Comments on: Obama Administration Lifts Deep-Water Drilling Moratorium

By: David H

David H — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 08:40:43 +0000

I need to clarify my first statement. When I said that “closing down an entire method of doing business because of one accident…is not necessary”, I meant that closing down a line of business was not necessary. Of course industry-wide changes that have ended some particular practices have been instituted because of accidents. There are lots of examples. Single-hulled oil tankers are now no longer permitted in US waters since the Exxon Valdez wreck, for example. Airliners have been banned from carrying charged oxygen canisters as cargo after the Jetblue crash in the Everglades years ago. But these changes have not shut down entire lines of business. Oil tankers weren’t banned from the world’s oceans and passenger jets can still carry cargo. The way they do these things has changed; they have not been banned from doing them.

By: David H

David H — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 07:35:59 +0000

If these inspections are just going to start now, to be completed around the beginning of next year, what was the moratorium for? What was happening during the months-long ban on drilling if not inspecting the rigs? According to the article, the ban was expected to be lifted at the end of November, but even starting the inspections now, they won’t be done by November 30th, so it seems that the ban was to end without any rig safety inspections. I know the article says that “strict new operating and safety rules” have been developed, but couldn’t this have been done while drilling was being carried out? If not, then that means that no one is reviewing operating and safety rules on an ongoing basis, since drilling isn’t normally banned. So, again, what was the moratorium for? It sounds like it was either to punish all oil companies, even those that have good safety records and have had no accidents, or it was just political posturing: “Look how serious we are about this, we’ve banned all drilling for six months!”

Rick, you say that an industry-wide ban after a single accident is good and that “other industries should take heed”. Does this mean you look forward to a six month ban on air travel after the next aircraft accident or a moratorium on coal mining after the next mine accident? Perhaps we will stop companies building and repairing the power grid after the next blackout. Maybe all accounting firms should have been temporarily closed down after the Enron collapse. The point is, this has never happened before—closing down an entire method of doing business because of one accident—because it is not necessary. The U.S. didn’t shut down all of its nuclear power plants during or after the Three Mile Island accident. It didn’t even shut down the other reactors at Three Mile Island. Those other plants have been safely operating for thirty five years now. Normally after an industrial accident the causes have been discovered and new regulations put in place and adopted by other companies while they stayed in operation.

By: Rick

Rick — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:19:04 +0000

I agree Brian. Suck it up is the answer to all those who are upset by the Moratorium. If the industry had have been responsible in its inspections and self policing then the disaster would not have happened and those worker’s lives would not have been lost. Other industries should take heed.

By: Brian Too

Brian Too — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 00:54:05 +0000

Regarding Bernard Duroc-Danner’s comments: Unimpressive.

We can also anticipate “why should we have to suffer for BP’s mistakes”, “it’s not fair”, “it’s not competitive”, “it’s not efficient”, and possibly “the old system wasn’t so bad except for the giant oil spill”!

The response to all this whining is WE ALREADY TRIED THAT. Minimal regulation and the cozy relationship with MMS led to a disaster. If the industry had working self-regulation then BP would have been reigned in and no spill would have taken place.

In the real world one bad apple can spoil the barrel. Deal with it.