I’m sure more competent counsel are going over the Federal District Judge’s ruling that the US Government did not make a sufficient case for imposing a temporary moratorium on new deepwater drilling permits. After listening to Dylan Ratigan Tuesday agree with Mary Landrieu that the moratorium was just so unfair to the industry, you’d think it was a foregone conclusion.
As I write this Tuesday night, MSNBC just reported that Secretary Salazar will issue an order reinstating the moratorium and provide the court with additional justifications. So it may be that the Government simply didn’t put it’s best case forward initially.
Judging from his reasoning (see Savage’s piece in NYT), which buys without question the industry’s arguments, this particular judge probably wasn’t ideologically inclined to accept the government’s arguments in any case. And there’s the little matter of his reportedly having an apparent financial conflict in the industry stocks he owned.
But when a judge argues that we would never ground all airplanes just because a wing fell off one plane, you have to wonder. It’s a known fact that the US airline regulator has grounded entire fleets of similar aircraft when one of them suffered a serious safety failure. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has, in the past, required all nuclear plants built by the same manufacturer to shut down for inspections, when one of that manufacturer’s plants suffered a common mode safety failure. Government-ordered massive recalls of tens of thousands of cars and trucks happen all the time when a few are found to have dangerous defects. This judge just made it up that government doesn’t routinely do these things when the conditions warrant. It does, and industry always goes through denial and a lot of squealing, but the public expects its government to do this.
So in the absence of any evidence of hasty, poor lawyering by the Government’s attorneys, you have to wonder how any competent court could conclude that there isn’t a compelling case for stopping all offshore drilling until serious safety issues common to all of them are resolved. After all, they use essentially the same technologies, the same procedures, the same materials, the same contractors, the same safety rules and the same motives driving the same activities. This is as close to a no-brainer as you get.
Consider what the industry itself has told us and what we’ve learned in recent weeks watching BP stumble from one failed attempt to another but still unable to cap at best a small fraction of the thousands of barrels of oil gushing from its uncontrolled well.
We know that the industry does not have a reliable method to stop a massive deepwater gusher in the event the blowout protector fails. We now know that BOPs have failed on dozens of occasions and when they did, they often caused major blowouts, a few of them castastrophic.
We heard the CEOs from other major oil companies confess to a House Committee that when this happens, they do not have an effective technology for stopping the gushing short of spending months drilling relief wells that may require multiple efforts before they’re successful. The irrelevant "we’re ahead of schedule" announcements forget to mention this.
So we know that a relief well may take many months before it manages, we hope, to bring this rogue well under control. In the meantime, millions of barrels of oil will gush uncontrolled into the ocean and cause irreparable harm.
We know that the environmental damage likely from such a gusher can be catastrophic to an entire region, and the economic costs can be in the tens of billions. We know we don’t know all the pathways or consequences or adverse effects, we don’t know how to predict or measure them, and we don’t know how to contain them.
We know that there are not sufficient resources — equipment or people — or plans, or coordination skills to capture/contain all of the oil rising to the surface or to prevent it from spoiling hundreds of miles of beaches, marshes, wetlands, etc. We know we won’t save even a tiny fraction of the wildlife this affects.
We know that federal regulators have proven to be notoriously incompetent and compromised; we know they didn’t do adequate environmental reviews for permits at other rigs subject to the moratorium; we know the industry has knowingly and deliberately corrupted the regulators; we know that safety regulations and enforcement have become hopelessly compromised in theory and in practice. We know we don’t know whether these other wells are safe or can be made so.
We know that an uncontrolled gusher is not merely possible, but a logical outcome from a plausible chain of equipment failures and human negligence. We know these things happen, even though the industry assured us they never do. We know all the oil companies used the same filings to give us virtually identical contingency plans and tell us these same lies.
We know that the high costs of deepwater drilling create strong pressures on the drillers to cut corners that put safety and environmental damage at risk.
And we know that every one of these findings could apply to any one of the dozens of drilling operations that would otherwise go forward without the moratorium. And because that’s true, we know that other nations are also imposing moratoria on similar operations.
On PBS News Hour, a spokeswoman for the American Petroleum Institute, which won this round, assured us that everything is fine, that all the rigs had been inspected and found safe. She was lying right in our faces. The fact is, we don’t even know yet what to inspect for, and no one can unconditionally vouch for the adequacy of the BOPs and mudding/cementing/sealing procedures and contingency plans they all rely on to prevent another blowout.
Given everything we know about the massive risks of further deepwater drilling as long as these issues are not resolved, only a judge completely oblivious to the public interest and predisposed to credit only the industry’s economic interests could rule that the US Government is not justified, even required by reason and its public responsibilities to stop all such drilling until there are assurances of safety and adequate mitigation.
Judge Feldman was appointed by Ronald Reagan. He’s just like half of the federal judges along the Gulf region who often have to recuse themselves because of ties to the industry. These are "federal judges," but how different are they from MMS with robes? Oil is our opium, and Afghanistan’s corruption has nothing on us.
As the Gipper would say, "government is not the solution, government is the problem." When government is captured by industry thinking, I’d say he had a point.
John Chandley
(edits and updates with video Wednesday a.m.)



58 Comments

If deep water drilling is so unsafe that there must be a moritorium?
Then why is Obama demanding BP drill two deep water wells into the same basin that blew out the first rig, with all the same risks and no new procations, in hopes they don’t blow out like the other one, to plug the other one.
The ignorance of the people in our Government Just boggles the mind.
It’s like setting off two nuclear bombs to mitgate the the damage from the fist nuclear bomb You set off.
You could put all these people in Washington in a bag, and shake it up, and be lucky to pour half a brain out.
Seems like the consequences of failure are far more tragic than with an airplain crash. I think that the destruction of an entire eco system is far more tragic than a plain crash.
The relief wells are necessary to stop a gusher that is 100% certain. They have some degree of certainty to be able to stop the gusher, based on past experience. The odds of each relief well also blowing out is some number less than 100%. It’s a comparative risk analysis.
A Reagan appointee; A thirty years on echo of the Great man himself.
What an utter disgrace.
You absolutely nailed it, thanks.
Latest from Obama Admin
You absolutely nailed it, thanks.
Thanks to mafr for summarizing my sentiments of affirmation of this great post.
Blessings,
As they were saying this, to the assemblage of the countries legislators, their teams of lawyers who would be in the ranks of the best advocates in the world, were in the process of applying for this order.
What words are there to describe that?
What is missing from these kind of people?
The very recent Montara experience should’ve been a wake-up call to the inadequacies of drilling practices and blowout prevention. Half-way round the world, and the jurisdiction of another country should not have been a deterrent to an industry-wide assessment of these practices in the U.S. for the very reasons outlined above — the commonality of contractors around the globe, for one.
This comment is the most stupid one I’ve read today.
1. These wells being drilled are filled with drilling mud.
2. The Mud will not be removed as it was for the Mancondo well
3. The mud will be replaced, at the right time with cement.
4. The Mancondo well failed when the drilling mud was removed.
5. What’s your solution to stop the oil? Can you swim down there and push a cork in this BOP?
Well said.
Where are the conservatives decrying activist judges? How can a judge be more activist than to overturn an executive order because it might cost him money personally?
It should also be pointed out…and this can’t be overstated…that the plaintiffs picked this judge for a reason! They KNEW they were going to get a favorable hearing, any honest jurist would have recused him/herself over such a blatant conflict of interest.
I would hope in the old days a judge could get impeached for this clear abuse of power.
I would hope that would hold true in more contemporary times but that hope would be foolish.
If I Ran The World, Episode 38763873: Salazar’s Revised Drilling Moratorium
“Whereas shale — the sole barrier between us and the catastrophic release of many ancient, fully Armageddon-genic deepwater petroleum reservoirs — crumbles to dust if you so much as look at it funny, ixnay on the eepwaterday illingdray until such time as that fact may change. Any questions? Lurve, Ken.”
If I ran the world….Salazar would only be making statements from his retirement home…
the DOJ was gutted by Bush. Stuffed with hundreds of incompetent ideologues. It’s dead, for all intents. They’re worthless. They can’t litigate their way out of a wet paper bag.
Unfortunately the relief wells are the only cure for the malaise currently sickening the beautiful and bountiful Gulf of Mexico. My once pristine Pensacola beach is so befouled it has been closed, and this is just the pitiful first drops of the destructive flow that will wash ashore for unknown months. Transocean has the opportunity to partially rectify its complacency deferring to BP’s decision to cut corners to save a few million dollars that killed eleven employees and polluted the Gulf by competently drilling the relief wells and stopping the flow.
No, but they certainly know how to use wet paper bags to elicit confessions that support their fantasies.
Shale in deep overburden pressurized formations is slightly more robust and resilient.
Salazar would only be making statements from his
retirement homejail cell…Fixed it.
Any guesses on how they KNEW they would get the response they were seeking? Golf trip to Scotland, hunting trip with Cheney, yacht in the harbor, stock options; maybe photos taken in a dark private setting…
I vaguely recall something in September 2001 that caused all air travel to be halted across the entire nation for a number of days. Would this judge have ruled that was arbitrary and ordered planes back in the air?
I guess we have no reasonable expectation of judicial ethics…
From what I here Obama is more to blame then BP.
So, if we just get the goberment outa the way every thing will be fine.
After all we never kill the Gulf before, it’s probably a one-time deal.
/s
I am not certain that it is fair to penalize the innocent just to make up for the guilty. Or are we saying that all oil companies are evil? Are we willing to fire all of the oil company workers just so workers in Venezuela, China, Nigeria, Norway, et. al., can expand their employment?
If that is the case, then I propose that we take a poll herein to see who of us drives a car or flies in a plane. If we all continue to use carbon based energy, then it is just transferring the problem to other countries – or don’t we care about them? Is it OK to pollute Nigeria? or Venezuela?
Green energy has not shown any ability to compete in the market (unless we are talking about ethanol which takes land, takes product from the food chain and increases prices, and produces the same CO2),
Hydro ruins rivers and kills fish. I am frustrated by the simplistic proposals that comes from our side. We need to propose solutions other than turning back the clock to our agrarian past.
Thanks. I intended to exaggerate for comic effect.
He’s probably got a history of industry friendly decisions.
Name one that isn’t.
If you take away all the subsidies that are given to oil and gas companies, not to mention all the government investments in their infrastructure, how competitive would they be with alternatives? The market is simply too skewed for that argument to hold any weight.
The things that you don’t mention is the LIMITED amount of oil in the ground. Are you suggesting that we wait until we’ve extracted every available drop before we even attempt to find an alternative? How much of the environment has to be ruined, how many wars have to be fought to protect oil company profits in your opinion?
I am not an engineer. But this is obvious – there is no current alternative to oil to run our cars – except perhaps natural gas, which is itself a hydrocarbon. According to Wikipedia, there are over 250 million cars in the US. There is no way that we can replace those, or even provide fueling stations in a short period of time. Electric cars are non-polluting, but the creation of the electricty is very polluting.
Do we make gasoline cars illegal? Do we provide financing for everyone that needs a car? Or do we just make it difficult to get to work everyday?
If it were an easy problem, there would have been a proposed solution.
Hydrogen is the answer, but it will likely take more than three decades to effect the change.
You seem to conflate the moratorium’s motivation — management of a newly realized risk of immense permanent damage — with one of its effects, namely transitory economic impact on the oil industry, and then further assume a punishment motivation for that impact. If that’s correct, that’s pretty fancy dancing.
No I am not suggesting that we stop looking for an answer. Do you use oil products?
I am not a protagonist for the oil companies, but i am also not in favor of eliminating them before there is a viable alternative. That would significantly harm average citizens.
Yes, we can start by dispensing with the false either/or arguments. What we need to do is ramp up our use of alternatives while we engage in conservation. The US wastes so much energy that a savings of 10-20% is very do-able without even making radical lifestyle changes. Proven, safe alternatives like geothermal, wind and solar can be packaged to account for at least 20% of our total.
Developing geothermal to its full potential in the Southwest, for instance, would result un additional gigawatts of electricity available for the IC to EV transition of many thousands of vehicles in the region. Just one example.
As for alternatives not making it in the marketplace…what marketplace? The rigged, phony one that subsidizes the oil and gas business at every turn? This includes hundreds of billions of our “defense” spending annually. It includes granting licenses and permits to profit from public resources for pennies on the dollar.
Even with all these subsidies and market-skewing devices the kilowatt hour/ barrel equivalent cost of the latest technologies in PV, geothermal and wind are more than viable already, and getting more so every five years.
Insofar as there is no significant call for eliminating oil companies, what are you reacting to?
So we segue to electric cars (or in my opinion, Hydrogen), How do I drive from Virginia to Denver without fueling stations along the away? With the growth in our population I would bet we will be using just as much gas 20 years from now as we do today.
That is the underlying theme of the debate – lets stop drilling for oil and punish the oil companies.
All that does is to let the rigs go to Nigeria, eliminate the American jobs, and ultimately force us to buy more oil from many countries that don’t like us (excluding our Canadian friends, of course)
If you say so, I guess.
You see no safety issue in the moratorium?
Of course I use oil products, as you well knew before you asked. Now show me the same courtesy and answer my question: How much of the environment has to be ruined, how many wars have to be fought to protect oil company profits in your opinion?
There are no alternatives if we are handicapped by secret energy meetings like the ones Cheney had and Obama is following. If we weren’t controlled by big oil, we could maybe have an energy plan that would lessen the $1 Billion a day we pay out for foreign oil:
1. Reduce the oil for military operations 20%
2. Convert over the road trucks to natural gas to reduce our civilian demand by 40%
3. Encourage Americans to continue to convert over to hybrids and the VOLT.
4. Replace power plants that burn oil with solar, wind, or nuclear. Make it a national law that utilities must buy power generated by homeowners.
All these could help, but the oil lobby will never allow them.
That’s not what I’ve seen at all. The underlying theme is that they need to be forced to obey safety regulations and to do their utmost to prevent disasters like this, given their demonstrated lack of ability to do it on their own. All of this while looking for alternatives, like the green initiatives which you so scorn.
Again with the either/or. Not every car in every driveway needs to be an EV. For pure EV I’d be satisfied if we could get to 10% of the overall fleet in the nearer term, much of it gov’t/commercial fleet vehicles.
Prius has proven that hybrids can be a real subsitute for pure IC, and at a price that over 50% of new car buyers can afford, even without subsidy. As for the other 50%, there are plenty of fuel-efficient choices on car lots. If enough people choose them new today we’ll have excellent used car choices down the road. Right now, people with only 2-3K to spend face an ocean of late ’90s SUVs for sale. This is short-sighted and scandalous, but welcome to the USA.
For your drive I’d suggest looking at the choices available today in the US and Europe (not in some wizzy Jetsons futureworld). I’ll be happy if you made that drive getting 50 or more miles per gallon. You and everyone else! And if those big rigs you pass were getting 12-15 MPG with a heavy load, instead of the 5-8 mpg they get now. Oh, and all of you being Euro 3 or better emissions compliant.
Give me an America where we are all making the best choices using available technology within 5 years — and on the road to even better ones in 10, 20, and I will be a happy camper.
Oil company shills are all about being one way. You’re either entirely, whole hog into oil, scorning and disparaging everything else, or you’re a hippie tree hugger who just wants to victimize the poor oil companies without cause.
Scarecrow:
Well done, thank you, environmental protection is a duty not an option.
bigbrother
Agreed. “Waaaaaaaah, LEAVE BIG OIL ALOOOOOONE!!!!!” is not an especially persuasive argument.
It doesn’t persuade me of anything other than the belief that the person doing it must be financially dependent on big oil.
That’s an easy solution that I’ve had bouncing around in the cobwebs in my head for a couple years
Interchangeable batteries
Once you start getting low, you pull into the battery station instead of gas station and swap the batteries out. It’s simple; I’ve done it plenty of times in forklifts when I worked in a distribution center. You don’t have to buy the batteries; pay a deposit (yearly or monthly or whatever) through someone like AAA or your insurance co or whomever and a swapping charge when you swap it out, which also pays the guy who physically does the swapping. Electric engines have plenty of torque and last all day, and if you have trouble call the AAA guy. And there are less moving parts to break down which saves on maintenance
Instead of spending 100 Billion dollars per year on wars, take 30B of that money and invest in green research. And here’s a novel idea; partner with people in the countries or states with the new raw materials you might need, and stop blowing them up or putting them on reservations. Then take the other 70B of the money and invest in in programs that real people need
YMMV
If this is developing into a war question, then I am in the wrong pew. I am only talking about how people get to work in the morning, especially if they double their commuting costs (gas at $10/gallon). If the President wants to fight in Afghanastan, that is a different issue. We are not arguing to close down oil drilling because we want to return our guys home. We are arguing how we provide energy to everyday folks.
The interchangeable battery thing might work. I’ll guess we need over 1 billion batteries (4 per current car count), maybe more, and I have no idea what kind of resources that takes, or pollution it causes to manufacture and dispose of them. And it has to be nationwide or I need to keep two cars, one for the electric area and a gas powered car for the non-electric area – and that means continuing the use of gasoline. How do we get from here to there?
As for how much pollution we can stand – as little as possible. And I support anything that is reasonable. But stopping drilling in the gulf where we can control it, while letting other countries that are not as concerned as we will do it elsewhere to satisfy our demand. Actually, i have been wondering how much of the gulf is in international waters and could we stop the chinese from drilling there? or buying the remnants of BP?
There are polluting problems all over. I live near DC and my HOA insists that I keep my grass growing and green. Not only does the mower pollute the atmosphere, the chemicals on the grass evetually feed into the Chesapeake. (I have a theory that HOA’s are designed to kill anything natural, and at the same time, insist on coddling plants that are not natural – like and English lawn)
What I do not understand is that if green energy were so easy, why would the huge oil companies not do it? For their own benefit. If green energy is so easy, why wouldn’t BP, with a trillion in oil reserves, capture the green energy market. It is a little like the railroads that thought they were in the RR business when they were really in the transportation business, and the let the airlines snooker them.
The Niger Delta is probably the most still-inhabited-and-massively-polluted region on the planet. Imagine the Gulf oil spill happening every year for decades and you’ve got an approximation of what is going on in that part of southern Nigeria.
FWIW, I agree with the sentiment of your post.
After further research … forget the battery thing
Ultracapacitors are the future
http://www.eecs.mit.edu/eecsenergy/storage.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/4252628
I would guess that contrasted with most of you, I began reading and contributing my comments to FDL rather recently. But in that short time, I have generally found FDL to be an excellent source of accurate information; indeed, I have posted links to this site everywhere, and even added FDL to my blog roll. But notwithstanding my limited experience on this site, I still find unusual that FDL readers would ‘roll over’ when writers here support their arguments with phrases like “[i]t’s a known fact… .” (By definition, a fact is already known.) Where is the demand for proof when those writers ridicule a decision in the federal court by analogizing to fact patterns they (presumably) would have us believe are virtually identical to those offered to the court in the case under discussion, but which produced opposite results; and then fail to provide citations or links to these supposedly parallel scenarios?
Has intellectual rigor been replaced by adherence to a prescribed political dogma, even on FDL?
Geesh!
Rigor, eh? Well, your syntax seems clear, but I can’t tell from your writing style — IMHO convoluted (and I would know convoluted writing) — which of the following options you’re arguing:
(a) That as a general matter no alleged fact can be recited in a blog post without also providing a citation?;
(b) That bloggers owe Federal courts’ conclusions some greater degree of deference than anyone else, like they would receive in law?;
(c) That you’re aware in this particular incidence of specific ‘known facts’ that contradict Scarecrow’s paragraph that you quoted?;
(d) That you’re asking Scarecrow to provide link(s) to supporting information?;
…or something else entirely?
If (a), that would seem silly since this blog post is not a court filing. If (b), that would also seem silly as we’re not in court, counsellor. If (c), would you mind posting link(s) to supporting information please? Option (d) would seem the one to reflect best on you as a member of the FDL community, but if that was all you were after, then you would probably have made your post much shorter.
You been drinking to much of that kool aid, if You think those releif wells are less dangerous, and the only best way to stop this thing.
But Your just like most Americans that will believe anything their told.
Any one with a brain and can think would know the best way to plug a hole is stick something in it. If the oil can get out the hole, you can stick something in the hole. If the hole has holes in it’s sides, then you push Your plug down past those holes. You don’t wait three months, drill new holes, and tell people the same mud that blew out in the top kill won’t blow out the bottom kill. If there’s ten thousand pounds pressure blowing out the top, then there’s ten thousand pounds pressure blowing in from the bottom.
The whole deal is playing with the ignorance of the people believing anything they tell them.
I used to sell everything they use to drill oil and gas wells, and Your telling Me you know better than Me.
Give Me a Fuckin Break
I used to be an Oilfield Supply Company President, and I’m so glad to hear You know so much more than Me. Were You just a hand, or a drilling engineer, that You can sware this is the only way.
Excuse me? Your going to tell me you don’t know that it’s the ONLY known way of permanently stopping this disaster? The Gov’t should have NEVER EVER allowed any drilling below 1000 ft. since it’s obvious nobody in the OILY Industry has a clue at what to do in these situations and have never bothered it seems to even try and figure it out. I blame the non-regulators for this mess. But, this is what “capture” is all about isn’t it? It’s far cheaper to take control of the regulators that are supposed to be watching what you do in these circumstances then do it safely. Why? because $$ is all these companies care about. Damage to the larger economy and destruction of the environment is just a cost of business to these thugs.