Tweet
During the 2008 elections we were inundated with industry-inspired chants of "Drill now, drill everywhere, but drill, baby drill." Both Presidental candidates essentially embraced this.
At the time, we were repeatedly assured by the oil/gas industry and their supply-side apologists in both parties that modern off-shore drilling technology was safe, that environmental safeguards are/would be scrupulously observed, and that off-shore oil spills hardly ever happened or could be easily contained. None of that was true.
Today, the growing oil spill gushing through the non-functioning "safety value" at the destroyed oil platform has spread to an area up to 45 miles long and as wide as 25 miles across [Update: now more like 100 miles and growing]. It’s threatening to hit beaches and wildlife sanctuaries as early as tomorrow.
To slow (not prevent) this now out of control environmental catastrophe from spreading, the crews trying to limit the damage will attempt to tow a tiny portion of the surface oil further away from the coast lines and set it ablaze in the hope that maybe 50 percent of that small portion will burn up, causing less damage in the air then on the ocean surface, but leaving a gunk that, they claim, they can just "pick up" unless it sinks to the bottom.
The choices have now become grim. From the New York Times coverage [and see related maps and picture]:
A Coast Guard spokesman said on Wednesday that crews would begin with an initial burn in a confined area of the spill to determine the density of the oil.
According to a statement released by the group of industry and government officials supervising the burn, the oil will be consolidated “into a fire resistant boom approximately 500 feet long; this oil will then be towed to a more remote area, where it will be ignited and burned in a controlled manner.”
From there, officials will conduct “small, controlled burns of several thousand gallons of oil lasting approximately one hour each.”
So the plan is to cordon off and burn ponds 500 feet long as the way to attack a spill covering 45 miles by 25 miles and growing every day?
Recall that the safety valve at the well head, which was supposed to be able to shut off the flow through the pipe broken off from the destroyed platform has failed. Apparently, either the valves don’t work at 5000 feet under water — did anyone test it? — or the explosion and break damaged it, raising the question whether anyone ever thought of this possibility.
Remember this when the industry tries to tell us, as they inevitably will, that they have adequate safeguards in place against the potential for remote but still predictable catastrophic scenarios.
The alternatives, to drill additional nearby wells and shoot concrete into the same pool to clog it up, or to capture the oil with a huge bubble over the leaking pipe, are still months away at best and have never been attempted at these depths. Did anyone consider the fact that fallback measures might not work at these depths, or might not be implemented for months and thus allow massive spills to continue, to potentially destroy a vast region before being implemented, when they evaluated the adequacy of safety measures?
Failing to think through the consequences of what could go wrong under predictable scenarios lies at the heart of America’s morally corrupt and intellectually bankrupt energy policies.
The only reason the fatal mine disaster in West Virginia has been pushed off the front pages, or we’re not focusing on the destruction of whole mountains and their watersheds and the health of communities nearby is because the oil platform catastrophe story, along with Lloyd Blankfein, filibusters and Greece, equally egregious symbols of unfettered markets and greed, replaced it.
But even before that, there were several related stories in recent months about the nuclear power industry. In one story, the President announced how building additional nukes would help us solve global climate change and promote energy independence. To further that, the government would provide billions in subsidies, in addition to the decades-old subsidies that insured nuclear operators from lawsuits over the consequences of nuclear accidents that, we were told, could never happen, until they did.
But about the same time, the nation’s nuclear plant owners were petitioning the Department of Energy to discontinue the requirement that they contribute millions each year to a fund to pay for the handling and disposal of spent fuel nuclear waste from existing plants. Their argument was simple: since the US Government has given up on Yucca Mountain and has conceded that it doesn’t have a proven, workable technology for disposing of toxic nuclear waste, or even a preferred site for where to put it, there’s no sense in contributing to the fund until the US gets its act together.
Excuse me, but the California Energy Commission studied the issue in depth, 30 years ago, and concluded that the DoE and NRC didn’t have a clue how to solve this problem. Thirty years later, we now know little more, except what doesn’t work.
The third nuclear story was the near accident in Chile, where nuclear waste materials were being removed from their original site, packed in supposedly safe containers to be shipped to the US for temporary safe storage. Luckily, the process of removing the toxic waste into the shipping container had just been completed days before the Chilean earthquake, so Chile dodged that bullet and it was still "safe." But the quake had damaged the original shipping port, so the container had to be secretly hauled over an alternative, unplanned route and shipped from a port not fully equipped to handle very large/heavy containers that you’re not supposed to drop, ever. As Rachel Maddow reported at the time, they literally almost dropped the container while loading it.
Stuff happens; really bad stuff happens. And it can happen at the worst moments with the most dangerous materials. And yet Congress and successive Administrations continue to develop and defend energy policies under the delusion that they’ve thought it through, and the deception that they’ve taken the right precautions and adequately warned the public about the real choices we’re making. But with the mainline energy choices on which the US is still dangerously dependent, we could do with lot more humility and a ton more honesty.
Meanwhile, we have to listen to narcissistic spoiled brats like Lindsey Graham tell us that he won’t do his job unless he gets enough attention. But the only goals Graham has ever had in the climate change/energy legislation is to make sure the nation continues to stay wedded to morally bankrupt energy choices.
More:
Seminal/Seymour Friendly, Update on status and media coverage
Think Progress/Brad Johnson, Government investigates oil spill
GetEnergySmart Now!/ Fossil Fuel Investigations Overwhelming Government?
Charlie Crist to join "Not as crazy as Republicans" party; reconsiders off-shore drilling
HuffPo via Ilovemountains.org/Matt Wasson They’re still blowing up our mountains . . .
Grist/Dave Roberts: On Graham Reid dance
85 Comments
Excellent work, Scarecrow.
Quick update: Slick is now 100 miles across at its widest extent.
I particularly like the way you join drilling, nuclear energy, and mining together in an axis of potentially very damaging industries that are allowed by the Feds to run as purely greed-driven operations. If these industries are to exist, I believe the Feds must have a huge agency-level capacity to prevent and respond to disasters and problems. Greed be damned. We need to have energy production of form positioned as a national interest with environmental and health/safety concerns placed first and greed and profits second.
If not, then we can all expect offshore windfarms to be developed in operated in the same sort of under-regulated, environmentally and physically unsafe manners. Hell, even with purely environmentally-sustainable energy production pursued, if the creation or extraction facilities are regulated as oil drilling (and mining!) have been then soon enough we will hear of deaths and environmental degradation coming from a solar farm.
Thanks Scarecrow. The small community (aprox pop 1200) where I grew up had an experimental reactor that was built for Dod/DoE in 1948.
In 1973 Isotopes were detected in the Mississippi River at the secondary cooling system discharge pipe by a University student. A leak had occurred between the primary and secondary cooling systems. The reactor was discharging isotopes directly into the Mississippi River from the primary to the secondary cooling system, 35 miles upstream of Minneapolis (who uses river water for their municipal drinking water source)
The Reactor Operator (at the time UPA) was clueless when asked how long the Reactor had been leaking. As young boys, it was routine for us to fish downstream of the outlet pipe about 100 yards at a park. The Operator had guaranteed the community that there could never be a leak. There were safeguards for everything. I guess there was except for a primary-to-secondary cooling system leak.
Right, and I think there are dozens of stories like yours from all over the country.
Terrific as usual. I too appreciate your linking the three industries together and the reference to CEC research so long ago.
I wonder if Lbrty and the the kids ever caught any fish.
Blessings to all
Let’s hope not. This was a weapons breeder masqueraded as a electrical generating reactor. (looked identical to Dimona) RediKilowat, Atoms for Peace …
Yes, Walleye and Small Mouth Bass were plentiful.
Where are the wingnut religious leaders to tell us that mining, nuclear, and oil disasters are wrought by god for not having enacted environmentally responsible energy policies? /s
Burn baby burn? This sound like it will be a Disco Inferno. Looking forward to the first show that uses the music.
Jon?
Not that “they” would ever let “us” know.
Gee, this oil leak isn’t just a Keynesian project, like digging holes & filling them up to create jobs? Drilling for oil & burning it up. Sounds similar.
I cought (and ate) lots of fish out of Watts Bar Lake.
That’s probably what’s wrong with me.
“)
We are doing our part… We went Solar in late 2008
And boy has it paid off…The savings keep piling up..
This is from the local Cable News channel in the Tampa Bay area about an odor that authorities think may be coming from the oil spill
From your link
That’s what they said about the WTC fire.
You know, there was a valid REASON for a moratorium on drilling at that depth. Doesn’t anybody read anymore? Doesn’t anybody learn from history?
Tell it to the asshole in the WH.
Rhetorical Qs.
Yeah, I think they probably had their fingers, toes, legs, and eyes crossed when they said that one.
I haven’t noticed any odor but I’m a ways inland . But the winds have been blowing from that direction for most of the last few days.
Of course but it seems like there should be some real answers. Crist is flip-flopping on offshore drilling once again, now that the slick is headed toward Florida but he’s old enough to remember when the Gulf of Mexico was sort of hit or miss. Were you going to enjoy a nice day at the beach or were you going to get covered in tar balls? Because that’s what “drill baby, drill” will take us back to.
Possible link to Halliburton:
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2010/4/28/82733/7847
A Big NOPE!!
It is the old we can do it at any cost attitude!
Last time I entered the ocean on Miami Beach, over 30 years ago, I got tar balls. Last time for me; once was enough. I think in those days tankers flushed off the coast and the tar washed ashore.
But if it failed before it MUST be ready (like a LV slot machine) to succeed now, right?
;-)
Excellent post, Scarecrow. Thank you.
Yep. It would have been about 30 years ago for me too. A thoroughly disgusting experience. Not to mention a painful one. The water burned my skin. But hey, that’s okay! Orahma likes the idea.
I am sure they were from the tankers or just bilge mixed with bunker oil…
I grew up seeing them during my summers in Nahant. They sure could be damn messy! And damn hard to clean off..
Disgusting enough for me never to do it again. I was staying at a hotel on the beach. It had a swimming pool, which is where I spent the rest of my outdoor time. Couldn’t believe that would be allowed at one of the fanciest beach resorts in the U.S. Boy, was I naive.
Thank you for this post. Too many people who should know better are buying the idea that nuclear energy is necessary to solve climate change. We need to keep making these connections. Sure wish we had some leadership that wasn’t totally bought by the energy industry.
N.Y. Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/us/29spill.html?src=mv
Next up in the bullshit department: “Think of all the oil that hasn’t spilled! We’re the most safest industry on the planet ever!”
The only reason why nuclear is on the table is because Exelon is a big O donor.
After living in the mountains of the west for the last 15 years and watching almost EVERY CONTROLLED BURN started by the US Forest Service for the last 10 years in Colorado get OUT OF CONTROL almost the very same day it got started, I’m sure nothing could possibly go wrong here…
I’m not up on burning oil slicks on water, but I seem to remember it can’t be done because typically the oil layer is too thin. I guess we’ll see.
Here’s the problem. Solar and wind and biomass are never going to be enough to supply even 20 percent of the energy we consume. So either we have to cut back or go nuclear. There really isn’t another viable alternative.
No link, but I read or heard recently that nuclear is a net energy negative, considering energy used in mining materials that go into the construction, energy used in moving materials to the site, energy used in the construction itself, energy used to transport waste to wherever it’s going to be dumped, if they can ever figure out what to do with it, etc. I think it takes about a decade to construct a nuke plant, so there must be lots & lots of energy consumed in that process.
While searching to see if I could find the link for my 34, I came across this dn headline about 3 fires at nuke plants recently.
Sorry to disabuse you of this notion but 20% of Iowa’s energy comes from wind power
There is also Tidal Energy, a mode you perhaps overlooked. The La Rance station in France is currently generating 240 Megawatts.
Far superior to nuclear IMO.
You failed to factor in the savings from conservation. And building smaller houses. And building mass transit.
Nuclear sucks. Apparently, the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in San Luis Obispo county has had problems lately. And that was never supposed to happen.
So what You are trying to tell us is that the Congress passing an energy policy would have prevented this spill.
Or that if we don’t drill anymore spills like this won’t happen.
I’ll bet You still go to the station and fill Your car with gas, and buy and use everything that oil makes and affords even to the groceries you buy.
So my question to You is what is Your answer to this other than complaining about it?
You don’t seem to relize that the tankers bring the oil from other places sail into the Gulf where this rig was, and they carry more than this will spill in a year on one ship. One storm, one accident, or collision and the whole Gulf will be awash in oil.
So if we don’t drill more tankers and more chance of a worse disaster, and all the energy policy the Congress can come up with won’t solve the problems and dangers.
If we sware off off oil completely we won’t need it anymore. Are You willing bto do that?
Like coal and oil/gas, the key to sustaining profitability is to keep as many of the externalities either unpriced or, if priced, imposed on someone else or subsidized by govt. Extraction costs on local communities, and pollution costs on emissions/waste, or socialization of the costs of accidents are the key. Forcing these costs to be internalized and reflected in the final product makes most of the options look like lousy bargains. So the politics of hiding/shifting costs becomes the driving factor in profits and then becomes the source of government corruption. It’s a really hard problem.
Failing to think through the consequences of what could go wrong under predictable scenarios lies at the heart of America’s morally corrupt and intellectually bankrupt energy policies.
Well said, except you can delete the word, “energy,” because what you said applies to all American policy, foreign and domestic.
Being an economist, I’m only too aware of externalities. Just like to point out specific ones when they arise.
that is the stench of America rotting.
http://www.theoildrum.com is one of my favorite sites for oil and energy talk
You must have read a different post.
This post essentially says that a lack of comprehensive and judicious energy planning, without an eye towards consequences, leads to more of the same problems. There’s no claim “this never would have happened.”
And if you yourself have found energy sainthood, and found out how to only use alternative forms of energy, please state how you accomplish that.
For instance, I wonder what initial form of energy is providing the electricity for your use of the Internet?
We have to deal with the reality of the existing infrastructure, which obviously has hundreds of platforms, many probably older than this one, and the current reliance of imports from all over the world. But if that’s true, then we can’t accept without question industry claims about the level of risks or the capacity for containing damage during weather-related or man-made accidents/catastrophe. The plea I made is for greater and honesty and humility about these obvious risks. That might, or should, lead to better training/safety procedures, better regulator enforcement, and certainly better contingency procedures and equipment. Until we take those steps, it seems foolish to continue increasing the risks under today’s regime.
I have no illusions about how difficult it will be to substantially displace our reliance on these more dangerous fuels/technologies. But it seems logical that you don’t displace them by building/investing in more of them, under current technologies, with virtually no change in how we deal with their risks, their externalities. That suggests, in addition to better regulation — about which I’m only slightly hopeful, having been a regulator — a sustained effort to bring the full costs to bear in the final products, via taxes or whatever so that consumer choices are at least helping us moving in a direction that reduces the magnitude of this huge problem.
Where would I put my money/focus for new technology? Efficiency improvements — retrofits of existing buildings, standards for new buildings and appliances and cars, and rebates for replacing the old with the newer’ more efficient models, etc. Changing the way we farm and produce things. I believe the cheapest solutions for the next decade all lie in using energy more wisely and using less to do the same or more work. Or simply figuring out how to live better with less energy intensity. More usage based on supply with the current technologies (with some exceptions), seems foolhardy.
If we have a miracle, and that’s what it will take, someone will invent a breakthrough in fuels/technology that changes the game and we can reverse policy and not care about how much we use — but that time is not yet.
This article from NIRS, Top 10 Reasons Nukes Won’t Save the Climate, is excellent and shows very clearly how foolish the nuclear power argument is.
History ended a while back. Hadn’t you heard? /s
Oh, pshaw! Yes we can! All we need is a magic wand.
I read the post and what it said, but energy policy that would change things will never come from the Congress of the Untied States of America.
To think that some vote of Congress will solve any of our problems is asinine.
The Congress has caused all of our problems uncluding those of our energy by either their actions or inactions. I might add and not fixed one. We just saw the fix the problem with our healthcare being in the hands of the profit makers by putting more of us in the hands of the profitmakers.
We saw them save the Banks only to complain about them being the Banks they saved.
No!! Just like You I still use all the carbon based power we all do, because even if I switched Myself it would mean nothing in the scheme of things.
Water power was here even before coal and oil and there is enough energy in the running water of this nation to generate so much electricity that it almost could be free. We elected though to let private power Corporations supply our power in the ways they decided was fit, and got what we got.
No. They do not do this under any such delusion. They. Do. Not.
They continue to defend these policies because they do not care about these kinds of risks and outcomes.
When do we get to collectively abandon this ridiculous framing that these people are just hapless ignorant rubes, and start dealing with the problem under the recognition of the malevolence and indifference that is actually there.
I wonder if this could be Obama’s “New Orleans.”
He sure seems unconcerned and that thing could continue to spew oil for months if not years. If the oil slick is that big already, how big will it be a year from now? What will it do to the gulf coast?
Obama is the least reactive entity I have ever witnessed. At least Bush smirked and strutted.
Speaking of New Orleans, it is fucked. How long before the oil leaches into the city? Katrina was the coffin. The oil spill is the nails. All we will have left of New Orleans will be what we see on HBO. Or am I being too dramatic?
Well said Scarecrow, I agree completely. Any transition to a “New Energy Source” will take time, in the mean time we can do what you said and I would add installing solar on every roof top in the country where feasible. Would be a bit expensive but would pay back in a reasonably short time.. In the mean time we have to get better at using the dirty sources of energy so we mitigate all the environmental damage being done. But we must change how we get our energy fundamentally as all the stuff will run out someday and if we haven’t figured out something better we all be SOL!
A tanker went down with the platform. We are hearing too much about that time bomb on the ocean floor.
waving to Senator Mary..☺☺
Update from NYT: limited fire technique tried, flows edging closer to mouth of Mississippi and other coast line; weather/wind flows a concern. This still looks grim.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/us/29spill.html?hp
On that thought og going nuclear: Turns out that Stainless Steel (like is used in coolant piping in nuclear reactors) becomes brittle over time when it is exposed to ionized water (such as water that is run thru the cores of nuclear power reactors. Who would have guessed? Nobody in DoE or the NRC or the predecessor IAEA. Not until leaks started occurring.
And leaks are still happening:
Here’s a document that talks about recent leaks of tritium contaminated water into groundwater at Nuclear Power Plant sites. It’s constant and not reported on the news.
btw, I am enamored with Nuclear Physics, since a little kid. It doesn’t frighten me but man’s incompetence, carelessness and naiveté does.
A “tanker” or a large storage tank? I haven’t seen anything about a tanker, but I might have missed it.
I’m a totally unrepentant glass-half-full person, but the fishery damages that this spill could do are deeply distressing. Perhaps I’m ignorant about the magical advantages of burning off a near-surface volatile fraction of the spill. Still (cue half-full), it’s something, right?
Of course there is THIS educated guess/suggestion that the flow rate may be grossly underestimated…
Deepwater was actually a ship, as it could move around. It’s the “spaghetti strandingness” of the pipes connected to it that are leaking the most, although the well is still leaking.
NOAA has some background here, and the dude from NOAA did a pretty good job explaining on NPR this morning.
I was mistaken. I thought it was a tanker but it must have been a tank.
“There could be as much as 700,000 gallons of diesel fuel on board the sunken rig.”
or what Kelly said.
Thanks for that link.
Using BP’s new numbers, that’s 6 million gals that has leaked as of this afternoon.
That’s approx 1/2 the size of the Exxon-Valdez spill in one week and BP can’t close the well. (kind of curious, the NYT is referring to it as a ‘spill’. are they really that clueless?)
Thanks.
Aaargh. That’s yesterday’s post from SkyTruth. Today’s says that the spill likely is already bigger than the Exxon Valdez spill and an update from a half hour ago says the edge is only 10 miles from shore.
Shit.
Somebody ought to invite Sarah Palin to do a fly-over (the way Bush flew past New Orleans) or to get down on the beaches to catch all the oil as it comes to shore.
Time to Change baby change!
Isn’t a good thing that BP had 200 miles of boom and 4 skimmers on site the day after. Could you imagine how bad it would be if they didn’t? /s
CAFE standard needs to be increased to 45mpg, effective 18 mo but I doubt we’ll see anything than hand wringing.
I like the sentiment Mark, maybe we could get the fellow that just signed the OK on further off shore exploration to do the cleanup on the beaches starting tomorrow.
As if this recent oil spill (along with others) isn’t horrific enough, the whole idea of a “controlled” burning of the oil in question is ludicrous and dangerous! Speaking of pouring gasoline on the fire!
Oops, my bad. I meant to use the updated link but it looks like I pasted the older link that was forwarded to me by someone.
As to that I should say that before a couple of hours ago I had not heard of SkyTruth so YYMV WRT their credibility. Still, it doesn’t look like a doomer porn site so I tossed in the link ;-)
Um, wow.
The TV in the corner is barking: according to CNN “breaking news” the leak flow has now been upgraded to at least 100,000 gal/day.
The guy testified to Congress back in November. And I’m pretty sure I remember his work being referenced on something else; he’s kind of the go-to guy for analysis of satellite images for environmental information (I think).
Next time BP is asked if drilling off shore can be done safely, it should be followed by whom? And how Competent are they? Can they be trusted with our wildlife and water?
Amazing. It sounds like 10 year olds are running our media stations, 18 year olds are running our financial institutions, and 12 year olds are in charge of the The Minority Party. Michael Steele is the Black Mascot of the Republican party to prove government is incompetent.
Not a Tea Partier in sight to fight the BIG Government in Arizona. Arizona hates Government but are crying like babies the Government is not fixing their problems. These people need to make up their minds, either there is a role for Government or there is not. They have been screeming about this for decades. Where were they when Bush and the Republican’s were running the show? That’s right everybody knows they have no plans about anything but stealing American’s money for their rich pals.
Hey Scarecrow. I don’t mean to dis anything You say.
My complaint is that most all of us are still fooled that our Government can fix or control anything.
There are no regulations against accidents.
What ever happened on this rig was evidently beyond what the company and engineers planed for.
My corporation used to sell everything that’s needed to drill for oil and gas so I am no fool on the technology.
Even the best equipment money can buy can fail, and it seldom sends out warning signs.
To solve our energy problems is less in technology and more in want and will. We could today begin to make the switch to existing tech., but the will is not there in the people and the Government.
Only the day the oil supply is cut off will the people and the Government say, “OH” maybe we should have worked on switching fuels.
BP just announced they’ve ID’d another leak. Approx 200,000 gals/day now.
Someone mentioned nuclear leaks from reactors and i thought i should mention the frontend problems with the uranium cycle.
With all the talk of the oilspill we will be hearing from the pro nuke lobby how clean and green their product is.
Here in NM we have a long and dirty history with mining and milling of uranium. There are around a thousand mine sites mostly in the Navajo rez area. The most infamous is the Church Rock mine where a few weeks after Three Mile Island the largest radioactive spill in the US occured. The tailings pond ruptured and 1100 tons of radioactive sludge and 90 million gallons of contaminated water flowed down the Rio Puerco. It recieved very little news coverage coming so soon after TMI, and it was in Indian country so NBD.
Recently a new permit was issued to reopen Church Rock and other mines in CO and one in the Grand Canyon are reopeaning. Consentration and enrichment facilities are under construction to feed the planned reactor construction.
It appears that with the help of our green president that green nuclear and dirty oil is what we will get.
Yeah, those flow rate estimates just keep rising. Not good.
I have a certain degree of personal attachment to south LA and right now I’m feeling the same helpless unease that I did in 2005 as Katrina swept down.
As usual the trickle of news info is not enough. With all those ROVs swimming around down there you might expect there to be more pictures of the leak points. Those initial descriptions of a flagellating and kinked pipe don’t seem like something that can avoid more breakage.
You know, I should probably re-phrase that…
I can say as someone who lost their livelyhood to the Exxon-Valdes spill. What you see is not really whats happening. Nobody is showing you the oil that dont float. You need a good scanning sonar that is tuned to see the submerged oil. Not all the oil floats. And everyone lies to save face. What you see is not whats happening.
Scarecrow, thanks for the link to the Halliburton connection. It would certainly be worthwhile to find out exactly what they were doing on the drilling facility.
Thanks to everyone for your comments through the day, they’ve been most instructive about issues I’ve known nothing about. Thanks Scarecrow for writing such a great post that evoked such a great dialogue.
Blessings to all,
Every form of energy that we are capable of using on a large scale has risks. That said, I don’t think we can afford to leave energy policy and management in the hands of the deregulated free market uber alles crowd.
If we do, then we’re just gonna witness disaster after disaster.
I’d be extremely surprised if that were true. And they only take 5 years to build, the other 5 years is paperwork. Some countries build em in 3 years… not that I’d advise that.
Great work as usual, scarecrow. One little thing, however, which I’m guilty of as well and I’d venture all of us are, and which I think needs to change.
We keep using words like “bankrupt” and “broken” to describe circumstances which lead to outcomes other than those we (Progressives) want. But for energy companies, for oil exploration contractors, and even for Washington, our energy policy is anything BUT broken. It’s working very nicely, thank you very much, under these interests’ definition of “working.”
It’s working for the exploration companies, because their services are in demand and they are being paid handsomely to provide them. It’s working for BP, because the government is bailing them out – spending national defense and security resources in the Gulf, instead of the company spending its money. And it’s working for our government, because it gets to play knight in shining armor and “come to the rescue.”
When it’s all over, the exploration company will be forgotten; BP will settle out of court any civil suit the government may bring at a fraction of the true cost (budgetary or environmental); and the government will go back to its dual role of approving more domestic drilling when it is politically expedient to do so, and raking in still more political capital by decrying incidents like this when they occur.
The only thing “bankrupt” in any of this will be more and more individual Americans, as the game of Corporations First continues being played.