Rush Limbaugh: "Environmentalist Whackos blew it up!"

[Accidental Martyr]

BP debunks right-wing oil spill conspiracy theories.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/oil-spill-conspiracy

Of course, this could just be part of the conspiracy...

 

[peptoabysmal]

BP attempts to repair device that should have prevented Gulf Coast oil spill

 

[Darth Rotor]

BP attempts to repair device that should have prevented Gulf Coast oil spill

In this discussion about BP and the spill, I have a few unanswered questions about the company who built and operated this rig, which BP leased. As I understand it, are the actual well and such things as the BOP BP material and hardware, or stuff installed by Transocean?

Not sure I understand the rules on such things ... :

It [the BOP] failed, but not before misleading engineers into thinking that it had performed as intended. {???} Why the BOP failed is a central question for teams of engineers working round the clock in a command centre in Houston.

If it can be reactivated in the next few days the total volume of oil released by the Deepwater Horizon well will still be a fraction of the 30 million litres (6.5 million gallons) spilled in the Gulf after Hurricane Katrina.

A further failsafe known as an acoustic switch, mandatory in other countries including Norway and Brazil, was not available on the Deepwater Horizon.

This was discussed on a local radio station last week, and cited as costing about half a million.

A reasonable question would be: why isn't this a required feature for offshore drilling?

DR

 

[Chaos]

In this discussion about BP and the spill, I have a few unanswered questions about the company who built and operated this rig, which BP leased. As I understand it, are the actual well and such things as the BOP BP material and hardware, or stuff installed by Transocean?

Not sure I understand the rules on such things ... :

This was discussed on a local radio station last week, and cited as costing about half a million.

A reasonable question would be: why isn't this a required feature for offshore drilling?

DR

I would venture a guess that not installing this thing saves the operating corporation half a million per oil rig, which is enough reason not to want to have to install this, which in turn is reason to lobby against mandating this, which is (or was, under Bush II) enough reason for Washington not to mandate this. You know, the "government intervention is a Very Bad Thing for the economy, the economy knows best what sort of failsafes it needs to install" sort of argument.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I would venture a guess that not installing this thing saves the operating corporation half a million per oil rig, which is enough reason not to want to have to install this, which in turn is reason to lobby against mandating this, which is (or was, under Bush II) enough reason for Washington not to mandate this. You know, the "government intervention is a Very Bad Thing for the economy, the economy knows best what sort of failsafes it needs to install" sort of argument.

While that is a possible chain in the "why this rule is or isn't in place" your usual myopia is noted. Bush isn't the only president we ever had before -- were you aware of that? There were oil and gas rigs operating in the Gulf of Mexico long before W ever showed up on the political scene, either in Texas or in Washington.

Do you have evidence that the Bush admin had any hand in removing such a requirement for ocean drilling? If so, then good, a related causation, and a black mark (an oil slick, even) on that Congress and Administration. If there had never been such a requirement in the first place, then you've got about forty to fifty years of Congressional oversight and environmental oversight that is lacking.

ETA: Dragoonster posted a snippet from WSJ that discussed US regulators deciding NOT to require these types of safety valves around 2001 or so. Your complaint in re Bush and the Congress listening too closely to the oil industry seems to be on firm groud.

We've have non-trivial restrictions and regulations on petrochemical exploration, and exploitation, both on and off shore, for decades in the US ... to include the infamous restrictions off the coast of Calfornia that dates to the 1970's.

And much else.

However, to not apply a best practice --if the reason for not using the fail safe device for a deep, deep rig was cost -- puts BP (British Petroleum, who drill all over the globe) and who make considerable noise about how environmentally strict they are, right in the spotlight for well deserved reasons.

DR

 

[rwguinn]

While that is a possible chain in the "why this rule is or isn't in place" your usual myopia is noted. Bush isn't the only president we ever had before -- were you aware of that? There were oil and gas rigs operating in the Gulf of Mexico long before W ever showed up on the political scene, either in Texas or in Washington.

Do you have evidence that the Bush admin had any hand in removing such a requirement for ocean drilling? If so, then good, a related causation, and a black mark (an oil slick, even) on that Congress and Administration. If there had never been such a requirement in the first place, then you've got about forty to fifty years of Congressional oversight and environmental oversight that is lacking.

ETA: Dragoonster posted a snippet from WSJ that discussed US regulators deciding NOT to require these types of safety valves around 2001 or so. Your complaint in re Bush and the Congress listening too closely to the oil industry seems to be on firm groud.

We've have non-trivial restrictions and regulations on petrochemical exploration, and exploitation, both on and off shore, for decades in the US ... to include the infamous restrictions off the coast of Calfornia that dates to the 1970's.

And much else.

However, to not apply a best practice --if the reason for not using the fail safe device for a deep, deep rig was cost -- puts BP (British Petroleum, who drill all over the globe) and who make considerable noise about how environmentally strict they are, right in the spotlight for well deserved reasons.

DR

All true, but only to a point.
BP was not drilling the hole-a contract drilling service was. Their profit on the contract depends on how much they spend to actually finish. The $500K would eat into their margin, or increase the cost, and BP would simply have hired a different contractor. Lowest bidder, y'know.

 

[Bill Thompson]

He is just noteing the timing.

You know, Rush Limbaugh is not a politician.

If liberals take him seriously and are angered, they only have themselves to blame.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Problem is, Bill, that many people take him serious and agree with him.

 

[Unabogie]

Do you have evidence that the Bush admin had any hand in removing such a requirement for ocean drilling? If so, then good, a related causation, and a black mark (an oil slick, even) on that Congress and Administration.

DR

Here is the relevant information about this valve.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html

U.S. regulators have considered mandating the use of remote-control acoustic switches or other back-up equipment at least since 2000. After a drilling ship accidentally released oil, the Minerals Management Service issued a safety notice that said a back-up system is "an essential component of a deepwater drilling system."


The industry argued against the acoustic systems. A 2001 report from the International Association of Drilling Contractors said "significant doubts remain in regard to the ability of this type of system to provide a reliable emergency back-up control system during an actual well flowing incident."


By 2003, U.S. regulators decided remote-controlled safeguards needed more study. A report commissioned by the Minerals Management Service said "acoustic systems are not recommended because they tend to be very costly."

 

[pgwenthold]

Problem is, Bill, that many people take him serious and agree with him.

Oh come on, no one takes him seriously. Except for those that do.

As has been mentioned, he can't lose. Those that take him seriously are happy. Those who don't take it seriously dismiss it. The only effect is to strengthen his audience.

 

[uk_dave]

All true, but only to a point.
BP was not drilling the hole-a contract drilling service was. Their profit on the contract depends on how much they spend to actually finish. The $500K would eat into their margin, or increase the cost, and BP would simply have hired a different contractor. Lowest bidder, y'know.

Well, not if every bidder has to allow the $500k safety valve if mandated by law.

 

[rwguinn]

Well, not if every bidder has to allow the $500k safety valve if mandated by law.

True--but placing the blame on BP is simply wrong.
While BP could insist on the acoustic valve, it is expensive, not a requirement, and they have stockholders to answer to--so all they can really do is insist that the driller comply with all applicable laws and regulations...

 

[Bill Thompson]

Do you understand what the word "debunk" means? It does not mean presenting an alternate theory.

Finding a blog titled "BP Debunks Right Wing Oil Spill Conspiracy Theories" http://www.politicususa.com/en/oil-spill-conspiracy does not magically mean that the blog actually debunks Limbaugh's theory.

Even the blog says "This seems much more probable than the conspiracy theory blaming left wing environmentalists advanced by Rush Limbaugh last week". The blog even admits that it actually does not debunk anything.

If you believe something just because it is the right thing to believe does not mean the same thing as believing something that is actually correct.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Problem is, Bill, that many people take him serious and agree with him.

Only liberals do. You see, Liberals assume that just because they form their political opinions from entertainers (like Oprah and Jon Stewart) that conservatives do the same thing. They do not.

When Bush was president liberal reporters would go to press meetings at The White House demanding that Limbaugh, a private citizen, be forced to apologize for comments he made. This makes me think that Savage's comment that Liberalism is a mental disorder has merit.

And, besides, just because you do not like what Limbaugh says does not mean he is wrong. What if he is correct? Do you believe in censorship?

 

[elbe]

Only liberals do. You see, Liberals assume that just because they form their political opinions from entertainers (like Oprah and Jon Stewart) that conservatives do the same thing. They do not.

Have you not actually heard of dittoheads? Or what the implications of that label are?

I find it interesting that you've decided you can speak for liberals and conservatives as groups.

 

[Bill Thompson]

What is that radio show where the guy spins conspiracy theories and supposition? He talks about UFOs and such? "Coast to Coast" or something like that?

Do you think he should be censored?

 

[Upchurch]

What is that radio show where the guy spins conspiracy theories and supposition? He talks about UFOs and such? "Coast to Coast" or something like that?

Do you think he should be censored?

Censored? No.
Challenged and debunked as often as possible? Hell, yes.

Or do you believe If skeptics take him seriously and are angered, they only have themselves to blame?

 

[Bill Thompson]

Try listening to Rush Limbaugh. His show, I mean, not what people say he says.

I am listening to him now. He does not say that "environmentalist wackos blew it up". He is not trying to peddle a conspiracy theory. He is talking about BP.

So just because he threw out a theory one day does not mean he is confusing supposition with fact.

Right now, as I write this, he seems to put the blame on BP.

So the only conspiracy theory is what the left is sturing up about Limbaugh.

 

[CORed]

I totally disagree. This disaster shows that there needs to be more government regulation concerning these off-shore drilling operations. If there were regulations, this may very well have never happened. The whole "market will punish them" doesn't even make sense. Has that philosophy ever actually worked?

If, in fact, BP did cut corners, then I think it's safe to say that the cost of the accident will be several times any money they may have saved by cutting corners. This, one would think, would be a disincentive for cutting corners. If it turns out that BP violated exisiting regulations, it does not automatically follow, IMO that more regulations will help. Perhaps better enforcement of existing regulations would be a better solution.

 

[CORed]

Only liberals do. You see, Liberals assume that just because they form their political opinions from entertainers (like Oprah and Jon Stewart) that conservatives do the same thing. They do not.

When Bush was president liberal reporters would go to press meetings at The White House demanding that Limbaugh, a private citizen, be forced to apologize for comments he made. This makes me think that Savage's comment that Liberalism is a mental disorder has merit.

And, besides, just because you do not like what Limbaugh says does not mean he is wrong. What if he is correct? Do you believe in censorship?

I have to disagree with this, I had a coworker several years who took anything Rush said as gospel. I'm sure he's not the only one.

Your sweeping generalizations about how liberals and conservatives think is silly. There are rational people and irrational people all over the political spectrum.