The Dead Zone (or, BP and the Oil Well That Keeps on Giving)

[Lemur]

Well, not to distract from the statist/Randoid dichotomy that's providing so much comedy material back here, but can we all agree on a simple proposal?

Don't open any holes you can't close

Of all the lessons we can learn from the BP fiasco, the simplest, and the first we should apply to offshore-drilling laws, is this: Don't open any holes you can't close. If the well site is too deep for humans to reach, drill a simultaneous relief well so you can plug a blowout promptly. If a relief well is too expensive, don't drill at all. Or you can keep robots on hand to shut down leaks. But they'll have to be better robots than the ones we're now watching.

Today's laws don't come anywhere near this standard.

[Xiahou]

Of all the lessons we can learn from the BP fiasco, the simplest, and the first we should apply to offshore-drilling laws, is this: Don't open any holes you can't close.

You'd think that would be common sense.
I think most anyone would support a government policy that requires firms to submit plans on how they would cap the well in case of a blowout before they are issued a drilling permit. Unfortunately, Congress will never produce anything so simple and straightforward. Instead, we'll probably get a new maze of unnavigable regulations that create a near defacto ban on offshore drilling- thus increasing our dependence on imported oil.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, not to distract from the statist/Randoid dichotomy that's providing so much comedy material back here, but can we all agree on a simple proposal?

Don't open any holes you can't close

Of all the lessons we can learn from the BP fiasco, the simplest, and the first we should apply to offshore-drilling laws, is this: Don't open any holes you can't close. If the well site is too deep for humans to reach, drill a simultaneous relief well so you can plug a blowout promptly. If a relief well is too expensive, don't drill at all. Or you can keep robots on hand to shut down leaks. But they'll have to be better robots than the ones we're now watching.

Today's laws don't come anywhere near this standard.

This would make things significantly more expensive and perhaps zero out any profit. Nevertheless, I think that's a better idea. A pre-drilled relief well 100 feet or so from completion would be able to minimize problems rapidly. This is a good point.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So how far should BP's liability extend? Having them pay for environmental cleanup and compensation to fishermen and the like, etc., seems reasonable.

But now the government wants them to pay the salaries of workers laid off on other oil rigs because the government declared a halt to oil rig exploratory drilling.

So, should BP have to pay workers hurting because of government decisions? I think that goes to far, and such a pronouncement is the government trying to have its cake and eat it to, in terms of stopping drilling but not hurting workers.

Really, they should just halt BP rigs - it's BP's fault, again, but the whole industry pays the price.

CR

[Furunculus]

Well, not to distract from the statist/Randoid dichotomy that's providing so much comedy material back here, but can we all agree on a simple proposal?

Don't open any holes you can't close

Of all the lessons we can learn from the BP fiasco, the simplest, and the first we should apply to offshore-drilling laws, is this: Don't open any holes you can't close. If the well site is too deep for humans to reach, drill a simultaneous relief well so you can plug a blowout promptly. If a relief well is too expensive, don't drill at all. Or you can keep robots on hand to shut down leaks. But they'll have to be better robots than the ones we're now watching.

Today's laws don't come anywhere near this standard.

don't include me in your self-drawn conclusions, because they aren't relevant.

i never argued in favour of a laissez-faire free-market, ergo i am not advocating a regulation free business environment.

[Lemur]

don't include me in your self-drawn conclusions, because they aren't relevant.

i never argued in favour of a laissez-faire free-market, ergo i am not advocating a regulation free business environment.

Sorry, Furunculus, I'm having difficulty relating what you say here to what I wrote earlier. Could you re-phrase and help a lemur understand?