Republican Joe Barton Defends BP Oil

[dimethylsea]

So San, now that we know BP was granted a safey waiver on the very rig that the spill happened on, what percentage of this the Federal Government's responsibility?

I love how you guys talk about Bush being owned by "Big Oil", but you give Obama pass after he gave "Big Oil" a safety waiver. And we know BP gave Obama truckloads of campaign cash. It's hypocracy on parade.

Could you repeat that again? All I could hear was
"I'm going to pretend a sty in the eye is equivalent to the repeated icepicks thrust into the orbital because it suits my agenda!"

[1bad65]

Could you repeat that again? All I could hear was
"I'm going to pretend a sty in the eye is equivalent to the repeated icepicks thrust into the orbital because it suits my agenda!"

Translation: I'm ducking the question.

[1bad65]

Could you repeat that again?

Sure thing.

So San, now that we know BP was granted a safey waiver on the very rig that the spill happened on, what percentage of this the Federal Government's responsibility?

Now I originally asked for San to give an answer, but you can take a shot at it too. I like multiple opinions.

[SanHeChuan]

So San, now that we know BP was granted a safey waiver on the very rig that the spill happened on, what percentage of this the Federal Government's responsibility?

Now I originally asked for San to give an answer, but you can take a shot at it too. I like multiple opinions.

So 1bad65, If the government is unnecessary to regulate business and should let them do whatever they want, why would it matter if the government enforced regulations or not?

As to my previous post. Do you think there should be an artificial government cap on businesses financial responsibility, and how does blocking the removal of that cap fit into the republican parties platform of less government. Removing the Cap would be less government would it not?

As to your question, should companies only act responsibly when the government is watching them, or should they act responsibly even when there is no one their to hold them accountable? Both BP and the MMS knew the great risk of using only one B.O.P. Greed was the cause of both to overlook these risks. BP to save money, and the MMS to collect money. BP is 100% responsible to the spill and the clean up, the federal government is responsible for beaching public trust, and should reform. Obama has been doing that, another mess Bush should have cleaned up.

Regulators Failed to Address Risks in Oil Rig Fail-Safe Device

Why the Minerals Management Service Should Not Be Blamed for the Oil Spill

[Hardwork108]

First you said this:



Then after Drake called you out, you changed direction:



So, did we "get their oil" or did we "rebuild the oil fields"? And remember, after we rebuilt the oil fields, we gave them back to Iraq! Wow, we are really much too greedy.

I believe that Iraq will be paying for the US "help" and re-construction of their country through discounted oil sales for the next zillion years. I doubt that they have the cash to pay for all the work that has been done so far and the all the work that is ahead to build their destroyed infrastructure.

On top of that, IMHO, as victors, the US (and her allies) can have a firm control on the oil trade terms for a long time to come. This will include on what the Iraqi government will be advised (forced) to spend any eventual surplus revenue, which will likely be spent on high profile projects that will put more money into the pockets of Western Corporations.

It is all about business, control and political agendas. The US (or more correctly, the people who control it)could have easily taken out Saddam Hussein without slaughtering a million Iraqis and suffering unnecessarily high casualties themselves. IMHO, both of the Iraqi wars could have been avoided for the most part.

The same goes for Afghanistan. None of the supposed highjackers of the 9-11 planes were Afghanis. There are many, many questions on the actual events of that tragic day. The official story has more holes than your average block of Swiss Cheese.

Yet, a sovereign nation was bombed FURTHER into the stone age by the most powerful countries on the planet, killing tens of thousands of people, just to "find" a Saudi Arabian business man multimillionaire, whose family has had close business links with George Bush senior, and whose family members were flown out of the US in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, when there was no other air traffic allowed. Interesting that no one wanted to question them.........

The drug business seems to have improved since the US invasion, and now we hear that huge reserves of precious and expensive Lithium have been found in Afghanistan. What a coincidence...!

Some things just don't make sense if one only listens to the official version of what is happening. Things look different when one follows the money trail and looks at the New World Order, agenda, which is now being discussed more openly, including by the same psychopaths who are doing their best to impose it.

Honestly, we are heading for shaky times of upheaval and instability.......

[1bad65]

So 1bad65, If the government is unnecessary to regulate business and should let them do whatever they want, why would it matter if the government enforced regulations or not?

As to my previous post. Do you think there should be an artificial government cap on businesses financial responsibility, and how does blocking the removal of that cap fit into the republican parties platform of less government. Removing the Cap would be less government would it not?

I'll answer all of your questions when you answer mine. Remember, I asked first. Here it is again:

Now that we know BP was granted a safey waiver on the very rig that the spill happened on, what percentage of this is the Federal Government's responsibility?

[SanHeChuan]

I'll answer all of your questions when you answer mine. Remember, I asked first. Here it is again:

Now that we know BP was granted a safey waiver on the very rig that the spill happened on, what percentage of this is the Federal Government's responsibility?

I did answer your question. In the same post you quoted.

As to your question, should companies only act responsibly when the government is watching them, or should they act responsibly even when there is no one there to hold them accountable? Both BP and the MMS knew the great risk of using only one B.O.P. Greed was the cause of both to overlook these risks. BP to save money, and the MMS to collect money. BP is 100% responsible to the spill and the clean up, the federal government is responsible for beaching public trust, and should reform.

You are responsible for you own actions, regardless of who is or isn't checking behind you. I thought you were all about personal responsibility. Both are 100% responsible, but responsible for different things that have different costs. BP is responsible for the spill and it's clean up. What happens when you damage other people’s property, you pay for it, so the cost for their mistake is going to be a lot of money. The Federal government is responsible for breaching the public trust. What happens when you don't do your job, you get fired and reorganized. The MMS was poorly constructed during Regan, was shown to be corrupt during W Bush, and only now under Obama is the system being reworked. Had W Bush corrected the problems with the MMS like he said he would, perhaps we wouldn't be in this situation at all. Although until now most of the criticism and reforms aimed at the MMS were about making it more profitable for the government, not better safety regulators. Will separating those Government agencies that profit from these leases, from those inspecting the lease holders make a difference? Logic favors yes, practice has yet to be seen.

[1bad65]

I did answer your question. In the same post you quoted.

I stand corrected. Sorry about that.

You are responsible for you own actions, regardless of who is or isn't checking behind you. I thought you were all about personal responsibility.

I am about personal responsibility. But my point is that the Judical Branch of our Government should be dealing with it, not the Executive or Legislative Branches. Once the total bills are tallied, either BP pays them, or they are sued in the court system, ie the Judicial Branch.

So if we are responsible for our own actions, why are we wasting millions (or more) on Gov't agencies that just give safety waivers? Why not just get rid of those agencies and then when accidents happen we hold the offenders responsible via the court system?

The Federal government is responsible for breaching the public trust. What happens when you don't do your job, you get fired and reorganized.

This is a key part where we differ, so let me explain my side and I want to see if you agree.

You are correct in that the Gov't did breach our trust. BUT, why is the liberal solution to now get that same gov't that broke our trust more power?

They didn't do their job, you are right again. But why in the world is the solution more of the same people that didn't do their job in the first place???

The MMS was poorly constructed during Regan, was shown to be corrupt during W Bush, and only now under Obama is the system being reworked.

If you call giving out safety waivers for campaign funds as the system being "reworked", well then Obama is reworking it.

And so far his "reworking" has resulted in the biggest oil spill in our nation's history. He is not off to a good start.

Had W Bush corrected the problems with the MMS like he said he would, perhaps we wouldn't be in this situation at all.

And had the Obama Administration not granted BP a safety waiver and forced them to fix the problem, perhaps we wouldn't be in this situation at all.

But again, why is the liberal answer to give even more power to the same entity that failed us already?

[SanHeChuan]

Why not just let god sort it out? Or in this case the judicial branch. Because it is better to prevent a disaster than clean it up. For some the amount of money or retribution that is visited on BP will never be enough to cover their losses.

We try to make sure people follow the rules, because while people are accountable for their own actions, they are not always responsible with their actions. Some wounds never heal the same. Problems was we didn't watch the watchers, or failed to take corrective action.

I don’t know where you’re getting, “giving them more power” from. We aren’t giving the agencies more power. We are rearranging them and breaking them up so that their stated missions no longer conflict. If you are responsible for collecting money, and congress is always hounding you to collect more money, you are less likely to stop work (cash flow) on a project to fix something. By separating the agencies we aren’t giving them more power, we are giving them the freedom to exercise their power.

It is being reworked by separating the hands that collect from the eyes that watch, and this happened after the spill. The so called waiver never saw Obama’s desk. It was signed off by, Frank Patton, an engineer in the New Orleans office of the Minerals Management Service, far, far from the white house. And the MMS failed to report when asked by Ken Salazar, any concerns about the safety of drilling in the gulf, despite their experts telling them otherwise.

[MasterKiller]

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6615749n&tag=api

"You know how Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal likes to blame the Federal government for the damage caused by BP's oil spill, arguing that he could have kept all the oil at bay if President Obama had only given him the resources he needed to fight it?

Well, last night CBS News tore Jindal's argument to shreds, pointing out that while President Obama has authorized up to 6,000 National Guard troops to fight the spill, Jindal has only activated 1,053 of them -- leaving more than 80% sitting idle, doing nothing to protect the state.

When CBS confronted Jindal about leaving so many guardsmen idle while oil is washing ashore, Jindal -- naturally -- blamed the Federal government, saying that he had requested deployment for the full 6,000, but that his request had been denied because "the Coast Guard and BP had to authorize individual tasks."

It turns out Jindal's response was a lie.

But Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the national incident commander in charge of the government's response to the spill, said Jindal is just flat wrong.

"There is nothing standing in the governor's way from utilizing more National Guard troops," Allen said.

In fact, the Coast Guard says every request to use the National Guard has been approved, usually within a day. Now Jindal's office acknowledged to CBS News the governor has not specifically asked for more Guard troops to be deployed."

[1bad65]

San, you seem to be a smart guy. But you either not getting what I'm saying, or you aren't reading it. We are going in circles it seems.

Why not just let god sort it out? Or in this case the judicial branch. Because it is better to prevent a disaster than clean it up. For some the amount of money or retribution that is visited on BP will never be enough to cover their losses.

We have laws/regulations in place to prevent these sorts of disasters. But Obama's Administration gave BP a safety waiver. The laws/regulations are useless if we keep giving huge donors safety waivers. Do you agree?

We try to make sure people follow the rules, because while people are accountable for their own actions, they are not always responsible with their actions. Some wounds never heal the same. Problems was we didn't watch the watchers, or failed to take corrective action.

You almost got it San. Almost.

We didn't make sure they followed the rules. They were given a waiver!!!

I don’t know where you’re getting, “giving them more power” from. We aren’t giving the agencies more power.

Are you not watching the news? By "them" I mean the Federal Government, not just the agencies in question, fyi.

Obama went on national TV and called for more laws, ie Cap-and-Tax. He also levied a moratorium shutting down all drilling, but he was overturned by a judge who can actually read the Constitution.

It is being reworked by separating the hands that collect from the eyes that watch, and this happened after the spill. The so called waiver never saw Obama’s desk. It was signed off by, Frank Patton, an engineer in the New Orleans office of the Minerals Management Service, far, far from the white house. And the MMS failed to report when asked by Ken Salazar, any concerns about the safety of drilling in the gulf, despite their experts telling them otherwise.

First off, I never said Obama himself is responsible. I've repeatedly said the Obama Administration is though.

Ok, lets assume you are right, has Mr Patton been fired yet? Has he been grilled by Congress like the CEO of BP Oil was?

Face it, the Obama Administration is "kicking ass" on the BP Oil side of the problem, but giving a pass to the Government side of the problem.

[1bad65]

Well, last night CBS News tore Jindal's argument to shreds, ...

Did CBS News happen to dig into why Governor Jindal was denied permission to build barrier islands by the Federal Government?

[SanHeChuan]

I've answered you question, did I miss your answer to mine?

If the government is unnecessary to regulate business and should let them do whatever they want, why would it matter if the government enforced regulations or not?

Do you think there should be an artificial government cap on businesses financial responsibility, and how does blocking the removal of that cap fit into the Republican Party’s platform of less government? Removing the Cap would be less government would it not?

Originally Posted by 1bad65
We have laws/regulations in place to prevent these sorts of disasters. But Obama's Administration gave BP a safety waiver. The laws/regulations are useless if we keep giving huge donors safety waivers. Do you agree?

The waivers didn't start with Obama, and aren't special compensation for donations. They are business as usual for the MMS. And as for Mr. Patton, he was operating under the rule and regulations of the MMS as he knew them.

Since spill, feds have given 27 waivers to oil companies in gulf

MMS set out rules that allow for the exemptions from some environmental requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as long as the sites in question are not relying on new or unusual technology, or within high seismic risk areas, or within the boundaries of marine sanctuaries or in regions with hazardous bottom conditions. MMS also assesses the impact on biological and archeological resources.

In the gulf, Smith said, MMS has a “wealth of environmental data” from studies of the region that it can rely on when reviewing the requests from the energy firms.
That’s why oil and gas companies that were given the exemptions said the approvals were routine and shouldn’t have raised any environmental concerns.

The waiver was only to avoid an environmental impact study before drilling. Had they done that study do you really think, that they would have come up with an answer that would lead them to deny BP’s request to drill? They were over confident that nothing could go wrong, because nothing had gone wrong, in US waters at least.

The well blew up because the BP employees on the rig ingored warning signs, BP did not inspect thier equimpment as required, and because BP allowed the rig to operate with only one B.O.P., dispite the fact that almost every other rig was using two B.O.P.'s.

Foreign flagging of offshore rigs skirts U.S. safety rules

Primary responsibility for safety and other inspections rested not with the U.S. government but with the Republic of the Marshall Islands

In this case the rule/regulations that were suppose to prevent this were messed up.

Originally Posted by 1bad65
Face it, the Obama Administration is "kicking ass" on the BP Oil side of the problem, but giving a pass to the Government side of the problem.

I would like more light on what changes are being made. And I would like to see tougher penalties for public servants who engage in bribery.

"The Inspector General report describes reprehensible activities of employees of MMS between 2000 and 2008," Salazar said of the most recent report in a statement released Tuesday. "This deeply disturbing report is further evidence of the cozy relationship between some elements of MMS and the oil and gas industry."

...

Howard pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in New Orleans the following February to one count of false statements involving not reporting the gifts in November 2008, and was sentenced to a year's probation and a $3,000 fine. He also was ordered to perform 100 hours of community service.

[bustr]

http://mediamatters.org/research/201006240025#1

[notanexit]

First you said this:



Then after Drake called you out, you changed direction:

I asked drake a question,which he refused to answer.You won't answer it either.But we both know the answer.

So, did we "get their oil" or did we "rebuild the oil fields"? And remember, after we rebuilt the oil fields, we gave them back to Iraq! Wow, we are really much too greedy.

There you go again with that "we" business.You're not part of the group okay?"They" got the oil so that "you" can continue to pay whatever price "they" want.I mentioned how Saddam started trading his nation's oil in euros instead of the dollar.You conveniently and cowardly left that part out of my statement.Unlike like you I do have a problem with over a million dead innocent people because that fake texan bush lied to the nation.