Why The Gulf Disaster Is Like Katrina

Hi, Robert -- can't really argue with your points, but you are basically arguing against things that I didn't say.

Here's what I said - my argument in a nutshell:

This is why: Because Louisiana is going to bear the brunt of the environmental impact and the federal government, as with Katrina, is sitting on its thumbs.

There's only one point in your response comes close to addressing my claim.

There's no use blaming Obama or the Feds for the Gulf spill. The government did little at the beginning because they aren't set up to fix this kind of stuff. That was left to the oil companies, which we've given carte blanche to in order to feed our addiction to crude. Remember that the next time you start your car.

In response to this one point:

First, I did not blame the Administration for the spill.

However, I could have pointed out there is federal responsibility -- and in my article at The Moderate Voice, I did point out that the federal government approves the plans for these things. That means that they approved the design, a design that required that BP get an exception from its own safety and engineering guidelines. A design that some in the industry say fails to conform to industry best practices, if you can actually say that there's a best practice for something as experimental as this well. That also means that they provided exemptions to law.

So here is food for thought -- counter-arguments if you will -- on your implied claim that the Administration has no responsibility for this spill:

Source 1:

The Interior Department exempted BP's calamitous Gulf of Mexico drilling operation from a detailed environmental impact analysis last year, according to government documents, after three reviews of the area concluded that a massive oil spill was unlikely.

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) provided BP a "categorical exclusion" from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on April 6, 2009. Then in April 2010, prior to the explosion, BP was lobbying to expand those exemptions. One would hope that with exemption requests come detailed engineering plans to document the reason that the exemption is valid. But that doesn't seem to be the case:

Source 2:

Last October, Food & Water Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for expedited processing, seeking documents from MMS that indicate BP "has in its possession a complete and accurate set of 'as built' drawings ... for its entire Atlantis Project, including the subsea sector." "As-built" means lead engineers on a specific project have to make sure updated technical documents match the "as-built" condition of equipment before its used.

MMS denied the FOIA request.

"MMS does not agree with your assessment of the potential for imminent danger to individuals or the environment, for which you premise your argument [for expedited response]. After a thorough review of these allegations, the MMS, with concurrence of the Solicitor's Office, concludes your claims are not supported by the facts or the law," the agency said in its October 30, 2009, response letter.

Wouldn't you think that with something as novel as this well -- and by novel I mean "new" - "untested" - "unproven" -- that our government would be a little more skeptical, a little more, well, risk-averse?

Moreover, the Obama Administration continued to approve offshore oil drilling exemptions for the better part of a month after the explosion!

This Administration has show a propensity to side with the BP and other oil companies. Perhaps this tidbit, from Politico, sheds some light on why that is so:

BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html#ixzz0pWzSZJQt

Second, to your point that the federal government isn't "set up to fix this kind of stuff."

The federal government is the coordinator for all relief efforts; I assume that this is a statutory responsibility. There are documented (I listed some) problems with this coordination. Saying that they aren't set up "to fix" this sort of stuff is, IMO, a cop-out, since they are in charge of the clean-up/relief/prevention efforts.

Likewise, the Bush Administration wasn't responsible for Army Corps of Engineer projects that took place before it came into power or land use decisions that affected the marshlands or Congressional earmarks that affected project priority ...all of which impacted the scale/scope of that disaster. But they had a congressionally-mandated post-disaster role, just like this Administration, and that is where my comparison lies.

One key difference is that the human toll is diffuse and not conducive to "great TV" -- so this disaster has not carried the same emotional punch as Katrina, at least as far as network TV is concerned. This is a "heady" problem ... or it will be until we start seeing the pictures of oil on land, oil-covered birds, masses of dead sealife. But even then the images will be of "nature" as contrasted with homes in tatters and people without power and food and water.

Third, to your point about risk: yes deep offshore oil drilling is risky - and, it appears, not as lucrative as the oil giants have projected. (source 1, source 2)

All the more reason to have held BP's feet to the fire before drilling, per the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. It's pretty obvious that BP had no detailed plan for managing a blowout and, in fact, had piss-poor (to quote my momma) planning for preventing one.

Perhaps we should be grateful that this disaster happened before the Obama Administration's plan for expanded offshore oil drilling went into effect. From April 2010:

The Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Strategy announced this week by the Obama administration ignores the recommendations and cautions put forward by its lead ocean resource agency, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The new offshore drilling plan also belies pledges for comprehensive planning of ocean management, using a much broader prism than merely expanded offshore oil and gas development.

In comments filed on September 21, 2009, NOAA urged that plans for an ambitious lease schedule for oil and gas drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf be dramatically scaled back. Besides environmental concerns, NOAA advocated in vain for a coordinated ocean strategy.

Hi, Ripley8, like Robert, you've argued against points that I didn't make. This post was not intended to rehash who was responsible for the catastrophe that was New Orleans post-Katrina. I did that in real time, thank-you-very-much.

As I just typed:Here's what I said - my argument in a nutshell:

This is why: Because Louisiana is going to bear the brunt of the environmental impact and the federal government, as with Katrina, is sitting on its thumbs.

I'm happy to talk about this but I'm not going to rehash Katrina.

Hi, katlin - good point about this administration having approved the drilling, although my focus was on post-disaster response.

Thanks -- I believe in this case that the locals and state have been on their toes far more quickly than the Feds. Yes, I'm basing that belief on news reports -- it's the only data source that I have. Yes, the governor is an R with national aspirations -- I take that into account, which is why my examples are, well, examples of incidents, not rhetorical hot air.