Writing as someone who lived in Texas for over twenty years, I have some sympathy for Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and other oil state senators. Opposing the oil industry in Louisiana is like opposing the auto industry in Michigan: It's just not going to get you very far in state politics. But there's a difference between supporting a business important to your home state and being in its back pocket, which is what Landrieu, David Vitter, and other oil states senators look like when they demand that President Obama lift the moratorium on new offshore drilling before the Deepwater Horizon spill is stopped.
If Landrieu and Vitter really put Louisiana's economy and jobs ahead of energy interests, why not insist that the moratorium be lifted only upon imposition of a requirement that two relief wells be drilled simultaneously with any new deep water well? That would create plenty of new jobs.
If they really believe that deep water drilling is "safe overall," why not make sure by requiring oil companies to use the $500,000 remote control shutoff mechanism that BP disdained as too expensive? Surely, a $246 billion company can afford a few those.
If they care that much about Louisianans, how about first ensuring that BP shows good faith in making liabilty payouts?
Deep water drilling proponents maintain that the Gulf spill is no different than an airplane accident -- a fluke that is bound to happen sooner or later but that does not detract from the safety of deep water drilling. But airlines take great care to fly their planes in safety. They don't seek waivers, look for shortcuts, and ignore regulations. Until there's evidence that oil companies will operate in the same manner, and there's none, why should they be treated as if they do?...
The time has come for us to pause and think of living as it was. Jorma Kaukonen's "Genesis"...
Cowtown Patty has discovered the amazement of reggae. Leave your suggestions for her here...
Everybody is going to contribute to this clean up. We are all going to have to do it. We are going to have to get the money from the government and from the companies and we will figure out a way to do that.
Good old Tom, who never met an environmental regulation he liked, thinks taxpayers should help out the oll bidness, but opposes unions helping out themselves. Thus his anger over the Employee Free Choice Act:
What they are trying to do is change the rules. They want a hell of a lot more members, so they can have a hell of a lot more political influence, so they can change the way this country runs.
Gosh, we wouldn't want that. Considering what a great job Wall Street, the oll bidness, and Tom's buddies at the CoC have done, his outrage is both understandable and commendable...
Thursday, June 10, 2010
I Kid You Not Dept: Jack Coleman of EnergyNorthAmerica tells Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) that the spill is a fair price to pay protecting BP's contractualrights:
What Would We Do Without Her?: The former governor of Alaska, who quit after less than two years on the job to concentrate on lucrative speaking engagements, claims that President Obama's lack of executive experience caused him to commit the grievous error of not telephoning Tony Hayward, BP's lying CEO. According to Palin, who would give Hayward the benefit of the doubt, regular phone calls would be the best way for the president -- who we all know has a Ph. D. in Petroleum Engineering -- to "verify what BP reports." Um, Sarah, there is no "verify:" BP has less credibility than you. As the president says, why would he waste time meeting with someone who would "say all the right things" no matter what the truth of the matter?
Palin went on to brag about a compliance agency created on her watch, an agency that Pamela Miller, arctic program director for the Northern Alaska Environmental Center, says has yet to show "any tangible results in the oil fields" and that claims to the contrary are "hollow." Anyway, Miller added, "She walked. So how is she holding that entity accountable? What kind of executive experience is that?" Of course, Miller is likely an extremist greenie who opposes drilling in the proven and safe ANWR...
John Dickerson isn't my favorite Slate columnist, but he makes some good points here about the contradictory demands and unrealistic expectations put on a president during an emergency. He also gives short shrift to Palin's phone call nonsense...
"I will paint the Macinaw Bridge red with the blood of you and your family members." Joe Kresch, a 73-year Michigander who enjoys the benefits of Social Security and Medicare but who despises socialized medicine, sent this charming missive to Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI). Among other things, Kresch advised Stupak to follow "the footsteps of your son, Bart, Jr.," who committed suicide. Good man that he is, Kresch doesn't object to the president because "he is half black or half white." Although "not a racist," he opposes President Obama's "...belief of what our country should look like..." and the president's "...hidden black agenda..." As for the teabaggers, Kresch writes confidentially that "I am not a Tea Partier, although that does have some appeal." Indeed...
Arizona's former state attorney general worries that his state may be getting a reputation as intolerant. Gee, I wonder why? Meanwhile state Chamber of Commerce spokesman Garrick Taylor expressed irritation at boycotts of Arizona, opining that "If they were truly invested in the immigration issue, they'd be pressing Washington for comprehensive immigration reform." Apparently, Taylor believes that Sonic Youth should feel more soft-hearted concern Arizona business climate and less moral nausea over the Papers Please law...
Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson has written an embarrassing article article about the administration's response to the spill that illustrates why a magazine that specializes in puff pieces about rock stars should leave the in-depth political reporting to publications that do in-depth political reporting. The first part of the article would be impressive had it been written before the spill; now, it's hindsight. The entire piece is devoid of political context except for a couple of paragraphs at the end, and even they are narrow in scope. Reading it, one would think that all Obama had to when he took office was straighten out MMS, and that there was no financial crisis, no mortgage crisis, no rapidly rising unemployment, no wars, and no health care legislation. And, naturally, it repeats the bogus assumption that the government could have stopped the spill by taking over, but -- as with everyone else who claims this -- never says how...
As Norman Goldman put it, the political version of the clap. But I do appreciate the reminder of how bad we had it for eight years and of how we're still reeling from the impact of compassionate conservatism...
A new ABC poll finds more Americans critical of the government response to the BP/Halliburton oil spill than to the Hurricane Katrina federal flood. During the flood, news coverage included many images such as these:
As the spill continues to wreak havoc:
I'm not implying a bias in the coverage. But people see what they will see...
From the southern tip of Florida to Brownsville, TX, the American portion of the coast of the Gulf of Mexico extends for 1,631 miles. The Gulf itself is approximately 615,000 square miles; as 2006, 3,858 oil rigs crowded the coastline between Texas and Alabama, with the vast majority clustered off the Louisiana coast:
The crow-flies length of the Gulf Coast is deceptive. It's actually made up of 17,141 miles of tidal shoreline formed by islands, inlets, river mouths, deltas, bayous, and swamps. For an idea of its extent, assume that the spill reaches the entire shoreline except for the 3,359 miles of the Texas coast, which so far has escaped damage. Should BP America reassign its entire workforce of 33,000 to cleanup duties, it would deploy one person for every 2,205 feet of shoreline.
Of course, the spill will not strike so evenly. It will spare some of the shoreline, cause relatively reparable damage to some areas, and devastate still others. Since, as Rachel Maddow reported last night, cleanup equipment is as aging and lo-tech as drilling equipment is modern and hi-tech, the cleanup work will be a long, twilight struggle of manual labor supported by coordinators, managers, directors, administrators, wildlife rescuers, climatologists, ecologists, logistics experts, and support personnel. In other words, BP America could throw everyone it had at this and not have enough people or the expertise.
I've been skeptical of the government taking direct control of stopping the leak. I figured that the game was up when the first attempt to stop the leak failed, and saw no point in taking over at quarterback when the team trailed 49-0 late in the game and the fans still expected victory. But now the game is shifting to the government's strong suit: It alone can amass the expertise and sheer numbers of people to conduct the cleanup.
Which doesn't mean that the cleanup will happen in a day or that there won't be complaints about the pace and priorities. But the task is massive: There are hundreds and and likely thousands of miles of affected areas. The vastness of it means that any cleanup will take time, will not please everyone, and will mean mistakes as well as successes.
But this is a real-life calamity, not a Hollywood movie. Damage will occur and most of it is inescapable. Prepare yourself for more images of oil-sodden pelicans, fishermen who have lost their livelihood, people angry that no one is doing anything, and mistakes made during cleanup. These are inevitable no matter who is charge or what they are doing...
Former Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich argues that the government should put BP's North American operations into temporary receivership and take them over. Reich's rationale -- that the government would get better information -- is thin, but his conclusion has merit. By taking over at this point -- as the emphasis switches to cleanup -- the government would take over cleanup directly and ensure that cleanup was the top priority of the company, direct a swifter and fairer processing of claims, and stop practices like judge shopping and buying internet search terms...
TWIT OF THE YEAR: "Extreme Greenies:see now why we push"drill,baby,drill"of known reserves&promising finds in safe onshore places like ANWR? Now do you get it?"
I think we all know who composed this masterpiece. Where to begin? With the utter offensiveness and tastelessness of issuing a taunt while the coastline of her so-called Real America submits to a drilling catastrophe? Or maybe the outright lie that DBD signifies a cautious, "known" approach to drilling? Or the weird only-on-the-right logic that one environmental disaster means that the safe thing to do is to invite another? And John McCain wanted this twit to be a heartbeat away from a 72-year old's presidency?...
Bringing It All Back Home: The spill is now big enough to cover the south of England or the entire Los Angeles metropolitan area...
It turns out that there is a such thing as a stupid question: "To depict the biggest picture on the building as a Black person, I would have to ask the question: Why?" I would have to ask the question, why would you have to ask that question unless you were a racist slug? Whenever someone begins a statement with "I am not a racist," you know that a Deepwater Horizon-sized load of bigoted drivel is about to follow. Images from the offending mural here. I admit that I can see why it might anger a crawfish...
Ken Griffey, Jr. retired from baseball yesterday. His swan song was not a soaring aria -- just the quiet strum of an announcement made almost as an afterthought. Late-career injuries prevented Griffey from fulfilling the complete measure of his considerable abilities, but they didn't stop him from clouting 630 career home runs (fifth all time) or from playing the most inspired center field of his era.
At his peak in the 90s, before injuries enervated his effectiveness, Griffey was that rarest of players: He possessed in extravagance the five coveted baseball tools of hitting, hitting for power, speed, fielding, and throwing. And, he was a center fielder in the bargain. A great defensive center fielder alone is a rarity; five-tool center fielders with the celestial talents of a Ken Griffey are nearly unheard of: Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Joe DiMaggio, and Joe Jackson come to mind, but I can't think of any others.
Shorty after moving to Seattle, we went to a Mariners game. The next day, I called my brother in Texas to tell him that he had to see this guy Griffey play. At the time, he was 20. A year or so later, Griffey made the best catch (3:35 on the video below) I've ever seen a outfielder make. The film doesn't do the play justice. It doesn't show how hard Ruben Sierra hit the ball, nor does one get an appreciation for the perfect angle Griffey cut as he streaked across the outfield in a straight line, leapt at the last split second for a backhanded catch, then caught his cleats in the wall. You don't hear the crowd's voice gather in anticipation as it began to look like he had a chance. Nor do you see Ruben Sierra turning his head between second and third to shake it in disbelief.
I've seen a lot a of ballplayers since attending my first game in 1961. That doesn't include Mays or Mantle (who was pretty much past his prime by 1962), but none of the rest hold a candle to Ken Griffey, Jr. in his prime. I'll never see another ballplayer as good...
Worldwide, British Petroleum employs approximately 92,000 people. It has nearly 200 competitors, many of whom drill for oil in the United States or in American waters. Estimates of the total number of people employed by the petroleum industry are hard to come by, but the number undoubtedly runs into the millions. These companies have conducted offshore drilling from platforms since 1947; BP's offshore drilling projects go back to at least 1965, when it struck oil in the North Sea.
The company has long enjoyed a comfortable relationship with the United States government. In 1951, Iran sought to renegotiate its arrangement with what was then called the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (AOIC). Iranian workers operated in horrific conditions for little pay and the country itself received comparatively small royalties for the resources extracted from its own land. When negotiations broke down, Iran nationalized oil production; in 1953, the United States -- with support from Great Britain -- engineered a coup in Iran that installed Shah Reva Pehlazi, who ruled the country as a close U.S. ally until his ouster by the Ayatollah Khomeini in the late 70s. Although the new oil agreement with Iran improved conditions and royalties, Iran was not given seats on AOIC's board, nor were its auditors allowed to review the books.
The special relationship between BP and the United Stated continues today. As is well-known, the Bush Administration made a concentrated effort to install career employees in permanent agency positions, with the idea of leaving its ideology in place after the close of its term. Although this practice came to light during investigations of the Bush Justice Department, it extended across the executive branch, notably in the Department of the Interior.
Though the Bush Administration often gave lip service to the notion of small government, in practice it expanded the power of the executive branch and viewed government as a means to support and grow plutocratic power, particularly in the energy sector from which both George Bush and Dick Cheney hailed. Thus, the Interior Department's Minerals Management Services (MMS) became, instead of a regulator, what amounted to the oil industry's representative in government. MMS Lake Charles (LA) Larry Williamson shrugged off reports of fraternizing with industry representatives:
Obviously, we're all oil industry. We're all from the same part of the country. Almost all of our inspectors have worked for oil companies out on these same platforms. They grew up in the same towns. Some of these people, they've been friends with all their life.
One is struck by the word "obviously," as if Mr. Williamson believed it a matter of course that his agency should endorse oil company wishes and can't understand why anyone would think otherwise. Nonetheless, "obviously" is not what comes to mind in a scathing September 2008 New York Times report entitled "Sex, Drug Use, and Graft Cited in Interior Depart" that summarized three inspector general reports about the MMS. The reports, the Times said, portrayed a "a dysfunctional organization that has been riddled with conflicts of interest, unprofessional behavior and a free-for-all atmosphere for much of the Bush administration’s watch." Allegations included:
substance abuse;
sexual relations with oil industry representatives and between management and immediate subordinates;
fraternizing with industry representatives at concerts, athletic events, and social gatherings all paid for by the industry;
acceptance of gifts from oil and gas representatives with "prodigious frequency."
Some work, of a fashion anyway, appears to have happened amidst the fun and games. One employee conducted an inspection of an oil company's rigs at the same time that he considered a job offer from the same company. Other inspectors "allowed oil and gas company personnel to fill out their own inspection forms in pencil. Then the inspectors would trace over the pencil markings in pen before submitting the forms."
National Environmental Policy Act's requirements including a detailed environmental analysis, concluding the spill risk in that part of the Gulf was “minimal or nonexistent.”
Although such exemptions are apparently routine, one can't help but wonder whether they've become routine because the MMS abdicated its responsibilities as a regulator to please its masters in the Bush Administration.
Shortly after he assumed office in January of 2009, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. He pledged to investigate the MMS and to take any action necessary to clean up the department. But initial agency head Elizabeth Birnbaum did not take office until July 2009 (after the exemption), and it turns out that it's hard to fire a federal employee under just about about any circumstance: Typically, it takes up to a year. The Bush Administration had already declined to pursue legal action action against MMS managers, and the problem is more endemic than a few bad apples, anyway. In short, no matter who runs the show, it's liable to take a while to straighten out the MMS.
Some of BP's 90,000+ employees -- especially those in its risk and safety management divisions -- must have expressed concern over the company practice of drilling ever deeper into the ocean floor while cutting safety corners. These employees undoubtedly composed memos describing both the increased dangers of a spill and the lack of serious contingency plans to contain it. Some of them likely expressed doubts that the technology existed to seal off a leak a mile deep in the ocean. A few of their managers read the memos and few of them may have passed them up to the next level. But the memos died a quiet death in a organization dedicated to profit above all, no doubt having convinced itself that that an uncontainable accident could never occur.
Because, despite what the Supreme Court has ruled, corporations are not people: They are sharks out for blood in the water, whether in the form of a new product opportunity, a quick buck, a wounded competitor, or oil thousands of feet under an ocean location a mile from the surface. When a corporation detects the blood, it will move to it heedless of consequences or implications. In a sense, anger at BP is misplaced: Anger implies that it is a person, a moral actor in this catastrophe when it is not. It simply did what it does, with all of the awareness of the Borg in Star Trek.
Which is why we need government regulation of all industry. Contrary to the Randian fantasies of Alan Greensberg (who actually believed that the market could be trusted to police itself against fraud), the free market is not an unfettered Eden in which rational actors always make decisions with beneficial results for all. The market has winners and losers, and when our regulatory agencies feed on the regurgitations of sharks, it's no surprise that the losers include the aquatic life of the Gulf of Mexico.
Because it seems to me that the birds, fish, plants, and microorganisms of the Gulf are the only innocent victims here. Thirty years ago, a majority of the American people bought into the Reagan myth that everything would be fine if only government was removed from the doings of business. Reagan scrapped the efforts of three previous administrations, which had attempted, in the wake of the OPEC embargo of 1973, to develop a comprehensive national policy that stressed conservation, innovation, and regulation. The Reagan policy relied on deregulation and a strong military presence in the Persian Gulf, an approach that contributed to two wars and the Bush Administration's brazen transformation of the federal government into a whore for the oil industry.
Despite it all, Americans continue to mistrust government regulations even when they screech angrily at the consequences of unregulated business, as with the financial industry and now the oil industry. We continue to support an expansion of offshore drilling, which means going into deeper and even unsafer waters. We're hooked on oil and we're willing to take the risks even when the consequences gush in our faces daily. We're neck deep in the Big Muddy, and we don't even need a fool to tell us to push on...
Attorney General Eric Holder has launched a criminal investigation into the spill. The progressive punditry, whose performance during the spill has by and large been dismal, will no doubt express dissatisfaction if Holder decides to pursue anything less than the death penalty for BP executives. So let me say up front that Holder will do what any prosecuting attorney would do. He and his staff will review all statutes that might possibly apply, take depositions, subpoena company paperwork (they've already told BP, Halliburton, and TransOcean to retain all company documents), and accumulate any other evidence regardless of its strength. Based on which statutes best apply and what evidence is the strongest, they'll build a case and bring it court. In other words, the Justice Department will bring a case that it thinks it can win based on evidence and law, not James Carville's desire for revenge and not on a paranoid progressive delusion that the Obama DOJ is in league with Big Oil...
Carville and Chris Mathews are among the loudest shouters of the "do something" crowd. This gang seems to believe that President Obama should run around in a blind panic to show that he cares, then adopt a solution along the lines of he and Steven Chu donning wet suits, sticking a giant wine cork on the end of a mile-long piece of pipe, hopping into the Gulf and personally jamming the cork into the hole. Mathews actually suggested that Navy submarines drop off frogmen to seal the leak. Even if the submarines could go that deep (they can't), he pressure of 5,280 feet of water would crush divers like an empty beer can between the hands of a drunken football player...
Posts
