Gulf Oil Spill is Cheney's Fault as Much as Obama's → Washingtons Blog
Gulf Oil Spill is Cheney's Fault as Much as Obama's - Washingtons Blog

Friday, April 30, 2010

Gulf Oil Spill is Cheney's Fault as Much as Obama's


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:

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.

Cheney has caused a lot of other disasters as well. See this and this.

Of course, BP is also at fault. BP fought tougher safety regulations as recently as September 2009.

And Halliburton has also been implicated.

12 comments:

  1. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe we could just invest monies into genetically modifying organisms in the environment to become immune from oil spills. Imagine the possibilities?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The well did have a BOP switch. Does Mike still say that it is not the best technoloy to prevent oil spills?

    ReplyDelete
  4. There's also this from Truthout: http://www.truthout.org/whistlelower-bps-other-offshore-drilling-project-gulf-vulnerable-catastrophe59027 – long but important

    Whistleblower: BP Risks More Massive Catastrophes in Gulf

    ReplyDelete
  5. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 2000-2008....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?????)

    THANKS AND HAVE A NICE DAY!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sorry, but this is utter BS.

    The 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.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hows that dirty oil from Albertas oilsands looking now?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I 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?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Planetresource.net has a Eco friendly solution to clean up the tragedy British Petroleum has created, please watch the video animation:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60bdQQQ3iVw and pass this along to as many people as you know.

    One person can still make a difference in this world, is that simple interactions have a rippling effect. Each time this gets pass along, the hope in cleaning our planet is passed on.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dick 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

→ Thank you for contributing to the conversation by commenting. We try to read all of the comments (but don't always have the time).

→ If you write a long comment, please use paragraph breaks. Otherwise, no one will read it. Many people still won't read it, so shorter is usually better (but it's your choice).

→ The following types of comments will be deleted if we happen to see them:

-- Comments that criticize any class of people as a whole, especially when based on an attribute they don't have control over

-- Comments that explicitly call for violence

→ Because we do not read all of the comments, I am not responsible for any unlawful or distasteful comments.