SantaFeJoe wrote:Here's one example from NM:
Read the article more closely Joe....The bill is designed to help the little guy who is not in a position to dig a pit for every well.
"The commission also said the new rule offers some flexibility but not at the expense of water quality or public safety.
Most of the changes affect parts of the rule regulating waste pit permits, siting, design, construction and closure. The commission says the changes streamline and clarify the pit rule,
making it easier for small-scale oil and gas operators to comply."
This bill has only been introduced and has not passed anywhere. It is not an example of relaxed regulation on drilling procedures.
http://openstates.org/nm/bills/2015/HB625/ This bill has not passed.
Another bill that is only a proposal therefore irrelevant to the discussion. Plus has nothing to do with relaxing of regulations that watch over well drilling process.
This article is about the very things that I am saying. It has nothing to do with relaxing of drilling regulations and everything to do with the fact deep water oil drilling is inherently dangerous for us and the environment and needs more regulation different kinds of regulation that has never been in existence before.
"Even the officials who run it, Mr. Salazar and the new director, Michael R. Bromwich, admit that they have a long way to go before government can provide the kind of rigorous oversight demanded by the complex, highly technical and deeply risky business of drilling for oil beneath the sea."
This is more than a bit misleading. Here the difference is between federal and state regulations and for most things those are the same. It has nothing to do with the fact that an oil company doesn't have to take preventative measures ahead of time to prevent oil spill accidents nor does it say they don't have to completely clean that up.
"Spill response plans in Alaska take into consideration the remoteness of the drilling locations, and require trained staff and equipment be pre-positioned where it is readily available.
“They have to show that they have the equipment in region to contain the spill volume and begin cleaning it up, and that by the 15th day they’d be able to collect that oil and have storage available to store the recovered oil,” said Betty Schorr, who reviews spill response plans for DEC.
Alaska might require additional blowout preventers as well due to the remoteness of Arctic drill sites, she said.
In the Gulf of Mexico, with tremendous industry assets available nearby, that level of preparedness might not be needed.
The existing Alaska plans, under which Shell Oil is seeking permits for offshore exploration in the Arctic Ocean, have met that tougher standard, Dietrick said.
“The existing (OCS) plans have gone through that process, but anything that comes through the door after July 1 will no longer have to be reviewed by us,” Dietrick said.
Dietrick said it is not even clear Alaska could hold Shell to standards that it has already agreed to, but the company has told the state it would continue to meet those requirements."
Gee...you mean an oil company can actually care and be on the environmental side??? Wow who would have thought......But apparently shell oil is doing just that and that is the company that is asking for the permits..
This was a good article.Not for the discussion, but to let people who are Republicans and at the same time who care about the environment, why they should change and vote democrat or other.
I think folks ought to read this also as it reflects on this free market bs. It was on pg 3 of your link.
http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=13
But the only thing that related to the oil industry in this article directly was citing the blowout preventers and how the US is not using the better and more expensive ones. This is not less regulation at all, but regulation that has never been and is what I am saying. If we are going to drill a mile or more down in the water we need more regulations and strategies than we have now. But oil companies actually are following the present regulations. Also there is simply no guarantee that more expensive preventers are not going to fail either.This is something that knee jerk interpreting fails to see. If you drill in deep water the chances for disaster go way up, regardless of how much regulation or advanced equipment your using is. Until someone develops a fail safe technology you can forget 100%. Drilling has never been and never will be 100% safe to do.
Again this is a lot more about the fact that we need additional and revised regulation and not that we have relaxed regulations that then allowed the deepwater horizon accident.. But the article is a good one and addresses more that we all need to change our attitudes....
[font=serif] For
that bad things happen, even really bad things......
He further brings to light the US has no real energy policy nor does it have a real national environmental policy ...
[/font]
He makes point that since international markets in oil set the prices we can only sustain drilling domestically by cutting costs. See now .....this is just one of those things people don't consider usually. The problem is so more far ranging than regulations alone on how the drilling rig actually goes about drilling..
These oils spills are an indictment of capitalism itself....Are we ready to change all that?? Cause this is at the root of the problem.
He further goes on a talk about the fact that we are coming from a philosophy of dominating nature to that of one protecting nature.
"between 1955-2010 there have been 44 major blowouts worldwide, that's one every 15 months"
This is why my environmental stance is one to change our philosophy that then dictates our attitudes.
"Despite the abundant documentation of environmental and safety risks and a record that shows that blowouts and spills of more than 1,000
barrels are hardly anomalies, it has been industry and governmental policy and practice in the United States to ignore or downplay those facts."
"Oil and gas development can be highly profitable for those in the business of finding, extracting, and transporting oil and gas.It is also hugely lucrative to the governments that host it.
Between the years 2000 and 2010, the federal government collected between $4 billion and $18 billion per year in lease payments, royalties, and bonuses.
It was the business of MMS to collect those sums, the same MMS that was supposed to regulate the oil and gas industry."
As I have been saying, if you want to stop oil spills you are going to get rid of capitalism or stop using oil for everything....Good luck with the first one...
Are you willing to pay much higher taxes to make up for lost revenues gained by the government to run this country...I mean where do you think all that money comes from??
"The relaxed approach to assessing and managing risk on the
Macondo well job were not anomalies (reserving judgment on the issues of
well design and rig management specific to the Deepwater Horizon
rig).Even if the Macondo well had been perfectly planned and drilled, the
possibility of a blowout and spill still existed (e.g., from earth quakes,
mudslides, acts of terror, or war).The decision to ignore or minimize
those risks was born of a culture of risk taking and shared purpose and a
legal framework that shifted risk and responsibility from the industry and
the federal government and onto millions of others in the Gulf Coast, onto
the environment, and onto future generations assuming a large share of
living with that risk."
BA DA BING!!!!!
And just what have I been telling you Joe all along? What have I been telling you?? And now this author is saying the same exact thing. There is nothing that will save the environment from disaster if we have a hurricane bad enough, a tsunami, or an earthquake. He throws in terrorism, and war, and mudslides too. Go ahead regulate everything to death..you still have these things that would be more than we can handle.
You didn't even read this whole article did you. Your just copy-pasting, hoping you got something aren't you? This article supports all that I am saying and reflects the truth of our problems. I do recommend people read it.
He summarizes:
"Until the systemic conditions, overconfidence, and hubris that
paved the way to disaster on April 20, 2010, are addressed and changed the
only real barrier between ourselves and repeated avoidable tragedy will be
good luck. That does not have to be our path, but to change it will take real
effort. The further we get from the spill, the less likely it is that anything
fundamental will happen. To be sure, there are still efforts underway,
but if they succeed, it will likely be because of an enormous effort on the part
of committed stakeholders and key elected officials to keep the issues alive.
The takeaway here is that people learn, but institutions react. Without
concerted effort, one can only expect them to react in ways that recreate the pre-event status quo. The
Deepwater Horizon blowout may have taught
many important lessons, but as yet, most of them are still unlearned by
those most responsible. "
Nothing to do with drilling regulations for a drilling platform itself but a great article which puts focus on the real solutions.....
Nothing to do with relaxed drill platform regulations, but a good reason to vote democratic ticket... And backs up the above illustrated points.
This also has nothing to do with relaxed regulations, but more about how f*****d up the system is.
And a noteworthy statement here:
"We welcome strong regulation," American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard said last year after a speech on industry standards. "We resist duplicative, contradictory, confusing regulation. There's an important difference between the two in terms of our ability to operate."
so how many deaths per year in the oil industry Joe?? Ha..I know you don't know because you didn't actually read the article. It's 92. The article is about how the oil industry, because of it's own particular inherent nature is a very special case that needs different types of OSHA regulations. The article then goes on to say that standardized regulations that work for other industries are inadequate for the oil industry. That's why the industry is having safety problems--not that the oil companies don't follow the ones in place. Got to read it if you want to know what it really says....
"The folks that are dying out there are contractors," said Schmitz, chairman of the MonDaks safety group of companies operating in Montana and North Dakota, and a regional manager and safety trainer for PEC Safety."
as a contractor myself I understand this statement and it is the crux of the safety issue in the oil fields. Contractor is a separate entity from employee legally and often is not under the same regulations.
From your part of the country:
This is about
proposed new regulations and the ODNR is asking for comments. Rather irrelevant at the moment. Would like to hear the other side of the story too however before drawing any conclusions.
"Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, called the energy bills a waste of time, since they were unlikely to be taken up in the Democratic-controlled Senate and faced veto threats from Obama. "
Doesn't sound like this one is going anywhere.. Again and again...without a policy, the environment will be under constant assault...You have been enjoying the lower gas prices haven't you? According to this article easing and expansion of drilling permits is why. I hear a lot of finger pointing except at the very source for these energy needs. You.
This too has little to do with relaxed regulations is more about regulations that need to exist and don't.
Yep...the more we want the more they'll make and the more the environment will suffer....SURPRISE!!!!!
Cut your consumption...everyone....cut back. Go electric and use solar and wind to whatever degree you can at your house or location.
and the report to the president on the spill:
Which concludes it's time to do a lot of things different which is exactly correct. And is what I also have been saying.
This is about economics and ties in with that previously posted article so is redundant. Good points, but illustrates nothing about relaxing regulations on drill rigs as they go about their drilling.
"
Congress should revisit and repeal the outdated restrictions on U.S. crude exports. The recent boom in onshore production and pipeline projects result in surplus crude in Gulf Coast refineries. That surplus drives prices downward and harms domestic producers. Allowing oil exports will boost the domestic economy and advance U.S. foreign policy."
In and of itself sounds good. Is it an automatic the environment will be hurt by it?? Not sure why you posted this one as it makes some great arguments for the export of oil and gas.
I'm really not sure why you posted this one as if it supports anything your claiming. Apparently Mary Landrieu is solidly on the right track in overhaling our way of thinking.
against allowing exploration in oil shale in Colorado,
Member of bipartisan “Gang of 10” for comprehensive oil plan
Voted YES on requiring full Senate debate and vote on cap-and-trade.
Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation.
Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China.
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning.
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas.
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%).
Voted YES on To overhaul the Bush Administration Energy Policy.
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010.
So those were the good things she voted yes on. On the other hand apparently she wants to hold open the option to drill in ANWR and she voted to ban the EPA from regulating greenhouse emissions. That's probably what caught your eye huh Joe?? Well what about the other things she voted on that will certainly benefit the environment? Well seeing the WHOLE picture, a new one emerges, and there are probably factors other than what meets the eye that had an effect on her vote. Obviously she wants change and wants the environment to not go down the tubes.
A republican rant Joe??? Really??? And I know for sure you never read any of it since that would take a month!! I'm forgetting this one, but the link has value to help environmentally minded people as to how the enemy thinks...
Wow....so what's wrong with the EFD program?? I rather applaud it as a guiding light for the future strategies...
"The overall concept of the EFD program is not to accept the prevalent opinion that government ownership and oversight is the answer to protecting the environment. Rather, it’s that private stewards continue to be the best stewards. On the whole, private stewards take pride in managing their land, and technology can provide many of the methods to accomplish this."
Sounds good to me Joe...what's the problem?? Been my contention all along that we all individually need to take the responsibility for the environment. Seems to me that's what the EFD program is all about!! Bravo!!
Last 6 links don't seem to support anything your saying nor validate any of your claims that the oil spill with deep horizon was because of relaxed regulations governing the drilling operation. Fact is it seems to me you rather wore yourself out with your attrition tactic. Got to the last six and you weren't even paying attention anymore to exactly what you were copying and pasting--you just wanted volume!!
ad nauseum....
Want more???
Sure.... bring it on......Only this time get yours facts straightened out. And forget trying to "win" and concentrate more on what we all need to do to solve the problems.
But a lot of good info and yes I learned a lot I didn't know. But my position on deep water oil drilling held up as well as the fact that the accident was more a failure off philosophy, and policy from that philosophy, than it was from any oil company or procedures of drilling a well compromised in safety from relaxed regulations governing that drilling.
I find it hard to believe that you even read the chapter or watched the film if you say the following:
...The only person that claims things are way weaker and relaxed than before is you Joe...and no offense Joe, but you basically don't know rats butt about drilling, the deep horizon incident, how things happen in the oil industry, or what life is like in the gulf. ...
You need to read things more carefully without trying so hard to put a preconceived spin on them. The author drew the same conclusions as I did and as BP did and that's that too many things that by themselves would have been kept under control, but all at one time led to the accident. The mud, the cement, the conditions of the drill hole walls, the snot...none of that would lead to disaster, but when you add on the shut offs that malfunctioned from cascading problems all their own, you got the coup de grass as they say.
The author was pretty clear about the way pressure tests were ignored and other poor choices. This is not a series of things that randomly occurred, but rather, a series of bad decisions to ignore real warning signs and to skirt requirements, e.g. the disposal of fluids on shore. On page 90 of
the report to the president, (link provided above) the accident is stated to have been preventable. On page 98, it tells about what happened regarding pressures that were ignored and were a critical problem. On page 101, it tells of cement tests which failed, but were ignored. On page 106, it tells how they chose to use a spacer material and volume that was never previously used or tested. Certainly, you must read pages from there through page 109, at least. Common sense tells you that if you simply read the facts of what was done and not done, there were bad choices, not mistakes made!!!!!!!!! You don't need to be a so called "expert" to see the impending disaster these bad choices could lead to. Please read this as well regarding drilling the last 100 feet:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow ... story.html
Joe I told you I read the article and did so with complete scrutiny. I know from my personal past what he was describing so it was second nature and very easy to understand.
And Carl Finas last paragraph of his article is......This is what I got from it...what article were you reading???
"Unlike a tanker running aground and spilling oil—a simple cause-and-effect accident—this is a chain disaster. Each of the distinct failures of equipment and judgment, combined, was required to cause the event. And if any single component had not failed, or had been handled differently, this blowout never would have happened. And we’re not done yet, because a failure of preparedness to deal with a deepwater blowout will cost many pounds of cure over the coming months."
Ta da!! There it is from the article you keep referring to. You need to watch some of those airplane crash disaster investigation shows. Same thing.. It's almost always a sequence of failures that lead to disaster.
I'm all for your environmentalism, but I'm afraid when people do knee jerk convictions which usually fall on the big corporations, and fail to see the real danger in that, I need to sound off. The problem lies with all of us, which includes the oil companies too.
Go back and read the links you posted and garner the facts as to how much environmental damage has been going on way before the deep water incident. Your looking at this with some tunnel vision I'm afraid. Take off the blinders and expand your field of view.
And don't keep posting link after link as if no one will ever follow up on them. Makes your points look even weaker IMO.
Paul
Print
Back to Top
