The Republican meme on the gulf oil spill is that it is "Obama's Katrina".
But as Plaintiff's lawyer Michael Papantonio - suing BP concerning on behalf of fisherman and local businesses hurt by the oil spill - just revealed, Dick Cheney is partly largely responsible. As summarized by Eric at Daily Kos:
Mike Papantonio [said] An 'acoustic switch' would have prevented this catastrophe - it's a failsafe that shuts the flow of oil off at the source - they cost only about half a million dollars each, and are required in off-shore drilling platforms in most of the world...except for the United States. This was one of the new deregulations devised by Dick Cheney ...
Here's the video of Papantonio making pointing the finger at Cheney:
The Wall Street Journal has confirmed:
Cheney has caused a lot of other disasters as well. See this and this.The oil well spewing crude into the Gulf of Mexico didn't have a remote-control shut-off switch used in two other major oil-producing nations as last-resort protection against underwater spills.
The lack of the device, called an acoustic switch, could amplify concerns over the environmental impact of offshore drilling after the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig last week.
Of course, BP is also at fault. BP fought tougher safety regulations as recently as September 2009.
And Halliburton has also been implicated.
It is shortsighted, to say the least, that the US does not require readily available safety systems for offshore drilling rigs. This goes without saying. However, I am not clear from this story, was the Acoustic Switch technology required before Cheney met with oil interests? Was it a rule that was overturned or was it a proposal that Cheney and big oil pushed against implementing? There is so much name calling and innuendo in the media (and especially on the web) these days. I am interested in learning whether it was a problem of omission when rule making took place or was it a deliberate act of removing the technology from the rules. Any clarification on this will be appreciated.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we could just invest monies into genetically modifying organisms in the environment to become immune from oil spills. Imagine the possibilities?
ReplyDeleteThe well did have a BOP switch. Does Mike still say that it is not the best technoloy to prevent oil spills?
ReplyDeleteThere's also this from Truthout: http://www.truthout.org/whistlelower-bps-other-offshore-drilling-project-gulf-vulnerable-catastrophe59027 – long but important
ReplyDeleteWhistleblower: BP Risks More Massive Catastrophes in Gulf
Interesting in that the WSJ article, acoustic trigger devices efficacy is unclear with no real world examples to verify. Even so, other companies voluntarily have implemented the use. However no discussion of the other backup systems employed but details, details. Much easier (and headline grabbing) to lay it at the feet of Cheney - question everything.
ReplyDelete2000-2008....they shoot a good group. i see a trend. and my eyes are'nt that good. what's wrong with the conservatives? (actually, conservative doesn't fit anymore-4 trill war OFF budget?????)
ReplyDeleteTHANKS AND HAVE A NICE DAY!
Sorry, but this is utter BS.
ReplyDeleteThe acoustic switch is NIOT "absolutely failsafe" and in fact has never been tested in real-life situations. The independent study commissioned by MMS raised questions about its reliability (as have users), not just its costs.
This guy presents absolutely no evidence that the MMS decision had anything to do with Cheney's "closed door" meetings. When MMS was considering backup systems, the process was open and the public was free to comment, and industry objections were a matter of public record. The study was made available to the public.
The idea that the acoustic device could have prevented the spill is pure speculation on the part of a lawyer with a case to sell. The fact is that the BOP could not be shut off by an ROV physicallty turning the switch, so to insist with 100% certainty as this guy does, that a remote switch could have done so is just plain dishonest.
Speculative or not, it needs to be determined if there were rules and requisites overturned in those meetings, or were there ever rules in place. I would love to point to this as reason to have a trasparent government (and another reason to bash Cheney), but there's got to be a reliable source to answer these questions.
ReplyDeleteHows that dirty oil from Albertas oilsands looking now?
ReplyDeleteI love it people who know nothing about valves going on about untested technology. The problem is not that the Blow Out Preventer was never told to close. The problem is that the valve is jammed so bad that they could not even manually close it with the ROV's. So how is using a different way to tell it to close going to stop the valve from jamming?
ReplyDeleteDick Cheney has made massive profits from middle east. (9/11) Lawmakers get together to discuss off shore drilling. A move which would end deceptive oil shortage rumors for price control. (Oil Spill)
ReplyDelete