Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 22 Jul '10 14:11
    According to a separate 112-page equipment assessment also commissioned by Transocean, many key components — including the blowout preventer rams and failsafe valves — had not been fully inspected since 2000, even though guidelines require its inspection every three to five years.

    The report cited at least 26 components and systems on the rig that were in “bad” or “poor” condition.



    My question is why did the Obama adminstration allow this to happen? Why was this rig given a pass and not inspected during Obama's watch? 2005 would have been at the tale end of Bush's watch, but it was duing Obama's watch that the rig was at least 8 years out of inspection. This seems to be rather extreme.

    So the question I have is why would Obama's people do this? Why give the pass and not have the rig inspected? What could a crisis like this do for Obama's goals? What long term goal could BP achieve by allowing this to happen?


    Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/us/22transocean.html?_r=1&hp
  2. 22 Jul '10 14:19
    Why the emphasis on Obama? Clearly regulations were not properly followed before he was elected. So he "merely" failed to recognize and tackle this.
  3. 22 Jul '10 14:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    According to a separate 112-page equipment assessment also commissioned by Transocean, many key components — including the blowout preventer rams and failsafe valves — had not been fully inspected since 2000, even though guidelines require its inspection every three to five years.

    The report cited at least 26 components and systems on the rig that were g this to happen?


    Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/us/22transocean.html?_r=1&hp
    It was "8 years not inspected" in Obama's admin, but 7 of those were during Bush's administration but of course it was Obama's fault for all 8 now.

    2005 wasn't the tail end of Bush's watch - he had 3/4 of his last term to go.
  4. 22 Jul '10 14:37
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    It was "8 years not inspected" in Obama's admin, but 7 of those were during Bush's administration but of course it was Obama's fault for all 8 now.

    2005 wasn't the tail end of Bush's watch - he had 3/4 of his last term to go.
    The last skipped inspection was under Obama's watch. That's why Obama gets the blame. Obama is supposed to be about protecting nature and Bush is supposed to be about making money. I can see why Bush would allow inspections to be skipped, especially in the fist five years since another inspection isn't required. I can't understand a good reason for the Obama folks to allow a rig not to be inspected.

    It was either incompetence or it was for a reason. In both cases Obama looks really bad.
  5. 22 Jul '10 14:51 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Obama is supposed to be about protecting nature and Bush is supposed to be about making money.
    Laughably simplistic. U.S. elections are decided by moderate voters in swing states. Obama and Bush appealed to these voters which allowed them to win the elections.
  6. 22 Jul '10 14:51
    Originally posted by Eladar
    The last skipped inspection was under Obama's watch. That's why Obama gets the blame. Obama is supposed to be about protecting nature and Bush is supposed to be about making money. I can see why Bush would allow inspections to be skipped, especially in the fist five years since another inspection isn't required. I can't understand a good reason for the O ...[text shortened]...

    It was either incompetence or it was for a reason. In both cases Obama looks really bad.
    The last skipped inspection was under Obama's watch.

    Did Obama order the inspection to be skipped? Frankly I think the question is who was in charge of the inspections. Of course you can say that the buck stops at Obama, but he's probably not the one who made the decision.

    I think the same about Bush - he likely didn't order the missed inspections under his watch either, but he doesn't evade responsibility if you want to suggest that the president is responsible.

    Obama is supposed to be about protecting nature and Bush is supposed to be about making money.

    Says who? I thought both were/are supposed to be about protecting and leading this country.

    I don't see how Obama is not about making money.

    I can see why Bush would allow inspections to be skipped, especially in the fist five years since another inspection isn't required.

    So why in the last 3 years of his administration did he do nothing? You are suggesting that somehow because Bush "is about making money" then he somehow shouldn't be responsible for this kind of thing?

    If Obama came out and showed that he is all about making money would he get a pass on oil spills too?

    It was either incompetence or it was for a reason

    I agree - I think it's more about greed on the oil companies involved, regulators not having the teeth or the will to actually regulate and the oil companies' abilities to just avoid fines.

    I truly doubt this was some kind of conspiracy to allow this to happen for ulterior motives. I definitely haven't seen any real evidence of this. As the saying goes: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

    I don't think this is completely because of Bush or Obama's stupidity other than the policies of allowing regulations to be lax which Bush definitely allowed and Obama didn't stop.

    To suggest that this happened because of Obama alone is really just a desire to blame him.

    The primary culprits are BP and the other oil companies responsible for that rig that made the decisions to not actually make the rig as safe as possible.
  7. 22 Jul '10 15:22
    Did Obama order the inspection to be skipped? Frankly I think the question is who was in charge of the inspections. Of course you can say that the buck stops at Obama, but he's probably not the one who made the decision.


    So I suppose you are saying that the buck does not stop at Obama. I am saying it does. He was responsible for putting the people into position for carrying out the inpsections. For one reason or another the inspections were not made.

    Says who? I thought both were/are supposed to be about protecting and leading this country.

    I don't see how Obama is not about making money.


    Look at the new regulation bill that Obama just signed into law and tell me that Obama is about making money. I can't believe anyone would actaully say that Obama is pro business. That's absolutley laughable.

    Why is the Obama adminstration attempting to shut down all drilling in the Gulf if they are pro-business? Obama has shown himself to be anti-oil by shutting down drilling. The question is why the inconsistancy? Why shut down the Gulf to protect the enviroment, but fail to carry out basic inspections which are desigend to protect the enviroment?

    Pretty big inconsistancy there. Of course could Obama have shut down the drilling if the explostion did not occur?
  8. 22 Jul '10 15:44
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Did Obama order the inspection to be skipped? Frankly I think the question is who was in charge of the inspections. Of course you can say that the buck stops at Obama, but he's probably not the one who made the decision.


    So I suppose you are saying that the buck does not stop at Obama. I am saying it does. He was responsible for putting the people ...[text shortened]... y there. Of course could Obama have shut down the drilling if the explostion did not occur?[/b]
    So I suppose you are saying that the buck does not stop at Obama.

    I didn't say that at all. Obama is responsible for responding to this and I think he hasn't done the best job of that for sure.

    Now, whether he made any specific decisions about the enforcement of regulations on that oil rig is not known by either of us and that plays a part in how much of the blame does fall on him. I'm not and didn't say none of this is his fault, but I was also saying that you can't claim that Obama is at fault for inspections not happening in his one year in office and somehow Bush is not at fault for inspections not happening in his 8.

    He was responsible for putting the people into position for carrying out the inpsections. For one reason or another the inspections were not made.

    Yes and the person who made the decision to not make the inspection holds the most blame outside of BP and the oil companies involved who by far hold the most blame. Same goes for Bush and his administration.

    Look at the new regulation bill that Obama just signed into law and tell me that Obama is about making money. I can't believe anyone would actaully say that Obama is pro business. That's absolutley laughable.

    Is there only black and white in your world? You're not either pro-business or anti-business. You can be about making money and also want to have real regulations in industries. You can have problems with some of the regulations he wants and that's valid, but wanting regulations or being in favor of regulations is not anti-business it's just pro-rules just like you're not anti-football if you think that clipping shouldn't be allowed and refs are required.

    Why is the Obama adminstration attempting to shut down all drilling in the Gulf if they are pro-business?

    Do you think the only reason to shut down drilling in the Gulf is being "anti-business"?? That's remarkably simple-minded.

    Obama has shown himself to be anti-oil by shutting down drilling.

    More black and white thinking. If you don't let oil companies drill without restrictions then you're anti-oil.

    Pretty big inconsistancy there. Of course could Obama have shut down the drilling if the explostion did not occur?

    I don't see as big an inconsistancy that you do. You seem to be assuming that Obama specifically decided to not carry out the basic inspections and you haven't provided ANY evidence of that. Who made the decision to not carry out the inspections?

    Could Obama have shut down the drilling if the explosion did not occur? Maybe, maybe not... but that's irrelevant as to what drilling should and should not happen in the Gulf.
  9. 22 Jul '10 15:52 / 2 edits
    This is my opinion..... whomever insured that rig, should have caught the lack of inspections, as well as the complaints. The ball is in their court.
    One example I can give from my own experience.
    We had a 166K sq foot wafer fab. The fire system was not on city water, we had two huge tanks out back by the pump.There were two pumps, electric and diesel.
    Our insurance company required a test run of that system every week.
    We kept logs, made sure the tanks were full, and serviced the equipment like clockwork. All of this was charted and records were kept. Any time that any part of that system was shut down, such as when we added a sprinkler head somewhere, we had to call the company, night or day, and report it was down, and the expected length of time. We also made a call to the fire dept.
    All of this was monitored in two places, our own control room had visibility, as did the life safety group in their part of the building.
    The same holds true for any pressure vessel, boilers come to mind..they are state inspected yearly. If something is found we are on the clock to have it fixed.
    Same holds true with the chillers. And everything is documented...... CYA

    I think someone dropped the ball on the owners end, Obama and crew are not responsible for every oil rig in the ocean, or on land. And we don't need them to be.
    I will be interested in just how this plays out.

    My two bits worth
  10. 22 Jul '10 15:53
    I don't see as big an inconsistancy that you do. You seem to be assuming that Obama specifically decided to not carry out the basic inspections and you haven't provided ANY evidence of that. Who made the decision to not carry out the inspections?


    vs

    So I suppose you are saying that the buck does not stop at Obama.

    I didn't say that at all.


    We are not talking about responding, the question is about the incident to begin with. Does the buck stop with Obama or not?



    As for the rest, obviously any discussion with you is a waste of time since anything I say you'll write off as black and white.
  11. 22 Jul '10 15:55
    Originally posted by Eladar
    [b]I don't see as big an inconsistancy that you do. You seem to be assuming that Obama specifically decided to not carry out the basic inspections and you haven't provided ANY evidence of that. Who made the decision to not carry out the inspections?


    vs

    So I suppose you are saying that the buck does not stop at Obama.

    I didn't say that at a ...[text shortened]... ussion with you is a waste of time since anything I say you'll write off as black and white.
    No, not in this case..... it is the owners responsibility
  12. 22 Jul '10 16:03
    I believe both are to be held accountable. I suppose you don't.
  13. 22 Jul '10 19:27
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I believe both are to be held accountable. I suppose you don't.
    If we are talking here about safety, we could not operate without insurance, it's against the law. Had we not complied with the requests of the insurance company, they would have cancelled our insurance, and it would have closed the FAB,, idling 1400 workers.
    We did have several workers who actually called in OSHA when they felt that their complaints were not handled sufficiently. In one case it was simply a metal hand rail not being installed properly, and we fixed it.
    I do not think the oil rigs can operate with out an insurance policy, I assume that is who will be paying for the deaths and damages? If the insurance company gets dinged for billions, someone on their end was also asleep at the wheel.
    My friend was a first mate on the Glomar Explorer when it was operating in the gulf. he has knowledge of this incident, and pretty much sums it up, as I did.
  14. 22 Jul '10 19:44
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    This is my opinion..... whomever insured that rig, should have caught the lack of inspections, as well as the complaints. The ball is in their court.
    One example I can give from my own experience.
    We had a 166K sq foot wafer fab. The fire system was not on city water, we had two huge tanks out back by the pump.There were two pumps, electric and diesel. ...[text shortened]... e don't need them to be.
    I will be interested in just how this plays out.

    My two bits worth
    safety first!
  15. 22 Jul '10 19:46
    it's hard to fault Bush or Obama for the safety problems. the inspectors got too cozy with their clients. until something big happens, nothing's going to be done to fix that, and doubtful if DC even learns of it til then: who's going to tell them?

    imagine if Bush had tried to implement post-9/11 security measures pre-9/11. no chance of it!