Hollywood to save the Gulf?

[2manyrocks]

Why wait? Possible answers: (a) duh, we don't know what we're doing; (b) the politicians have to figure out how it helps/hurts them and/or their buddies before doing anything.

 

[dave1949]

On the evening news, they said it has been determined the dispersant is less toxic than the oil. That's good news.

The bad news is, now is sort of late to be determining that. That highlights the problems for me. There is no game plan for this eventhough it was bound to happen sooner or later.

Done with care and the application of some studies, there is probably a preferred dispersant type for the various marine environments and type of crude oil. They are operating on willy-nilly guessing, not from knowledge, it would seem. I hope that isn't true, but it looks like it from afar.
Dave.

 

[mjarrels]

Never let a criss to waste... last I heard, NY AG is to sue for loss in BP stock value in pension funds. Last time I bought stocks, it was a crap shoot. Gain or loss. I don't think the current white house folks want to stop the flow of oil. Twenty billion in funds... Some folks are getting rich. Two for you, one for me.

mark

 

[dave1949]

Never let a criss to waste... last I heard, NY AG is to sue for loss in BP stock value in pension funds. Last time I bought stocks, it was a crap shoot. Gain or loss. I don't think the current white house folks want to stop the flow of oil. Twenty billion in funds... Some folks are getting rich. Two for you, one for me.

mark

I don't know about the NY AG's chances in court on that. It's sad you have to imply the white house folks are thieves. Politically, the oil spill is harming them, not helping. The history of Exxon's payments after the Valdez spill would indicate it's wise to get any upfront payment possible.
Dave.

 

[aczlan]

The history of Exxon's payments after the Valdez spill would indicate it's wise to get any upfront payment possible.
Dave.

The problem that I have with the fund is that the government cannot legally take that money without due process of law (ie: going through the courts). IMO, it sets a bad precedent to have the government step in and (without any law or precedent to back them up) say we are taking 20 Billion and we will be giving it to those affected when BP was already paying out as they have been asked to.
The only issue that I have heard was that BP wasn't having a fast enough turnaround time for claims, but when they are doing something that has NEVER (AFAIK) been done before, I am not surprised that it takes some time to get into the swing of things and get the needed processes setup. IIRC, the new person in charge said that it will take him 30-60 days to get things changed and working smoothly.

Aaron Z

 

[vsumoski]

Yeppers. BP needs to focus on closing the leak.

BP has no interest in guessing at the size of the spill since it appears that they might have to pay a fine for every gallon spilled.

I did see headlines last night and today that the Feds are letting equipment from other countries to clean up the spill. Though the Yahoo article stated that the Feds only mentioned Japan as one of the providers. What I don't understand is why it took over two months to get the equipment moving.

Even using the lower leak estimates the amount of spilled oil over a period of months is going to be huge. Why wait to get the cleanup equipment from overseas if it works, is needed and is available?

Later,
Dan

Could it be lack of executive experience?
Should we be worried about lack of judicial experience? (4 life)

 

[aczlan]

The only issue that I have heard was that BP wasn't having a fast enough turnaround time for claims, but when they are doing something that has NEVER (AFAIK) been done before, I am not surprised that it takes some time to get into the swing of things and get the needed processes setup. IIRC, the new person in charge said that it will take him 30-60 days to get things changed and working smoothly.

Some sources:
Kenneth Feinberg: Will he be fairer and faster than BP? - CSMonitor.com
AFP: Manager of BP oil fund says not all claimants will be paid
CNN.com - Transcripts

Aaron Z

 

[dave1949]

The problem that I have with the fund is that the government cannot legally take that money without due process of law (ie: going through the courts). IMO, it sets a bad precedent to have the government step in and (without any law or precedent to back them up) say we are taking 20 Billion and we will be giving it to those affected when BP was already paying out as they have been asked to.
The only issue that I have heard was that BP wasn't having a fast enough turnaround time for claims, but when they are doing something that has NEVER (AFAIK) been done before, I am not surprised that it takes some time to get into the swing of things and get the needed processes setup. IIRC, the new person in charge said that it will take him 30-60 days to get things changed and working smoothly.

Aaron Z

I realize that is a legitimate concern. As of last week, the news stories from the Gulf didn't sound like people were getting paid quickly enough to keep their heads above water. I certainly can't know the truth of it.

BP ignored a lot of regs to get where they are now, I don't mind the government doing some arm twisting. The Exxon history is a good lesson there.
Dave.

 

[aczlan]

I realize that is a legitimate concern. As of last week, the news stories from the Gulf didn't sound like people were getting paid quickly enough to keep their heads above water. I certainly can't know the truth of it.

I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between what we are being told by BP and what the people are saying on TV.

BP ignored a lot of regs to get where they are now, I don't mind the government doing some arm twisting. The Exxon history is a good lesson there.

While it appears that BP (and others) may have taken some shortcuts to get where they are, the rig passed all of its safety inspections (it even got a government award for being safe shortly before the explosion), its saftey procedures were rubber stamped by the MMS (or whoever does that) despite having numerous errors that a proofreading should have caught and it had exemptions from the normal precautions and impact studies that came from Washington.

So, the government may not have directly caused the problems on the rig, but it was not doing its job to verify that BP and Co. were following the proper procedures to prevent them. As such, I see them as being 1/3-1/2 liable for this whole mess.

Due to that, I don't think that it is right for them to sanctimoniously say that BP is totally at fault here and to end the investigation into what went wrong with what BP and Co did. I think that such an investigation should extend to those who signed off on the permits, the environmental impact statements, the contingency plans, etc and find out why exactly the system broke down and determine how to prevent the system from breaking down in the future.

Aaron Z

 

[dave1949]

I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between what we are being told by BP and what the people are saying on TV.


While it appears that BP (and others) may have taken some shortcuts to get where they are, the rig passed all of its safety inspections (it even got a government award for being safe shortly before the explosion), its saftey procedures were rubber stamped by the MMS (or whoever does that) despite having numerous errors that a proofreading should have caught and it had exemptions from the normal precautions and impact studies that came from Washington.

So, the government may not have directly caused the problems on the rig, but it was not doing its job to verify that BP and Co. were following the proper procedures to prevent them. As such, I see them as being 1/3-1/2 liable for this whole mess.

Due to that, I don't think that it is right for them to sanctimoniously say that BP is totally at fault here and to end the investigation into what went wrong with what BP and Co did. I think that such an investigation should extend to those who signed off on the permits, the environmental impact statements, the contingency plans, etc and find out why exactly the system broke down and determine how to prevent the system from breaking down in the future.

Aaron Z

I don't disagree with that. Looking at the energy 'policy' that developed after the former VP had secret meetings with energy representatives and fought to maintain the secrecy of who attended, let alone what was discussed; I think things got pretty sloppy in terms of regulators actually doing their jobs. We are living with the legacy of that now.

You can't rebuild a bunch of broken agencies overnight - even if we weren't involved in Afghanistan and Iraq, and clawing our way out of this recession. We know the gov't doesn't move that fast, it should be no surprise.

It is commendable at least, that the $20 B fund was setup in public view and now has an administrator from the 9/11 payment process. I wouldn't doubt other quid pro quo deals were made at the same time, I think it would be naive not to think that isn't happening. It is politics after all. I also think other presidents have used similar tactics in the past; they just didn't involve a payment of money - at least one that was publically announced. There are many things a US Pres. can wring out of somebody that are as good as money.
Dave.