Archive

Judge blocks offshore drilling ban

  • believer
    isadore;402403 wrote:a tainted decision made by a corrupted judge, we will see if it stands.
    If it does will you shut up? Rhetorical question.
  • isadore
    as opposed to you, I will not remain silent before an injustice.J'accuse! BP, the Oil industry and Judge Feldman.
  • bigmanbt
    isadore;402433 wrote:as opposed to you, I will not remain silent before an injustice.J'accuse! BP, the Oil industry and Judge Feldman.

    You forgot one of the responsible parties: the Federal Government. THEY were the ones who forced BP to drill in unsafe waters, and they also were the ones who said it was safe to drill there. The federal government established the $75 million liability cap as well.

    Don't get me wrong, BP has been in collusion with the federal gov't for a long time, and they deserve what's coming to them, but you can't just blame the ends, you have to also put some blame on those who provided the ends with the ability to do what they did. The federal gov't holds A LOT of blame for this as well as the other parties involved. It's pretty typical of left wingers ignoring the actions of the federal government, always narrow-minded and focused on the effect and not the cause.
  • believer
    bigmanbt;402960 wrote:You forgot one of the responsible parties: the Federal Government.
    NAW...the Federal government is the "quicker fixer upper." I wonder if the Feds can create a giant Bounty paper towel and soak up that oil spill they licensed BP to create? They can make it on the same printing presses they're using to create phony money used to cover the cost of their insane public spending!
  • isadore
    bigmanbt;402960 wrote:You forgot one of the responsible parties: the Federal Government. THEY were the ones who forced BP to drill in unsafe waters, and they also were the ones who said it was safe to drill there. The federal government established the $75 million liability cap as well.

    Don't get me wrong, BP has been in collusion with the federal gov't for a long time, and they deserve what's coming to them, but you can't just blame the ends, you have to also put some blame on those who provided the ends with the ability to do what they did. The federal gov't holds A LOT of blame for this as well as the other parties involved. It's pretty typical of left wingers ignoring the actions of the federal government, always narrow-minded and focused on the effect and not the cause.
    The government deserve criticisms in the BP disaster, but not for telling BP where to drill. They offered BP a site, the company was not forced to take it. They chose. What the government does deserve much criticism for doing, was not regulating enough. For many decades going back to Teapot Dome, the government agencies and departments have been to cozy with the oil industry. The people at MMS went beyond sycophancy in dealing with these corporate giants. BP got by with no real inspection of the design and operation of their facility and with no real contingency plans for disaster. If the government had been doing its job of regulating this disaster could have been avoided.
  • CenterBHSFan
    Isa,

    No the problem isn't the government "not regulating enough".

    The problem is not following up on the regulations already in place!

    If somebody isn't doing their job, the answer isn't to make more rules. The answer is the crack down on the rules already in place.

    You know better than that, Isa... you're just agitating. I'm on to your tricks! haha
  • isadore
    CenterBHSFan;403088 wrote:Isa,

    No the problem isn't the government "not regulating enough".

    The problem is not following up on the regulations already in place!

    If somebody isn't doing their job, the answer isn't to make more rules. The answer is the crack down on the rules already in place.

    You know better than that, Isa... you're just agitating. I'm on to your tricks! haha

    It is sad as some people age, they become increasingly cynical. BS open your heart and mind and let the sun shine in. We need in these agencies. like the MMS whatever its present incarnation. a change in attitude. These agencies should operate on the idea that Tony Hayward is going to be their BFF. Whether it is by stricter enforcement of rules already on the books, enactment of new regulations or a combination of the two, the attitude must change at these agencies.
  • KnightRyder
    bigmanbt;402960 wrote:You forgot one of the responsible parties: the Federal Government. THEY were the ones who forced BP to drill in unsafe waters, and they also were the ones who said it was safe to drill there. The federal government established the $75 million liability cap as well.

    Don't get me wrong, BP has been in collusion with the federal gov't for a long time, and they deserve what's coming to them, but you can't just blame the ends, you have to also put some blame on those who provided the ends with the ability to do what they did. The federal gov't holds A LOT of blame for this as well as the other parties involved. It's pretty typical of left wingers ignoring the actions of the federal government, always narrow-minded and focused on the effect and not the cause.
    if you want to blame the government that s fine , but take a closer look and look to right.The Bush administration and its staunchly pro-oil congressional allies enacted one of the most pro-oil, anti-environment pieces of legislation in history: the Energy Policy Act of 2005—itself based on the recommendations of Cheney’s secret energy policy task force. Cheney not only offered permanent regulatory relief and rolled back existing environmental laws to help the oil industry. This particular example also demonstrates the administration’s willingness to distort science to benefit Big Oil .
  • fish82
    KnightRyder;403707 wrote:if you want to blame the government that s fine , but take a closer look and look to right.The Bush administration and its staunchly pro-oil congressional allies enacted one of the most pro-oil, anti-environment pieces of legislation in history: the Energy Policy Act of 2005—itself based on the recommendations of Cheney’s secret energy policy task force. Cheney not only offered permanent regulatory relief and rolled back existing environmental laws to help the oil industry. This particular example also demonstrates the administration’s willingness to distort science to benefit Big Oil .

    Who's George Bush? Wasn't he the president a few years ago or something? Last I heard, some guy named Obama has been running the MMS for awhile now...even presenting BP and this exact rig with a safety award within a few months of the spill.


    Here's what you people are too stupid to figure out..until one of you stops whining long enough to go out and invent an internal combustion engine that runs on dirt or dog shit, Big Oil (despite being run by child molesting cannibals) provides the juice that runs the planet's economy. So in a nutshell....less whining, more inventing. ;)
  • Writerbuckeye
    Now fish, you know it's much easier to whine -- and then mandate through bully legislation that certain types of energy be given priority over those that are more plentiful, more easily found and less costly to the consumer.

    It's the liberal way!

    Actually developing a new and VIABLE technology takes too much time and effort.
  • fan_from_texas
    KnightRyder;403707 wrote:if you want to blame the government that s fine , but take a closer look and look to right.The Bush administration and its staunchly pro-oil congressional allies enacted one of the most pro-oil, anti-environment pieces of legislation in history: the Energy Policy Act of 2005—itself based on the recommendations of Cheney’s secret energy policy task force. Cheney not only offered permanent regulatory relief and rolled back existing environmental laws to help the oil industry. This particular example also demonstrates the administration’s willingness to distort science to benefit Big Oil .
    Serious question--have you ever read EPAct '05? Are you aware that its major provisions include:

    *establishing the DOE's loan guarantee program to encourage innovative renewable energy projects
    *encouraging biofuels/ethanol
    *new research funding for carbon capture and sequestration
    *new biomass grants
    *new wind/solar/geothermal tax subsidies
    *new tax credits for energy efficiency and conservation improvements
    *net metering mandates
    *establishes NIETC for new renewable transmission bottlenecks
    *makes ocean/tidal energy eligible for various tax credits
    *authorized $500 million of clean renewable energy bonds

    etc.

    Can you seriously, with a straight face, call that the most pro-oil, anti-environment piece of legislation in history? I'm willing to bet that you haven't read it/don't know what it does, but picked up something somewhere on a blog and tried to repeat it here and sound cool. EPAct '05 is extraordinarily far-reaching in its support of the environment and renewable energy, as is acknowledged by (virtually) everyone.

    Next time, before going off on an anti-Bush tirade, at least read the underlying legislation so you don't end up sounding like a moron.
    isadore;403166 wrote:It is sad as some people age, they become increasingly cynical. BS open your heart and mind and let the sun shine in. We need in these agencies. like the MMS whatever its present incarnation. a change in attitude. These agencies should operate on the idea that Tony Hayward is going to be their BFF. Whether it is by stricter enforcement of rules already on the books, enactment of new regulations or a combination of the two, the attitude must change at these agencies.
    This is, of course, the age-old problem of agency capture by the regulated entities. It's one of the primary problems of regulation, and it's not one that has an easy fix. Focusing on "if we could only get the right people in there, enforce the existing rules, etc." isn't how you solve the inevitable problem. Generally, there's no easy solution to industry capture, and it's one of the byproducts of the regulatory state. If you don't like it, you can deregulate, or you can simply do some housecleaning every decade or two and swallow the administrative costs/losses. That's part of the deal with the regulatory state.
  • isadore
    fan_from_texas wrote:This is, of course, the age-old problem of agency capture by the regulated entities. It's one of the primary problems of regulation, and it's not one that has an easy fix. Focusing on "if we could only get the right people in there, enforce the existing rules, etc." isn't how you solve the inevitable problem. Generally, there's no easy solution to industry capture, and it's one of the byproducts of the regulatory state. If you don't like it, you can deregulate, or you can simply do some housecleaning every decade or two and swallow the administrative costs/losses. That's part of the deal with the regulatory state.
    Not two great choices but one is by far superior to the other. A deregulated BP in action. That is scary. Regular housecleaning might be needed. Maybe include a rule that stops these folks from going right into the oil industry after leaving government service.
  • KnightRyder
    Writerbuckeye;403830 wrote:Now fish, you know it's much easier to whine -- and then mandate through bully legislation that certain types of energy be given priority over those that are more plentiful, more easily found and less costly to the consumer.

    It's the liberal way!

    Actually developing a new and VIABLE technology takes too much time and effort.
    here is the conservative way The so-called environmental assessments that laid the foundation for approving permits without further review were fatally flawed under the Bush-Cheney years—in addition to violating both the spirit and the letter of the law.

    The last meaningful environmental review of any kind standing between BP and drilling at the Mississippi Canyon 252 site should have been the October 2007 Minerals Management Service environmental assessment of the “Proposed Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale 206.” But just six words—splashed in bold capital letters across the top of the report’s first page—paved the way for what is now the worst environmental calamity in the history of the United States: FINDING OF NO NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.

    The assessment points out that Hurricanes Rita and Katrina rendered beaches and marshes more vulnerable to spills, but it still concluded that the potential for a damaging spill as a result of leasing the 5,569 drilling blocks contained in proposed sale 206 was basically nil:

    Concerns were raised related to...the potential effects of oil spills on tourism, emergency response capabilities, spill prevention...accidental discharges from both deepwater blowouts and pipeline ruptures...The fate and behavior of oil spills, availability and adequacy of oil-spill containment and cleanup technologies, oil-spill cleanup strategies, impacts of various oil-spill cleanup methods, effects of weathering on oil spills, toxicological effects of fresh and weathered oil, air pollution associated with spilled oil, and short-term and long-term impacts of oil on wetlands...Offshore oil spills resulting from proposed Lease Sale 206 are not expected to damage significantly any wetlands along the Gulf Coast.

    The assessment also includes one passage that reads like something of a death certificate for the gulf’s coastal communities:

    Accidental events associated with proposed Lease Sale 206 such as oil or chemical spills, blowouts, and vessel collisions would have no effects on the demographic characteristics of the Gulf coastal communities...As inland marshes and barrier islands erode or subside, without effective restoration efforts, the population in coastal communities in southern Louisiana is expected to shift to the more northern portions of the parishes and cause increasing populations in urban and suburban areas and declining populations in rural coastal areas.

    Given that they appear to have considered the decline of the Gulf Coast’s communities a foregone conclusion, it’s perhaps unsurprising that Bush-Cheney administration officials exercised so little care in attempting to prevent an accident like the catastrophe now unfolding.

    Cheney’s direct role in this situation of regulatory capture and failure could not be clearer. Randall Luthi signed the so-called environmental review for the proposed lease sale 206. He is a longtime Cheney insider who was installed as director of the Minerals Management Service in 2007. Luthi, who was once Cheney’s intern, went on to hold various positions in several Republican administrations before returning to his native Wyoming.

    Luthi is currently the president of the National Ocean Industries Association, whose stated mission is “to secure reliable access and a fair regulatory and economic environment for the companies that develop the nation’s valuable offshore energy resources in an environmentally responsible manner.” Just yesterday, he called on the Obama administration to lift new restrictions on drilling in the gulf, even in face of the ever-growing economic and environmental disaster that he had a direct role in allowing to happen.

    The Bush-Cheney administration made an unprecedented effort from beginning to end to rewrite our nation’s laws and rules to benefit their allies in the oil industry. They installed incompetent or corrupt cronies in important regulatory and oversight positions. And what they could not achieve legally, the administration pursued by other means.
  • fan_from_texas
    KnightRyder--

    Does your lack of response to my direct question above indicate that (1) you have not read EPAct '05, and (2) you are backing down from your claim that it is the most pro-oil, anti-environment piece of legislation in history? Or, despite not having read it, and despite the numerous pro-envt and pro-renewable provisions, do you still contend that it is pro-oil?

    You seem to be up in arms about a FONSI conclusion in a relatively standard NEPA review for situations that are almost always CX. How familiar are you with NEPA? Are you aware of when NEPA was passed? Are you aware of the percentage of EAs/EISs that result in FONSIs? Or are you simply pulling snippets from American Progress and reiterating them here as your own?

    You've already demonstrated that you're entirely out of your league when it comes to energy legislation. Is your goal to do the same on the basics of a NEPA analysis?
  • KnightRyder
    fan_from_texas;406232 wrote:KnightRyder--

    Does your lack of response to my direct question above indicate that (1) you have not read EPAct '05, and (2) you are backing down from your claim that it is the most pro-oil, anti-environment piece of legislation in history? Or, despite not having read it, and despite the numerous pro-envt and pro-renewable provisions, do you still contend that it is pro-oil?

    You seem to be up in arms about a FONSI conclusion in a relatively standard NEPA review for situations that are almost always CX. How familiar are you with NEPA? Are you aware of when NEPA was passed? Are you aware of the percentage of EAs/EISs that result in FONSIs? Or are you simply pulling snippets from American Progress and reiterating them here as your own?

    You've already demonstrated that you're entirely out of your league when it comes to energy legislation. Is your goal to do the same on the basics of a NEPA analysis?

    are you disputing the fact that cheney deregulated the oil industry to help out his oil cronies? thats basically what he did, please tell me you are.
  • fan_from_texas
    You seem to be quite adept at cutting and pasting things from other websites, but you don't seem to be so great at answering direct yes/no questions. In light of the fact that EPAct '05 has been widely hailed as one of the most pro-environment and pro-renewable energy statutes in a long time (perhaps ever? at least since NEPA/PURPA), it seems somewhat laughable that if we read your portrayal of it, we'd think that it was an entirely pro-oil law. This indicates to me that you haven't read it, and you don't have the faintest idea what it says, other than what you picked up from some shill. You're out of your element here, but if you want to go back to the kiddie pool on the DailyKos, I'm sure you can find some yes men who will agree with your tripe.
    are you disputing the fact that cheney deregulated the oil industry to help out his oil cronies? thats basically what he did, please tell me you are.
    The current oil regulatory scheme was enacted in 1906 by the Hepburn Act. As much as you dislike Cheney and think he's old, he wasn't around at that point, so I'm pretty sure he didn't deregulate the oil industry. The oil industry has been in its current "deregulated" form since the 1988 Buckeye proceeding. Again, are you pinning this one on Cheney and somehow suggesting that EPAct '05 had anything to do with it? I'll cut to the chase: EPAct '05 didn't affect the oil regulatory scheme, which has remained largely untouched for decades.

    It's fine if you want to hate Bush/Cheney and blame everything on them. But at least read the laws before you claim that they stand for something exactly opposite than what you think they're saying. You're so far off-base here it's laughable. I'm an energy regulatory attorney. I work with FERC every day as part of my practice. I'm very, very familiar with the energy regulatory process in this country. And you? Well, you've read a few websites . . . and that appears to be it.

    So we'll try this again: Have you read EPAct '05? Do you still contend that it is the most pro-oil, anti-environment piece of legislation in history? Or are you just pulling snippets from your favorite websites without actually giving it any thought?
  • fish82
    KnightRyder;406199 wrote:here is the conservative way The so-called environmental assessments that laid the foundation for approving permits without further review were fatally flawed under the Bush-Cheney years—in addition to violating both the spirit and the letter of the law.

    The last meaningful environmental review of any kind standing between BP and drilling at the Mississippi Canyon 252 site should have been the October 2007 Minerals Management Service environmental assessment of the “Proposed Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale 206.” But just six words—splashed in bold capital letters across the top of the report’s first page—paved the way for what is now the worst environmental calamity in the history of the United States: FINDING OF NO NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.

    The assessment points out that Hurricanes Rita and Katrina rendered beaches and marshes more vulnerable to spills, but it still concluded that the potential for a damaging spill as a result of leasing the 5,569 drilling blocks contained in proposed sale 206 was basically nil:

    Concerns were raised related to...the potential effects of oil spills on tourism, emergency response capabilities, spill prevention...accidental discharges from both deepwater blowouts and pipeline ruptures...The fate and behavior of oil spills, availability and adequacy of oil-spill containment and cleanup technologies, oil-spill cleanup strategies, impacts of various oil-spill cleanup methods, effects of weathering on oil spills, toxicological effects of fresh and weathered oil, air pollution associated with spilled oil, and short-term and long-term impacts of oil on wetlands...Offshore oil spills resulting from proposed Lease Sale 206 are not expected to damage significantly any wetlands along the Gulf Coast.

    The assessment also includes one passage that reads like something of a death certificate for the gulf’s coastal communities:

    Accidental events associated with proposed Lease Sale 206 such as oil or chemical spills, blowouts, and vessel collisions would have no effects on the demographic characteristics of the Gulf coastal communities...As inland marshes and barrier islands erode or subside, without effective restoration efforts, the population in coastal communities in southern Louisiana is expected to shift to the more northern portions of the parishes and cause increasing populations in urban and suburban areas and declining populations in rural coastal areas.

    Given that they appear to have considered the decline of the Gulf Coast’s communities a foregone conclusion, it’s perhaps unsurprising that Bush-Cheney administration officials exercised so little care in attempting to prevent an accident like the catastrophe now unfolding.

    Cheney’s direct role in this situation of regulatory capture and failure could not be clearer. Randall Luthi signed the so-called environmental review for the proposed lease sale 206. He is a longtime Cheney insider who was installed as director of the Minerals Management Service in 2007. Luthi, who was once Cheney’s intern, went on to hold various positions in several Republican administrations before returning to his native Wyoming.

    Luthi is currently the president of the National Ocean Industries Association, whose stated mission is “to secure reliable access and a fair regulatory and economic environment for the companies that develop the nation’s valuable offshore energy resources in an environmentally responsible manner.” Just yesterday, he called on the Obama administration to lift new restrictions on drilling in the gulf, even in face of the ever-growing economic and environmental disaster that he had a direct role in allowing to happen.

    The Bush-Cheney administration made an unprecedented effort from beginning to end to rewrite our nation’s laws and rules to benefit their allies in the oil industry. They installed incompetent or corrupt cronies in important regulatory and oversight positions. And what they could not achieve legally, the administration pursued by other means.


    Cool story, bro. Who are these Bush & Cheney characters again? :rolleyes:
  • Footwedge
    fan_from_texas;407137 wrote:You seem to be quite adept at cutting and pasting things from other websites, but you don't seem to be so great at answering direct yes/no questions. In light of the fact that EPAct '05 has been widely hailed as one of the most pro-environment and pro-renewable energy statutes in a long time (perhaps ever? at least since NEPA/PURPA), it seems somewhat laughable that if we read your portrayal of it, we'd think that it was an entirely pro-oil law. This indicates to me that you haven't read it, and you don't have the faintest idea what it says, other than what you picked up from some shill. You're out of your element here, but if you want to go back to the kiddie pool on the DailyKos, I'm sure you can find some yes men who will agree with your tripe.



    The current oil regulatory scheme was enacted in 1906 by the Hepburn Act. As much as you dislike Cheney and think he's old, he wasn't around at that point, so I'm pretty sure he didn't deregulate the oil industry. The oil industry has been in its current "deregulated" form since the 1988 Buckeye proceeding. Again, are you pinning this one on Cheney and somehow suggesting that EPAct '05 had anything to do with it? I'll cut to the chase: EPAct '05 didn't affect the oil regulatory scheme, which has remained largely untouched for decades.

    It's fine if you want to hate Bush/Cheney and blame everything on them. But at least read the laws before you claim that they stand for something exactly opposite than what you think they're saying. You're so far off-base here it's laughable. I'm an energy regulatory attorney. I work with FERC every day as part of my practice. I'm very, very familiar with the energy regulatory process in this country. And you? Well, you've read a few websites . . . and that appears to be it.

    So we'll try this again: Have you read EPAct '05? Do you still contend that it is the most pro-oil, anti-environment piece of legislation in history? Or are you just pulling snippets from your favorite websites without actually giving it any thought?

    I wouldn't give the Bush administration a free pass on certain deregs which was passed in 2005. And it doesn't help your position when you call somewhat out for being "out of their league" on an issue.

    Personally, I think there's plenty of blame to go around..gov and BP both. But it's pretty much unarguable that under Bush/Cheney, 2 oil tycoons, safety laws were relaxed...some of which were infused in the Gulf.

    http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/06/cheney_deregulation.html
  • KnightRyder
    fan_from_texas;407137 wrote:You seem to be quite adept at cutting and pasting things from other websites, but you don't seem to be so great at answering direct yes/no questions. In light of the fact that EPAct '05 has been widely hailed as one of the most pro-environment and pro-renewable energy statutes in a long time (perhaps ever? at least since NEPA/PURPA), it seems somewhat laughable that if we read your portrayal of it, we'd think that it was an entirely pro-oil law. This indicates to me that you haven't read it, and you don't have the faintest idea what it says, other than what you picked up from some shill. You're out of your element here, but if you want to go back to the kiddie pool on the DailyKos, I'm sure you can find some yes men who will agree with your tripe.



    The current oil regulatory scheme was enacted in 1906 by the Hepburn Act. As much as you dislike Cheney and think he's old, he wasn't around at that point, so I'm pretty sure he didn't deregulate the oil industry. The oil industry has been in its current "deregulated" form since the 1988 Buckeye proceeding. Again, are you pinning this one on Cheney and somehow suggesting that EPAct '05 had anything to do with it? I'll cut to the chase: EPAct '05 didn't affect the oil regulatory scheme, which has remained largely untouched for decades.

    It's fine if you want to hate Bush/Cheney and blame everything on them. But at least read the laws before you claim that they stand for something exactly opposite than what you think they're saying. You're so far off-base here it's laughable. I'm an energy regulatory attorney. I work with FERC every day as part of my practice. I'm very, very familiar with the energy regulatory process in this country. And you? Well, you've read a few websites . . . and that appears to be it.

    So we'll try this again: Have you read EPAct '05? Do you still contend that it is the most pro-oil, anti-environment piece of legislation in history? Or are you just pulling snippets from your favorite websites without actually giving it any thought?
    i read it , but apparently you havent , or you just cant spot all the loop holes that are written in it.
  • KnightRyder
    fish82;407177 wrote:Cool story, bro. Who are these Bush & Cheney characters again? :rolleyes:

    a couple of buffoons you probably voted for
  • fan_from_texas
    KnightRyder;407420 wrote:i read it , but apparently you havent , or you just cant spot all the loop holes that are written in it.

    You'll be more convincing if, rather than cutting/pasting something from a shill website, you actually do a bit of research yourself and then make narrow, reasonable, defensible arguments. Speaking in massively broad strokes about an area where you don't have much expertise is a recipe for disaster. E.g., if I started lecturing ptown on XYZ nuclear disarmament issues, he would (quite rightfully) respond, "FFT, you're a nice, smart guy, and I appreciate your insight, but you don't know anything about this issue, and it's a little more nuanced than you're making it sound."

    A good rule of thumb is that if you don't know a lot about an issue, it's best to speak about it very narrowly. Otherwise, you'll inevitably end up overstepping and making outrageous statements that simply aren't true (e.g., that EPAct '05 is the most pro-oil, anti-environment piece of legislation ever passed). Even a cursory review of the legislation (easily available at this link or this link) reveals that it isn't some oil-driven piece of legislation. It's the most pro-renewable law passed since 1978.

    You can criticize parts of it, and it's fine to point out that the compromise provisions included to garner support may not be the ones you'd like. But it isn't reasonable to write the entire pro-renewable, pro-environment law off as though it were an exercise in oil cronyism.



    (edit to include some additional thoughts)
    The danger in speaking authoritatively on a subject outside your realm of expertise is that you run the risk of misusing terms of art or saying things that, at face value, don't pass the smell test. For example, when we talk about the regulation of energy companies (and concomitant concept of "deregulation"), we do so in the context of ratemaking vs. market-based rates. "Deregulation" as a concept doesn't refer to siting reviews or NEPA analyses, and it's erroneous to use it in that sense (even though, in colloquial terms, we may otherwise be talking about relaxing regulatory safeguards). It's fair to say that certain actions of the Clinton/Bush/Obama administrations modified siting/permitting provisions applicable to offshore oil drilling. It's not fair to say that they "deregulated" the oil industry, which, as I mentioned earlier, has been largely deregulated for a long, long time.
  • CenterBHSFan
    I think it's funny that even though FFT has stated his profession, people who do not share that same profession are acting like they know more about the situation than he does.

    FFT:

    I'm an energy regulatory attorney. I work with FERC every day as part of my practice. I'm very, very familiar with the energy regulatory process in this country.

    It is his job to know this stuff.

    Laughable. Really.
  • KnightRyder
    fan_from_texas;407476 wrote:You'll be more convincing if, rather than cutting/pasting something from a shill website, you actually do a bit of research yourself and then make narrow, reasonable, defensible arguments. Speaking in massively broad strokes about an area where you don't have much expertise is a recipe for disaster. E.g., if I started lecturing ptown on XYZ nuclear disarmament issues, he would (quite rightfully) respond, "FFT, you're a nice, smart guy, and I appreciate your insight, but you don't know anything about this issue, and it's a little more nuanced than you're making it sound."

    A good rule of thumb is that if you don't know a lot about an issue, it's best to speak about it very narrowly. Otherwise, you'll inevitably end up overstepping and making outrageous statements that simply aren't true (e.g., that EPAct '05 is the most pro-oil, anti-environment piece of legislation ever passed). Even a cursory review of the legislation (easily available at this link or this link) reveals that it isn't some oil-driven piece of legislation. It's the most pro-renewable law passed since 1978.

    You can criticize parts of it, and it's fine to point out that the compromise provisions included to garner support may not be the ones you'd like. But it isn't reasonable to write the entire pro-renewable, pro-environment law off as though it were an exercise in oil cronyism.



    (edit to include some additional thoughts)
    The danger in speaking authoritatively on a subject outside your realm of expertise is that you run the risk of misusing terms of art or saying things that, at face value, don't pass the smell test. For example, when we talk about the regulation of energy companies (and concomitant concept of "deregulation"), we do so in the context of ratemaking vs. market-based rates. "Deregulation" as a concept doesn't refer to siting reviews or NEPA analyses, and it's erroneous to use it in that sense (even though, in colloquial terms, we may otherwise be talking about relaxing regulatory safeguards). It's fair to say that certain actions of the Clinton/Bush/Obama administrations modified siting/permitting provisions applicable to offshore oil drilling. It's not fair to say that they "deregulated" the oil industry, which, as I mentioned earlier, has been largely deregulated for a long, long time.

    you make me laugh . you think because you are paper pushing attorney that you actually know something. but i also work in the oil industry, at a lower level . so i see every day how regulations are legally broke. how the industry standards were relaxed in the bush cheney era of power. unless you have been an the ground level you wouldnt know. but i have seen it personally. i seen it done every day all day. sp dont tell me about all your credentials. like my cousin who is also a attorney once said. " i thought all attoneys were whores, then i became one and found out its true". i know when it was deregulated because thats when business practices changed in a major way. testing and inspection of material used in drilling that was done no longer had to be done. did you know that? so tell me more, like you actually got busy and got your hands dirty out in the field. because i have.
  • KnightRyder
    Mr. 300;397430 wrote:Doing what is right by this ruling......not bowing to a fringe political group.

    but bowing down to big oil is ok?
  • Bigdogg
    CenterBHSFan;407481 wrote:I think it's funny that even though FFT has stated his profession, people who do not share that same profession are acting like they know more about the situation than he does.

    FFT:


    It is his job to know this stuff.

    Laughable. Really.

    There is no doubt that FFT is a smart guy and knows his job. The problem I have with him is his condescending attitude. He reminds me of a fellow my brother, who is also a Northwestern grad attorney, opposed in an antitrust case. Evidently this New York attorney with his Armani suit wanted to save my brother and his client all the embarrassment of going to trial and getting his ass kicked in court by accepting a smaller settlement. Needless to say his taste in clothing was much better then his trial skills.

    What FFT has posted on this political forum has been accurate and factual. Policies are the result of compromise or at least before the last election use to be. EPAct '05 could have included more safeguards, the federal government and BP could have done their jobs better to enforce existing safety standards and regulations.

    What needs to happen now is we need to learn from the mistakes and go on. We still need to drill in places that are not easy to get to and environmentally risky. We also need to continue reduce our dependency on oil and seek out a variety of alternatives.