Nuke plants should be regulated by a competent agency that answers to the people that could potentially be affected by said plant. This could be a federal agency but more effective would be local oversight.

in other words torts

mostly local in order to be realistically responsive to its constituents, but I do see a place for oversight of a consistent and fair legal system.

in other words torts

torts + common sense + responsibility to customers + responsibility to community + LDO TORTS again

the same way you reconcile anything that is a greater risk, greater underwriting and greater scrutiny/greater care

checkm8, how do you reconcile your argument that regulation is needed with the reality staring you in the face that we HAVE regulation and this happened anyway?

Dude all failures are obviously evidence of not enough central planning, not enough bureaucracies and bureaucrats, not enough paper work, not enough restrictions and prohibitions. If only we can hire half the population to work for the government preventing the other half from doing anything at all, it would all be great.

Grunched thread but there was a good article in the Friday WSJ about regulating safety on the oil rigs, there were some good insights in the piece:

"They [oil-industry executives, current and former regulators] also argue that offshore operations have become so complicated that regulators ultimately must rely on the oil companies and drilling contractors to proceed safely."

"Some former employees say that MMS (Minerals Management Service) which was founded in 1982 and is part of the Interior Department, has a built-in conflict of interest: It is supposed to be a watchdog that halts drilling when it spots unsafe behavior. But it is also supposed to promote energy independence and to generate government revenue from drilling on government lands, including the outer continental shelf."

"The MMS has received unwelcome attention for the behavior of employees assigned to a royalty-collection office in Denver, Colo. The interior Department's inspector general concluded in 2008 that MMS employees there broke government rules and created a "culture of ethical failure" by accepting gifts from, and having sex with, industry representatives."

Maybe they weren't having ENOUGH sex with industry representatives.

Containment Dome epic fail

Plan B?

[/IMG]

Rig Owner Had Rising Tally of Accidents

The sinking of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, which triggered the spill spewing oil into the Gulf of Mexico, caught the energy world by surprise. The operator, Transocean Ltd., is a giant in the brave new world of drilling for oil in deep waters far offshore. It had been honored by regulators for its safety record. The very day of the blast on the rig, executives were aboard celebrating its seven straight years free of serious accidents.

But a Wall Street Journal examination of Transocean's record paints a more equivocal picture.

Nearly three of every four incidents that triggered federal investigations into safety and other problems on deepwater drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico since 2008 have been on rigs operated by Transocean, according to an analysis of federal data. Transocean defended its safety record but didn't dispute the Journal's analysis.

In addition, an industry survey of oil companies that hired Transocean perceived a drop in its quality and performance, including safety by some measures, compared with its peers, though it still scored tops in one safety category.


Already the largest deep-water driller, Transocean in November 2007 took over rival GlobalSantaFe in an $18 billion deal. A Journal analysis of records maintained by the U.S. Minerals Management Service found that Transocean's share of incidents in deep water investigated by the regulator has gone up since the merger, even after accounting for its increased size.

From 2005 through 2007, a Transocean rig was involved in 13 of the 39 deep-water drilling incidents investigated by the MMS in the Gulf of Mexico, or 33%. That's roughly in line with the percentage of deep-water rigs, 30%, Transocean owned and operated in the Gulf then, according to data firm RigLogix.

Since the merger, Transocean has accounted for 24 of the 33 incidents investigated by the MMS, or 73%, despite during that time owning fewer than half the Gulf of Mexico rigs operating in more than 3,000 feet of water. ......

This disaster continues, BP is basically been made out to be the villain but methinks Transocean will get most of the blame in the end. I have no idea how the cause of this is going to be determined. How many other rigs have the potential for this kind of disaster.

I'm just not convinced that we would have equal prevalence of environmental disasters without regulation/safety standards than with wtr deep sea oil rigs. Stating that we had an oil spill under the current status quo which has regulation does nothing to prove/disprove the preceding statement. Deregulation can be a great move for a variety of industries, but in an operation as dangerous, unpredictable and flat out new territory which we have little experience, I see no valid argument that less regulation would result in a safer operation. You can't compare a deep water oil rig to any other myriad of business examples in which deregulation benefits because of the MASSIVE environmental impact a disaster poses. Oh and no tort will ever be able to even laughably address the damage that has already happened, much less what will happen from this moment in time

@pvn: if you're not going to respond to the entirety of my post, **** off. if you're going to wait for other people to come and refute my post, **** off. if you're going to post pictures to substitute a lack of content, **** off. kthxbye

only because I didn't see this linked itt and I thought it was interesting

Oil Spills, Incentives, and the Economic Way of Thinking blog post by Steven Horwitz

two interesting points

Or rather the volume of oil we can expect to see from a oil tanker spill v. an oil well that we can't cap. I don't think anyone in the world can accurately quantify how much oil we can expect to leak in to the Gulf of Mexico..

It also assumes that we will never get better at shipping oil and that tanker spill rates are a constant. (hint: think airplanes and cars lol!)

Conversely we must appreciate the fact that the deep sea oil drilling technology will improve assuming it isn't all together banned. But I think we will always stand more to lose than gain, and it won't be long before we won't need petro for our energy needs so I don't think this "counter-point" carries much weight imho.

frankly, I'm hoping deep sea drilling becomes more efficient. Then, the US can drill in international waters by other countries. It's about time to get a return on the huge military the US has floating around.

poast better IMO

this cap of $75M for offshore rig operators is very interesting since Exxon paid $3.4B in compensation for the Valdez spill. The punitive damages were the thing that ended up crazy in the Supreme Court.

Who would ever cap damages at $75M when we've seen a $3.4B clean-up in the past?

And to be fair 3.4B was on the low end of the negotiations, 3.4B was arrived at on the basis of how much Exxon had spent on cleanup, not on how effective their cleanup actually was.

/themoreyouknow

"Oil spill testimony to Congress: Not our fault"

Gosh, who could have predicted that headline?

This is ridiculous...

We barely produce much oil off our own shores now. Any "reduction" in it will barely increase tanker flow from abroad. ...

Who the hell is Steve Horowitz? He's linking to goofy National Review, a real bastion of energy insider information.

We produce approximately 27 percent of domestic oil production offshore.

According to the latest data that makes domestic offshore oil production something on the order of 10.5 percent of our total oil consumption. Fairly significant imo.

lol I saw this today and thought," the greatest and most expensive engineers on earth and that is what they came up with, clog the drain?"

congress FTW

Noobish question but is this a feasible way to clean up an oil spill? It looks cool and practical in this scale test but would it translate well into the real thing.

http://wimp.com/solutionoil/

rednecks FTW

so does anyone think BP is getting to $75M and saying "we're done folks!"

Well that $75 million cap is for costs outside of direct cleanup costs. ie - lost revenue other companies incur due to the accident.

Still, I find it funny that the cap is 0.4% of BP's 2009 net income ($16.5 billion). Don't worry, this time the government will find the right number for the cap. I do wonder how many other caps like this exist.

is there any logical reason, even in the statist-loving society that we live in today, why BP and/or TransOcean shouldn't have to pick up the tab (regardless of the size) even if that means...god forbid...bankruptcy?

TBTF? hardly.

also, how many jobs will the cleanup of this incident create?

I've noticed more than a few status updates on FB with info on immediate jobs for laborers paying ~$13/hr. Eligible candidates must be able to pass a drug screen, lift 85 lbs, move to the area (housing and meals paid for), along with a few other stipulations.