Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

BP Fought Safety Measures at Deepwater Oil Rigs
Owner of Louisiana Oil Well Objected to System That Would Have Shut Off Spill
By MATTHEW MOSK, BRIAN ROSS and RHONDA SCHWARTZ

Apr. 30, 2010 —

BP, the company that owned the Louisiana oil rig that exploded last week, spent years battling federal regulators over how many layers of safeguards would be needed to prevent a deepwater well from this type of accident.

One area of immediate concern, industry experts said, was the lack of a remote system that would have allowed workers to clamp shut Deepwater Horizon's wellhead so it would not continue to gush oil. The rig is now spilling 210,000 gallons of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico.

In a letter sent last year to the Department of the Interior, BP objected to what it called "extensive, prescriptive regulations" proposed in new rules to toughen safety standards. "We believe industry's current safety and environmental statistics demonstrate that the voluntary programs&continue to be very successful."

CLICK HERE TO READ THE LETTER

That was one in a series of clashes between the industry and federal regulators that began during the Clinton administration. In 2000, the federal agency that oversaw oil rig safety issued a safety alert that called added layers of backup "an essential component of a deepwater drilling system." The agency said operators were expected to have multiple layers of protection to prevent a spill.

But according to aides to Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat who has followed offshore drilling issues for years, the industry aggressively lobbied against an additional layer of protection known as an "acoustic system," saying it was too costly. In a March 2003 report, the agency reversed course, and said that layer of protection was no longer needed.

"There was a big debate under the Bush administration whether or not to require additional oil drilling safeguards but [federal regulators] decided not to require any additional mandatory safeguards, believing the industry would be motivated to do it themselves," Carl Pope, Chairman of the Sierra Club told ABC News.

93henfan wrote:Why should BP give a damn?

Surely they saw that Exxon got off light on the Valdez disaster, with SCOTUS reducing their punitive damages to 10% of the jury's verdict. With that kind of corporate protectionism, who gives a shit about birds and fishermen?

dbackjon wrote:It is disgusting. This is the type of thing that Liberals and Tea Partiers alike should be revolting against.

native wrote:

dbackjon wrote:It is disgusting. This is the type of thing that Liberals and Tea Partiers alike should be revolting against.

Yup. I agree with Marco Rubio, that we should hold off on further offshore drilling until we determine the cause of the current blowout.

native wrote:

dbackjon wrote:It is disgusting. This is the type of thing that Liberals and Tea Partiers alike should be revolting against.

Yup. I agree with Marco Rubio, that we should hold off on further offshore drilling until we determine the cause of the current blowout.

appmaj wrote:BP needs to pay up. Price gouging at the pump has given them plenty of money.



Millions of Dollars

http://www.opesc.org/fiche-societe/fich ... reprise=BP" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

houndawg wrote: Marco will change his tune quickly when BP starts writing those unlimited campaign contribution checks.

Baldy wrote:Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.

Baldy wrote:

houndawg wrote: Marco will change his tune quickly when BP starts writing those unlimited campaign contribution checks.

Is Barack changing his tune?

Obama biggest recipient of BP cash

"While the BP oil geyser pumps millions of gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they’ve taken from the oil and gas giant over the years.

BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals.

On top of that, the oil giant has spent millions each year on lobbying — including $15.9 million last year alone — as it has tried to influence energy policy.

During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.

93henfan wrote:

Baldy wrote:Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.

I despise PACs as much as anybody else, but $77K doesn't sound like a ton of cash. Are there any comparison figures out there for what, say, XOM gave to Bush, etc? I'm not taking sides; just curious.

Edit: A quick google search shows that XOM gave $250K to Bush's 2004 inauguration.

Chizzang wrote:

93henfan wrote:
I despise PACs as much as anybody else, but $77K doesn't sound like a ton of cash. Are there any comparison figures out there for what, say, XOM gave to Bush, etc? I'm not taking sides; just curious.

Edit: A quick google search shows that XOM gave $250K to Bush's 2004 inauguration.

Every one of these guys are for sale...
I Repeat: Our Federal Government is Run by Big Business and has been for a long time

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Since this oil stick to birds and sea turtles so well I think the answer is obvious.

We need to dump more birds and turtles into the ocean to absorb the oil or better yet get one of those giant sea turtles and stuff him in the hole the oils coming out of.

houndawg wrote: I don't know whether to be more disguted by SCOTUS handing control of our country to the corporations or by how cheaply the politicians are willing to sell themselves. Either way it isn't our country anymore. Game over, too bad.

Baldy wrote:
All it did was level the playing field. Labor Unions have has unfettered access to politicians for years, now corporations have that same opportunity. What's good for the goose...

Baldy wrote:

houndawg wrote: I don't know whether to be more disguted by SCOTUS handing control of our country to the corporations or by how cheaply the politicians are willing to sell themselves. Either way it isn't our country anymore. Game over, too bad.

All it did was level the playing field. Labor Unions have has unfettered access to politicians for years, now corporations have that same opportunity. What's good for the goose...

Baldy wrote:

houndawg wrote: I don't know whether to be more disguted by SCOTUS handing control of our country to the corporations or by how cheaply the politicians are willing to sell themselves. Either way it isn't our country anymore. Game over, too bad.

All it did was level the playing field. Labor Unions have has unfettered access to politicians for years, now corporations have that same opportunity. What's good for the goose...

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote:
All it did was level the playing field. Labor Unions have has unfettered access to politicians for years, now corporations have that same opportunity. What's good for the goose...

Neither unions or corporations should have access or be able to make campaign contributions. At least if you buy into the notion that non human entities are not the same as humans. I'm holding my breath for the democrats to propose a constitutional amendment.