6 Responses to “Why did the Obama administration pick the same oil rig that blew up as the safest one out there?”

1. bushliedhisazzoff said on July 29th, 2010 at 1:35 pm

   Got a link or did fox say that?

2. Flowmaster said on July 29th, 2010 at 1:35 pm

   They are playing both sides of the equation as usual. Two faced hypocrisy at its best.

3. cargo pilot said on July 29th, 2010 at 1:35 pm

   Money?

4. Michelle said on July 29th, 2010 at 1:35 pm

   We need to see a link substantiating your claim. Otherwise, I just see a lot of hot air.

5. qncyguy21 said on July 29th, 2010 at 1:35 pm

   Because it went through the entire Bush era without a single inspection violation or citation. I would say that is pretty good if they actually got inspected, wouldn’t you?

   Whats wrong you people now have a problem with good work being rewarded?

6. Concerned said on July 29th, 2010 at 1:35 pm

   This whole thing needs to be investigated. It’s more than just strange that right after offshore drilling was approved this happened. Too many on the left are happy about this.

   There are other issues.
   BP did donate allot of money to obama’s campaign.

   Safety responsibility shifted to companies The Canwest News Service also notes, “In a recent investigation, the Wall Street Journal found that the U.S. (Department of the Interior’s) Minerals Management Service (MMS), which regulates offshore drilling south of the border, has been gradually shifting safety responsibility to the oil industry.”

   Documents show that no blowout plan was required for BP’s sunken Gulf rig because of relaxed federal regulations in 2009.

   A Washington Post investigation concluded that in April 2009 the MMS granted BP a "categorical exclusion" from requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act to file papers on what it would do in the event of a blow-out at the new well. It reported that BP had lobbied for the exclusion just 11 days prior. Moreover in its own assessments, the MMS concluded that a blow-out at a deepwater well in the Gulf would be unlikely to generate spills bad enough for oil to threaten coastal ecosystems.

   In 2008, the Interior Department took disciplinary action against eight MMS employees who accepted lavish gifts, partied and — in some cases — had sex with employees from the energy companies they regulated. An investigation cited a "culture of substance abuse and promiscuity" involving employees in the agency’s Denver office. Bush put forth 17 warnings in 2008 and the Democrats sat and fiddled.

   If U.S. officials had followed up on a 1994 response plan for a major Gulf oil spill, it is possible that the spill could have been kept under control and far from land.

   The problem: The federal government did not have a single fire boom on hand.
   A single fire boom being towed by two boats can burn up to 1,800 barrels of oil an hour, Bohleber said. That translates to 75,000 gallons an hour, raising the possibility that the spill could have been contained at the accident scene 100 miles from shore. "They said this was the tool of last resort. No, this is absolutely the asset of first use. Get in there and start burning oil before the spill gets out of hand," Bohleber said. "If they had six or seven of these systems in place when this happened and got out there and started burning, it would have significantly lessened the amount of oil that got loose."

Leave a Reply