The BP Story So Far. . . Follow

But there is something disingenuous when regulating to prevent said emergency would have been 1000x more effective than trying to fix it afterwards. In this case, it's also the responsible thing to do for the entire planet, not just our country.

Except that it was largely regulation that caused this problem. More accurately, that caused this problem to be as major a disaster as it is. The problem is that per usual the useful kinds of regulations (like safety equipment, backups, redundancies, emergency plans, etc) were not in place to the degree they needed to, but restrictions on where the drilling could be done were in full effect. Had the left focused less on a "no drilling anywhere at all" strategy and more on "where and how can we drill that'll minimize environmental impact" this would not have happened. As a result we had regulation which mandated that this oil rig had to operate in very deep water, while not requiring a number of safety features which would have at least reduced the likelihood of a major disaster.


In order of risk to the environment, from most to least risky:

1. Drilling in 5000+ feet of water with a bare minimum of safety requirements

2. Drilling in 5000+ feet of water with lots of safety requirements

3. Drilling in 1000- feet of water with a bare minimum of safety requirements.

4. Drilling in 1000- feet of water with lots of safety requirements

5. Drilling on land with a bare minimum of safety requirements.

6. Drilling on land with lots of safety requirements.



Interestingly enough, the cost order for that (from least to most expensive) is 5, 6, 3, 4, 1, 2. So as a result of our environmental policies we managed to pick the most dangerous method of drilling for oil, but at least it was only the second most expensive! We're just brilliant, aren't we?


You do get that the only reason we drill in water that deep is because the environmentalists don't allow us to drill on land or shallow water, right? Think about what "regulations" caused this.

Not that I know for sure, but I'm guessing the Gulf was also chosen because there's a @#%^ton of oil there. You know, judging by the fact that it's still spewing out into the Gulf almost 2 months later, unabated.

Yeah, the answer to that is to have the proper safety equipment on your rig and enforce it, not to say "But... but... just let us drill next to your house and we PROMISE we'll be careful!"

Drilling in thousands of feet of water is costly and dangerous. It's also where the oil is. But the real story behind deepwater exploration and production is not so simple an equation.

"Deepwater production is a new frontier," American Petroleum Institute senior economic advisor Rayola Dougher explained in an interview with Minyanville. "The oil companies have been denied access to the outer continental shelf in the past; they haven't been allowed to explore. That's why they're out there now."

Kert Davies, research director at Greenpeace USA, disagrees. He says BP (BP) isn't drilling down a mile deep because environmental groups prevented the company from operating closer to shore. It's because, 15 years ago, oil production off the outer continental shelf was effectively subsidized by the US taxpayer when Congress passed the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act, which exempted oil companies from paying a 12% royalty on oil extracted from wells in federal waters.

In 1995, crude oil was selling for about $16 a barrel. Nobody had any interest in drilling in thousands of feet of water, and companies were beginning to focus overseas.

Until then, drilling in the Gulf was done primarily in depths of 650 feet or less, according to a 2009 Minerals Management Service report. After royalty relief, oil companies suddenly became quite keen on deepwater drilling, which had in the past been seen as too expensive and difficult. But there were massive amounts of oil and gas miles offshore. As noted in the MMS report, "Significant deepwater leasing activities began in 1995 and showed remarkable increases from 1996 through 1998, especially in water depths greater than 800 m (2,625 ft), where the greatest royalty relief was available." During this time, leasing activities on shallow-water blocks diminished."

Can you absolutely say that if we'd applied every single safety requirement on that rig that it would not have still suffered that catastrophic disaster? Can you say that no oil rig will *ever* suffer such a disaster if they all had the best safety equipment?

Also, not to ruin a perfectly good GOP talking point or anything but the notion that there's no shallow water drilling is patently false. The fact that coastal governors were agitating for Obama to reopen the shallow water drills shut down in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster should have been the first clue.

I'm laying a trail of breadcrumbs for you here...

By which you mean "By asking a bunch of leading questions, I'm really hoping people will think I have a point. A notion they'd be rapidly disabused of if I was to make a legitimate argument."

We know. You've been here a while.

Because a lack of domestic deposits in easily accessed areas made it cheaper to go overseas.

Wow, that was some "gotcha!"

And by "easily accessed", you're including areas which aren't made off limits by regulations lobbied for by environmentalists.