on by MMS before Obama took office. With everything else he has had to deal with, he had hardly had time to investigate whether the people at MMS could find their butts with both hands and a flashlight. He assumed, incorrectly, that they could.

It is the Shrub's fault for having packed so many agencies with nit wits who just happened to go to the right schools and subscribed to the same whackadoodle ecconomic theories as his owners in PNAC.

Might have helped had he made it a policy that only responsible adults were to be hired.

 

[eeyore1954]

The likelihood of a large spill resulting in heavy oiling of a barrier beach area is expected to be low, however, because 75 percent of the development associated with the 2007-2012 program is assumed to occur far from the coast in deep and ultradeep water.

Was this incorrect.

Obviously, yes.

Not obviously yes. just because something happens in doesn't mean the likelihood of it occurring wasn't low.

 

[joobz]

Not obviously yes. just because something happens in doesn't mean the likelihood of it occurring wasn't low.

This is false.

Certainly we lack enough points to give a real statistical analysis, but given the fact that we have 1 major spill from a deep well and it reached shore suggests that the probability isn't LOW.

But again, this simply goes towards the example that MORE regulation would have likely resulted in better regulation.

 

[eeyore1954]

Less is a superlative. less to what exactly?



You raise exactly the right point. To do further studies could be considered to be "wasteful" or worse, "delay tactics".

Yet, here we have a direct example of where "MORE" regulation (additional impact studies on the exact well plans) would have resulted in BETTER outcomes (better regulation).

So while your point is understood in the general, it clearly isn't relevant here.

Is it true that additional impact studies would have had different results. Were there others done that contradicted the original?

 

[joobz]

Is it true that additional impact studies would have had different results. Were there others done that contradicted the original?

Arguably, yes. It would have made a difference. You speak of probabilities. Forecasts are always improved with more detailed data. If you know more about the exact well plan and the construction plans of the well, yes you would expect a more accurate impact study.

 

[AlBell]

Where do you suggest MMS gets the needed petroleum engineers with sufficient experience to write meaningful regulations, and staff capable of ensuring those regulations are followed correctly?

There is a reason industry professionals write the regulations, and basically police themselves.

i really don't see how your question follows from my post.

But again, this simply goes towards the example that MORE regulation would have likely resulted in better regulation.

See it yet?

 

[theprestige]

Certainly we lack enough points to give a real statistical analysis, but given the fact that we have 1 major spill from a deep well and it reached shore suggests that the probability isn't LOW.

We have lottery winners, too. This suggests that the probability of you winning the lottery isn't LOW.

How many hundreds of dollars do you spend each week on lottery tickets, given the clear suggestion that your probability of winning isn't low? None at all? That's what I thought.

 

[joobz]

We have lottery winners, too. This suggests that the probability of you winning the lottery isn't LOW.

How many hundreds of dollars do you spend each week on lottery tickets, given the clear suggestion that your probability of winning isn't low? None at all? That's what I thought.

False analogy.

How many deep well spills have we had?
How many resulted in shore line impact?

 

[joobz]

See it yet?

Nope. it still is a tangential point.
But if you really want to know the types of individuals who would be able to write impact statements?
Hydrogeologists
Oceanographers
environmental scientists
environmental engineers
Petroleum engineers


ETA:
Note that there are examples of industry who aide federal regulation with self regulating bodies. ISPE and the existence of cGMPs are a good example. However, the FDA still has ultimate say and ISN'T controlled by pharmaceutical companies.

 

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

Not obviously yes. just because something happens in doesn't mean the likelihood of it occurring wasn't low.

This is false.

Certainly we lack enough points to give a real statistical analysis, but given the fact that we have 1 major spill from a deep well and it reached shore suggests that the probability isn't LOW.

But again, this simply goes towards the example that MORE regulation would have likely resulted in better regulation.

No that does not follow logically. You can go to the dice table and the first role might be box cars but the odds of 2 sixes is still 1 in 36.

I don't see how you are so sure more regulation (or in this case more impact studies) would have resulted in different opinions.

 

[joobz]

No that does not follow logically. You can go to the dice table and the first roll might be box cars but the odds of 2 sixes is still 1 in 36.

With dice, you have the luxury of actually knowing the statistics.
We do not have a perfect picture of data on oil spills reaching land from deep water. Of the data we do have(the current oil spill made it to land), we know it is possible. So the original impact study which claimed "low" probability was wrong.

The only other option from an honest look of the data is to pretend that it was a fluke. That the oil reaching land was simply a bizarre anomaly of weather events that are nearly impossible to recreate. I haven't seen this argument presented yet, nor do I expect it to.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/06/03-12

I don't see how you are so sure more regulation (or in this case more impact studies) would have resulted in different opinions.

because you clearly don't want to.
In order to make your statement, you would have to think that knowing more about the well to be drilled, the exact location, the materials to be used, the construction strategy to be implemented wouldn't aide the person who writes an impact statement.

Do you actually believe this data adds no value to the impact assessment?

 

[JohnnyG]

With dice, you have the luxury of actually knowing the statistics.
We do not have a perfect picture of data on oil spills reaching land from deep water. Of the data we do have(the current oil spill made it to land), we know it is possible. So the original impact study which claimed "low" probability was wrong.

So if you don't know how many sides the dice have, rolling double sixes can no longer be a low probablity since it happened on the first roll?

What do you consider "low"? How many wells need to be drilled without incident such that one occurence is still considered low?

 

[leftysergeant]

There is a reason industry professionals write the regulations, and basically police themselves.

There are engineers who study the things that can g0o wrong. "Experts" (excuse me while I spit on the ground) from the industry being regulated have a history of screwing up everything they touch.

Just go tell the people who depend on the Atlantic cod that industries know not to foul their own nests or kill the geese that lay the golden eggs.

Fisheries "experts," (PTOOIE!) drawn from the fishing companies, screwed up the cod fishery.

 

[joobz]

So if you don't know how many sides the dice have, rolling double sixes can no longer be a low probablity since it happened on the first roll?

You can't say that it is no longer low probability, but rather that it is unlikely to be low probability.


What do you consider "low"? How many wells need to be drilled without incident such that one occurence is still considered low?[/QUOTE]
That's a question for those who wrote the impact statement. Low to me would mean if a spill was to happen and weather patterns were normal, we wouldn't see the spill it land. That isn't the case here.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I've been lurking for a while on the JREF so I'm well aware of his caustic and highly ideological modus operandi.

I view BeAChooser and Leftysergeant's extreme, but opposing, political views as kind of a political version of matter & antimatter. In any thread in which they both appear they are surely to seek each other out and, upon doing so, the thread will be annihilated

 

[MattusMaximus]

Don't forget that part of the reason for the limited studies were because the MMS reports in 2007 stated that a deep sea oil well spill WOULDN'T have a major impact on the shore line.

You're kidding... got a source on that?

If true, this is major fail.

 

[joobz]

You're kidding... got a source on that?

If true, this is major fail.

Here's the report
http://www.mms.gov/5-year/2007-2012FEIS/Chapter4A-BImpactsProposedAction.pdf

check my follow up post where I quote key statements.

Yup, it is a major fail in my opinion. And Beachooser has a point, but I don't think he really realizes the implications of it.

 

[eeyore1954]

because you clearly don't want to.
In order to make your statement, you would have to think that knowing more about the well to be drilled, the exact location, the materials to be used, the construction strategy to be implemented wouldn't aide the person who writes an impact statement.

Do you actually believe this data adds no value to the impact assessment?

No I believe the additional information may not have given a different conclusion.

 

[joobz]

No I believe the additional information may not have given a different conclusion.

That's a belief unsupported by 300 years of scientific research.