Naked Oiled Supertankers
 

[quote=Andi47;217826]That's why I wrote "according to BP". (and: When they say "we are capturing xy barrels/day (or gallons, litres or whatever), that should be the vast majority", and the next day they say "oh, we are capturing 50% more than yesterday", than this lights some blinking lamps on the skepticism-o-meter.)[/quote]But do you actually have any direct, accurate quote from BP that unambiguously declares the amount being captured to be the vast majority of the total flow?

I think not, so your skepticism is misdirected -- it should have been directed at the accuracy of the claimed quote.

The article I linked shows that only by combining two separate utterances, the second of which was in response to an interviewer's interruption of the uncompleted first part, can one produce the statement you and many others are attributing, unfairly, to BP.

Beware confusing cynicism with skepticism.

[quote=ewmayer;217805]And you still believe what BP tells you? How many blatant lies-in-your-face does it take to get your skepticism-o-meter to deviate from zero?

"Oh, did we say we were capturing 15.082 barrels per day? Our bad ... we meant *gallons*...oh wait, we're British, it must in fact be [strike]liters[/strike] litres..."[/quote]In your case, I think you've definitely allowed your cynicism to corrode your skepticism.

I challenge you to produce sound evidence that BP has lied or contradicted itself in regard to the capture rate versus total flow rate. You can't do that by misquoting, repeating paraphrases or constructing hypothetical statements.

I expect you to fail that challenge (this is added for incentive :-).

Naked Oiled Supertankers
 

[quote=ewmayer;217858]For today I put forth the "Rate of oil leak" article from the NYT in my post above.[/quote]So, you cannot produce sound evidence that BP has lied or contradicted itself in regard to the capture rate versus total flow rate. (The NYT article contains nothing meeting that criterion. The second paragraph compares BP's statement about capture with a government estimate of total flow, and [I]the article authors chose to write a conditional deduction based on that comparison[/I]. BP itself made no such claim!)

In other words, you cannot meet my challenge.

And, as is typical recently when I call you out on such mistakes, you don't admit your error.

Ernst, you're genuinely good at detecting and exposing "spin" and distortions, as you've shown us time and time again in this forum. But you have a tendency to post "spin" and distortions of your own when it suits you, and refuse to admit them when someone else spots and challenges such an occurrence.

I think you would enhance your reputation here if you were to admit your mistakes due to bias, when pointed out. When you don't, it reduces readers' faith in your other allegations.

Aw, Cheesie, there you go again, deluding yourself that you are the district attorney and that I am a defendant on trial.

Until we get independent and credible estimates regarding rate of oil capture and total rate of flow, I shall rely on what my eyes tell me, and you have no basis to claim that I am in error - all we can say is that even if BP's capture-rate numbers are correct [which they mey well be, since those are easily verifiable by any on on the capture vessel], the total flow rate is unknown, and estimates to date may be wildly off. As the NYT article notes, "a subgroup that analyzed the plume emerging at the wellhead could offer no upper bound for its flow estimate, and could come up with only a rough idea of the lower bound, which it pegged at 12,000 to 25,000 barrels a day. "

If it turns out that BP is in fact capturing even half the totalflow as I write this, I will happily issue a mea culpa.

Erniewernie,

There [B]you[/B] go again, dodging and strawmanning.

Can't defend yourself with a straight answer, can you?

You're committing a lie at least as wrong as the lie you falsely attribute to BP.

[quote=ewmayer;217871]Until we get independent and credible estimates regarding rate of oil capture and total rate of flow, I shall rely on what my eyes tell me, and you have no basis to claim that I am in error[/quote]Yes, I do have a basis to claim that you are in error!

[U]You are strawmanning like crazy to distract attention from the fact that I didn't claim you were in error about rate of oil capture or total rate of flow, but instead did claim that you committed a different type of error -- an error of attribution!
[/U]
Try giving an honest response to my actual accusation: that you incorrectly accused BP of having claimed that their capture represented the vast majority of the total flow.

My accusation was about your attributing to BP a misleading claim that they never actually made.

I know you have the ability to diagnose such distortion as you made; what I don't know is whether you will actually look at your own language honestly for the same reason.

[quote]all we can say is that even if BP's capture-rate numbers are correct [which they mey well be, since those are easily verifiable by any on on the capture vessel], the total flow rate is unknown, and estimates to date may be wildly off.[/quote]So what?

That has nothing to do with your accusation that BP claimed that their capture represented the vast majority of the total flow.

We can all see that you're weaving, dodging, and spinning about that.

Give us a straight, honest admission of mistake about that accusation.

[quote]As the NYT article notes, "a subgroup that analyzed the plume emerging at the wellhead could offer no upper bound for its flow estimate, and could come up with only a rough idea of the lower bound, which it pegged at 12,000 to 25,000 barrels a day. "

If it turns out that BP is in fact capturing even half the totalflow as I write this, I will happily issue a mea culpa.[/quote]Strawmanning to the end!

[U]The problem is not whether BP is in fact capturing even half the total flow.[/U]

The problem is that you falsely accused BP of claiming something they never claimed.

If you admit that BP is in fact capturing even half the total flow, that would NOT be a mea culpa for your actual error. For an actual mea culpa, you'd have to admit that you falsely accused BP of lying about their capture being the majority of the total flow.

One begins to wonder whether, if you can't be honest about such a relatively simple matter, you should be trusted in other statements you make about the BP oil spill. It was just a simple mistake you could have easily admitted, but now your dodging and weaving makes us wonder whether you have some inability to be truthful about your mistakes. If you can't, then how do we know whether your other statements are reliable? Perhaps they also contain sloppy, biased errors, but it's just that no one has noticed or called you on them yet.

And we notice that when a simple error is called to your attention, you repeatedly distort what someone else described as the error, pretending that it's something it's not.

You spend hundreds of words to avoid making one simple truthful statement about your error. That statement could've been just, "Oops, you're right -- though BP has lied about other things, they didn't lie about that one." Or as simple as "No, BP didn't lie about that."

Is this your way of discouraging people from pointing out some of your mistakes?

Honestly! Get a room you two lovebugs.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;217985]That's why we need government regulation to "hold business's feet to the fire" to protect public interests.

So many conservatives have this blind faith that the free market will persuade businesses to adopt adequate safety policies, but history shows (yes, lessons of history again) that isn't sufficient to take account of actual (rather than conservatives' idealized version of) human nature.[/QUOTE]

And liberals have this blind faith that government regulators will enforce these adequate safety policies, but history shows (yes, lessons of history again) that regulators get lax, cozy up to industry insiders, just don't care, look the other way for promises of a future industry job, get political pressure from above (thanks to political contributions) to ignore regulations, etc.

This leaves you with a damned if you do or damned if you don't situation.

Maybe Ernst is on the right track. Massive criminal penalties - zealously pursued - would align corporate executives interests with national interests.

[quote=Prime95;217989]And liberals have this blind faith that government regulators[/quote]I referred to "regulation", by which I meant the [I]process[/I] of enforcing laws and rules. I should have written "regulatory process".

[quote]but history shows (yes, lessons of history again) that regulators get lax, cozy up to industry insiders, just don't care, look the other way for promises of a future industry job, get political pressure from above (thanks to political contributions) to ignore regulations, etc.[/quote]... which is general human nature, applicable to all kinds of situations, not just liberal ones.

I don't see why a declaration of process has to explicitly specify "oh, and we also mean arresting and trying all the people who break one of these or any other laws". That was assumed.

[quote]This leaves you with a damned if you do or damned if you don't situation.[/quote]No, it doesn't. You're just straw-manning.

[quote]Maybe Ernst is on the right track. Massive criminal penalties - zealously pursued - would align corporate executives interests with national interests.[/quote]So, you agree with me after all.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;217993]No, it doesn't. You're just straw-manning.[/QUOTE]

Aaaccckkk, the dreaded [B]STRAW MAN[/B] defense. I must admit defeat.....

[quote=Prime95;218021]Aaaccckkk, the dreaded [B]STRAW MAN[/B] defense. I must admit defeat.....[/quote]If you hadn't used the tactic, I wouldn't have used the defense.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;217993]
No, it doesn't. You're just straw-manning.
So, you agree with me after all.[/QUOTE]

Lord no, I don't agree with you.

My plan: fire all those precious government regulators you liberals love - it will help balance the budget. They are worthless.

To get an oil drilling lease, pass legislation along the following lines:

1) A spill on the order of the current disaster incurs an immediate $10 billion dollar fine (and it only goes up from there if negligence is involved) plus all cleanup costs.

2) To get an oil drilling lease, all oil drillers must agree to establish an independent safety division that has complete responsibility for drilling operations. If any executive compensation of the safety division is tied to profitability, or meeting schedules, then all executives from the officer of the safety division up to and including the company CEO are guilty of a crime punishable by 50 years in prison.

3) Any spill of more than 1000 barrels immediately obligates the Justice Department to appoint an independent prosecutor. Oil company to pay for all expenses of the investigation. Oil company agrees to make all internal documents available to said prosecutor. Oil company agrees to pay any fines imposed by special prosecutor without appeal.

Now, drill baby drill. Watch oil companies fall all over themselves making sure they do it safely.

P.S. Additional punitive measures and vigorous enforcement amendments are welcome.

[quote=Prime95;218128]Lord no, I don't agree with you.

My plan: fire all those precious government regulators you liberals love[/quote]You are attributing views to me which I do not hold. If you wish to state my position as part of an argument you wish to make, please state my actual position, not some (* sigh *) straw-man distortion of what I've actually advocated.

I'm beginning to think that you don't even know the meaning of [I]regulation[/I]. You say you don't agree with me, [I]then you proceed to recommend regulatory measures.[/I] What are you getting at -- some kind of sarcasm or satire?

[quote]To get an oil drilling lease, pass legislation along the following lines:

1) A spill on the order of the current disaster incurs an immediate $10 billion dollar fine (and it only goes up from there if negligence is involved) plus all cleanup costs.[/quote]... which is regulatory.

[quote]2) To get an oil drilling lease, all oil drillers must agree to establish an independent safety division that has complete responsibility for drilling operations.[/quote]... which is regulatory.

[quote]If any executive compensation of the safety division is tied to profitability, or meeting schedules, then all executives from the officer of the safety division up to and including the company CEO are guilty of a crime punishable by 50 years in prison.[/quote]... which is regulatory.

[quote]3) Any spill of more than 1000 barrels immediately obligates the Justice Department to appoint an independent prosecutor. Oil company to pay for all expenses of the investigation. Oil company agrees to make all internal documents available to said prosecutor. Oil company agrees to pay any fines imposed by special prosecutor without appeal.[/quote]... all of which is regulatory.

[quote]Now, drill baby drill. Watch oil companies fall all over themselves making sure they do it safely.[/quote]... because of the regulation to which they would be subject.

[quote]P.S. Additional punitive measures and vigorous enforcement amendments are welcome.[/quote]... all of which would be regulatory.

So, you aren't really serious about any of that list.

(If you were, then what in the world do you think "regulation" means?)

How about giving us a straightforward, sincere, non-game-playing, non-rhetoric-bending list of what you think ought to be done?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;218254]You are attributing views to me which I do not hold. If you wish to state my position as part of an argument you wish to make, please state my actual position[/quote]

I originally stated, to no one in particular, that liberals love government regulators. You jumped at the opportunity to defend them, so I assume you are one of those liberals that loves government regulators :)

[quote]How about giving us a straightforward, sincere, non-game-playing, non-rhetoric-bending list of what you think ought to be done?[/QUOTE]

I did.

At no point did I disagree with you that conservatives view that the free market will prevent problems like this is stupid. I merely added that the liberals belief in government regulators is equally stupid.

You seem to be confused between regulators and regulations. Yes, I proposed regulations. I also proposed no regulators - the Justice Department [B]prosecutes[/B] rather than [B]regulates[/B].

[QUOTE=Prime95;218262]You seem to be confused between regulators and regulations. Yes, I proposed regulations. I also proposed no regulators - the Justice Department [B]prosecutes[/B] rather than [B]regulates[/B].[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but who's going to regulate the prosecutors? Or prosecute the regulators-of-prosecutors if they fail in the performance of their duties, that is, engage in prosecutorial-regulatory nonfeasance? Huh? And what if the prosecutors-of-regulators-of-prosecutors-for-engaging-in-prosecutorial-regulatory-nonfeasance commit prosecutorial-of-regulators-of-prosecutors-for-engaging-in-prosecutorial-regulatory-nonfeasance misconduct? Huh? Huh? what would you do then?

[LOL, I'm just glad to see the target of cheesehead's latest straw-man-handling be painted on someone else's back.;)]

[quote=Prime95;218262]I originally stated, to no one in particular, that liberals love government regulators. You jumped at the opportunity to defend them,[/quote]No, I did not.

[quote]so I assume you are one of those liberals that loves government regulators :)[/quote]Your assumption was the result of your own mistake in thinking, then.

[quote]I merely added that the liberals belief in government regulators is equally stupid.[/quote]not "merely". You also attributed that "belief" to me in particular.

(I have underlined the relevant pronoun in the following exact quote.)
[quote=Prime95;218128]fire all those precious government regulators [U]you[/U] liberals love[/quote]

Please take responsibility for your own words.

[quote=Prime95;218262]You seem to be confused between regulators and regulations.[/quote]You seem confused between what I actually mentioned, "regulations", and what I did not mention, "regulators".

Of course I assumed that human regulators would be required to perform the functions necessary to carry on the regulatory process. But because I was making no statement about any characteristics of the people involved (I never stated that I loved regulators, for instance), I never actually referred to them at all.

[U]You[/U] were the one who introduced mention of regulators, not me.

Again, please take responsibility for your own words.

[quote]Yes, I proposed regulations. I also proposed no regulators - the Justice Department [B]prosecutes[/B] rather than [B]regulates[/B].[/quote]You seem to have a naive idea of government.

You propose laws passed by a legislature that need no administration by the executive branch of government, except for prosecution of violations.

Let's consider your suggestion "2) To get an oil drilling lease, all oil drillers must agree to establish an independent safety division that has complete responsibility for drilling operations."

Do you really think that it would be an effective use of Congress's time to specify in every detail what reports an oil company should file to provide the information necessary to satisfy your proposed requirements? To whom, exactly, shall the companies send these reports? Congress? Justice Department? Federal courts?

Who, exactly, is to inspect drilling operations in order to verify that the operations are in conformance with the claims in their filed forms? Do you really propose that Congressional subcommittees, or the Justice Department, should include people who go out to oil drilling platforms and perform such inspections or tests?

Who defines all the details of what's involved in "independent safety division" and "complete responsibility for drilling operations"? It's true that the establishing bill will define these up to a point, but we do not expect legislators to be able to foresee absolutely every detail that might come up. Instead, we have legislators specify enough detail to make the intent clear, but also define which executive-branch department or agency is responsible for the rest.[sup]*[/sup]

What happens when new technological developments make some parts of the safety regulations obsolete? You, apparently, would have Congress (or the Justice Department, or the federal courts?) be responsible for keeping abreast of all such technological developments in the oil industry in order to know when they need to pass an amendment to the safety division law.

That's not how it's done, George.

Instead, the executive branch contains departments (such as the Departments of Energy and Interior) that do have the staff to do such things. They include (* gasp *) [I]regulatory[/I] agencies that carry out the routine functions such as I mention above -- [I]and in order to implement such laws as [U]you[/U] have proposed[/I].

Do you really understand the separation of powers between the legislative and executive parts of government? Your contention betrays either 1) a lack of basic knowledge of government operation of the sort you should have learned in junior high or high school civic class, 2) a forgetting to apply such knowledge to what we're discussing, or 3) faith that laws are enforced, and violators discovered, as a result of some magical process that doesn't require human intervention. (Alternative 2 is most probable.)

If you disagree with my assessment, then please tell us just how, in more detail, this country would implement your suggestion

"2) To get an oil drilling lease, all oil drillers must agree to establish an independent safety division that has complete responsibility for drilling operations."

Who defines, in all details, what information the drillers have to provide?

To whom are the drillers to send that information?

Who, exactly, is to perform inspections to verify that the drillers' claims about their safety division are correct?

Who, exactly, is to update the requirements in order to account for technological changes?

- - -

[sup]*[/sup] I am reminded of how the drafters of the Oklahoma state constitution (1906-7) were soooo concerned about railroads that they wrote extensive detailed railroad regulations into the state constitution, rather than leave it to the new state legislature and administration to do that. One result was that for a few decades Oklahoma had, by far, the longest constitution of any state. Another was that changing any railroad regulation required a constitutional amendment to be passed by voters in a state election -- until the constitutional amendment that took the whole railroad mess out of the constitution and reassigned it to a (* gasp *) [i]regulatory[/i] agency, that is.

[QUOTE=Prime95;218128]
To get an oil drilling lease, pass legislation along the following lines:
[/QUOTE]
Sweet! Apocalypse Drilling Co. is open for business!

[QUOTE=Prime95;218128]
1) A spill on the order of the current disaster incurs an immediate $10 billion dollar fine (and it only goes up from there if negligence is involved) plus all cleanup costs.
[/QUOTE]

No problem! I mean, my assets are several orders of magnitude less than that, but it's only a problem if I cause a disaster like this, and I won't. You have my word on that.

[QUOTE=Prime95;218128]
2) To get an oil drilling lease, all oil drillers must agree to establish an independent safety division that has complete responsibility for drilling operations. If any executive compensation of the safety division is tied to profitability, or meeting schedules, then all executives from the officer of the safety division up to and including the company CEO are guilty of a crime punishable by 50 years in prison.
[/QUOTE]

Hmmm. I tried offering the job of Chief Safety Officer to a competent B-school grad, but without a compensation package including stock options or a company bonus I got no takers. I instead subcontracted to the lowest bidder, my fictional cousin "Chip". That won't be a problem, right? "Chippie" does a heckuva job.

[QUOTE=Prime95;218128]
3) Any spill of more than 1000 barrels immediately obligates the Justice Department to appoint an independent prosecutor. Oil company to pay for all expenses of the investigation. Oil company agrees to make all internal documents available to said prosecutor. Oil company agrees to pay any fines imposed by special prosecutor without appeal.
[/QUOTE]

Sure, as long as you don't need that money in escrow or anything. Also, since I'm golfing buddies with the head of the independent prosecutor division, is it ok if I recommend my prosecutor friend "Spike" for the job, since I'll be paying him anyway?

[QUOTE=Prime95;218128]
Now, drill baby drill. Watch oil companies fall all over themselves making sure they do it safely.
[/QUOTE]

At Apocalypse Drilling Co., safety is job oops.

These are precisely the kind of laws that got America where it is today! :smile:

[QUOTE=cheesehead;218287]Please take responsibility for your own words.[/quote]

Will do. Eliminate the word "you" from that particular quote. It doesn't change the content of the original post.

As an aside, you are a bit like Fox News, advertising yourself as fair and balanced yet the bulk of your posts are bashing conservatives. Now they may well deserve much of that bashing, but liberals have just as many ridiculous beliefs. The lack of balance makes you appear to be a liberal just as Fox News appears to be conservative.

[quote]You seem confused between what I actually mentioned, "regulations", and what I did not mention, "regulators".[/quote]

I did not release that Soap Box rules prevented me from expanding on a poster's comment. It seems like talking about regulations without talking about how regulators enforce those regulations is pretty silly.

[quote]You seem to have a naive idea of government.[/quote]

Or maybe it is simple and elegant. Is it not more naive to believe that if we try something that is proven not to work we will get a different outcome next time? History has shown us that over time the regulators grow soft.

[quote]Do you really think that it would be an effective use of Congress's time to specify in every detail what reports an oil company should file to provide the information necessary...[/quote]

I proposed no such reports. I proposed Congress specify how you are to conduct drilling operations with safety as the top priority - no schedule and profit pressures. Failure to do so results in a 50 year prison sentence and hefty fine.

[quote]Who, exactly, is to inspect drilling operations in order to verify that the operations are in conformance with the claims in their filed forms?[/quote]

Inspections? I didn't propose any inspections. I proposed unleashing Ken Starr on those responsible when a whistleblower turns in their boss or an accident occurs.

In the current case, if the dozens of people in charge were unaffected by the possibility of doing serious jail time and made the same decisions, we'd at least be 50 days closer to having those that behaved recklessly put in jail.

[quote]blah blah blah[/QUOTE]

My eyes glazed over long before I could finish reading your post.

[QUOTE=apocalypse;218318]Sweet! Apocalypse Drilling Co. is open for business![/QUOTE]

and soon to be headquartered in San Quentin :smile:

You are, of course, correct. The devil is in the details of any new legislation.

If I put on my serious hat, rather than my I've-just-had-4-drinks-let's-have-fun Soap Box hat, my proposal would be more-or-less added onto existing legislation as a way to get at one of the root causes of safety problems (present-day profits pressuring drillers to cut corners).

I do not have a solution for what I see as the second major root cause: complacency. It brought the Challenger down. It's likely to cause another accident 20, 30, or 40 years from now.

[quote=Prime95;218326]As an aside, you are a bit like Fox News, advertising yourself as fair and balanced[/quote]Wrong again.

I've never, ever claimed that I was balanced. I simply do not have enough time to do double work to post mirror-image comments in order to satisfy someone's imaginary inappropriate-for-this-forum requirement for balance. I have repeatedly stated that I consider my readership quite intelligent enough to be able to envision a mirror image of whatever I post, and that I have no compulsion to write one out for those unable to do so.

(Keep in mind that sometimes a valid mirror image does not exist. There are, believe it or not, certain complaints that apply only to one side or the other.)

George, you seem so determined to fit me into some liberal-caricature pigeonhole, in order that you can simply use liberal stereotypes in your responses, that you don't pay enough attention to what I actually write.

I have informed this forum more than once in the past that when I've taken a where-are-you-on-the-political-spectrum online quiz, the result has been than I am very close to the triple-intersection (two-dimensional) of middle-of-the-road, libertarian, and liberal.

I have also multiply informed this forum that I am writing from the viewpoint of a former conservative and GOP-voter who is dismayed by the turn taken by conservatives since the late 1970s, and that I think that conservative politics could benefit from (a) resuming its former championing of fiscal responsibility, (b) recognizing that the Strict Father worldview promoted by some conservatives is [U]not[/U] the only valid worldview, and (c) ceasing to pander to the Religious Right.

[quote]yet the bulk of your posts are bashing conservatives.[/quote]See above for my gripes about conservatives.

[quote]Now they may well deserve much of that bashing, but liberals have just as many ridiculous beliefs.[/quote]... and no one is stopping you from posting about those.

Apparently, you want me to perform both sides of arguments, instead of taking the time to do it yourself.

That's just lazy of you, George. Lazy, lazy, lazy.

I have no obligation whatsoever to fulfill your wish that I do your work for you.

I'd appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting my positions as a lazy way of trying to shame me into doing your work for you.

[quote]The lack of balance makes you appear to be a liberal just as Fox News appears to be conservative.[/quote]Sorry, George, but that's just lazy thinking (and forgetful, too, since I've explained all this stuff before) on your part.

You may find it easy to use those liberal stereotypes against me, but they don't match reality.

I don't misportray you as a stereotypical conservative, do I? That's because I try to respond to what you actually write, not some imagined morphing of your words into a simplistic model.

[quote]I did not release[/quote](realize)[quote] that Soap Box rules prevented me from expanding on a poster's comment.[/quote]Wow, what another absurd straw man!

Nowhere before in this discussion has anyone suggested or mentioned (a) Soap Box rules or (b) that you were prevented in any way from expanding on a poster's comment.

I did comment that your linking of certain statements of yours to my words was logically invalid.

Exaggerating that into a matter of suppression or of forum rules is unwarranted.

[quote]It seems like talking about regulations without talking about how regulators enforce those regulations is pretty silly.[/quote]As I already said, I had nothing to say about the persons who staff the regulatory agencies, so I did not mention them. My comments were about regulatory policy.

[U]You[/U] were the only one who wanted to say anything about the persons who staff regulatory agencies. I never objected to your decision to do so, but I do object to your implication that your own desire to negatively comment about personnel implies that I must post such comments, also, and/or that I must necessarily have already done so.

[quote=Prime95;218326][quote=cheesehead;218287]You seem to have a naive idea of government.
[/quote]
Or maybe it is simple and elegant. Is it not more naive to believe that if we try something that is proven not to work we will get a different outcome next time?[/quote]You mean like eliminating all of the Executive Branch except the Justice Department? Or what?

[quote][quote=cheesehead;218287]Do you really think that it would be an effective use of Congress's time to specify in every detail what reports an oil company should file to provide the information necessary ...[/quote]I proposed no such reports.[/quote]... because, apparently, you have such a naive view of history and government that you think it would be sufficient to rely on verbal agreements, whistleblowers and magic -- no paperwork involved. (Let us agree that "paperwork", "forms", "reports" and so on may be electronic in nature.)

You wrote earlier:
[quote=Prime95;218128]2) To get an oil drilling lease, all oil drillers must agree[/quote]Do you think that a verbal promise and handshake are sufficient to establish that such an agreement exists? That nothing be written down?

What happens in the case of bad-faith (or just forgetful) drillers who say they agree, but later claim they didn't agree? Or do you think no such persons would exist?

Or must such an agreement be written, with both sides keeping a copy? In that case, is it unreasonable for there to be some federal office responsible for drawing up the legal form and keeping the government's copies?

Consider my earlier use of "reports" to include such copies of all legal forms involved in this matter.

[quote]to establish[/quote]What evidence shall be required to prove that the establishing, in accordance with law, was done?

Simple witness testimony as to verbal statements and a handshake?

What happens in the case of bad-faith (or just forgetful) drillers who say they have established the (later-mentioned) safety department, but are lying? They may later claim they never said anything about a safety department.

Or must such an establishing be shown by something written? In that case, is it unreasonable for there to be some federal office responsible for keeping the government's copies?

Consider my ... "reports" ... include ... etc.

[quote]an independent safety division[/quote]How is it to be documented that such a division exists and satisfies the requirements of the law?

Handshakes and pixie dust?

Or must there be some written documentation, plus, [I]as the history of human nature has shown time and time again to be necessary[/I], an inspection function that determines whether the claimed safety division exists in reality and does actually comply with the legal requirements?

Consider ... include ... etc.

[quote]that has complete responsibility for drilling operations.[/quote]Once again, how is this to be determined and recorded without any existence of written documentation plus a certain amount (reasonable, not some exaggeration you might make up) of inspection to verify the documented responsibility?

Your comments generally seem to ignore the realities of such regulatory necessities.

[quote]If any executive compensation of the safety division is tied to profitability, or meeting schedules,[/quote]Again, how is this to be documented and verified without anyone's being employed, and given the responsibility to do so? If such people are to be employed, would they not have roles in the regulatory process?

[quote]then all executives from the officer of the safety division up to and including the company CEO are guilty of a crime punishable by 50 years in prison.[/quote]Okay, so you've now declared that the executives are guilty. How, exactly, was this declaration conceived and justified?

Your comments seem to suggest that this is to occur within the Justice Department. But what makes the connection between the existence of the illegal condition being present in a company, and the Justice Department's becoming aware of that? How is the legal chain of evidence to be constructed by the J.D. if there hasn't been any previous regulatory oversight by some regulatory agency -- documents, witnesses and such?

[quote]I proposed Congress specify how you are to conduct drilling operations with safety as the top priority - no schedule and profit pressures. Failure to do so results in a 50 year prison sentence and hefty fine.[/quote]How is enforcement to be accomplished? Telepathy?

Your proposal to do away with regulatory agencies seems unconnected to the actual physical realities by which real laws are really enforced in the real world with regard to real humans. Just because you don't mention some of those realities, such as reports and inspections, doesn't mean they needn't exist in order to implement [U]your[/U] own suggested laws.

(BTW, please don't introduce exaggerations about regulation in your reply as though such exaggerations were ubiquitous or unavoidable. I'm not proposing anything but the minimum required to implement your own suggestion in the real world.)

[QUOTE=Prime95;218328]
[M]y proposal would be more-or-less added onto existing legislation as a way to get at one of the root causes of safety problems (present-day profits pressuring drillers to cut corners).

I do not have a solution for what I see as the second major root cause: complacency. It brought the Challenger down. It's likely to cause another accident 20, 30, or 40 years from now.[/QUOTE]

I think the problem runs deeper than profit pressure or complacency. I think the fundamental problem is optimism. More precisely, that means the underestimation of risk and the overestimation of rewards. This thread runs through engineering, finance, and policy.

In the short term, optimism is profitable because it allows corners to be cut. Optimism usually wins out over realistic assessments because, as Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." In the long term it is also profitable. In the Exxon Valdez case, we did have a conviction and a $5B (> $10B in today's dollars) judgment, but they were able to argue it down to pocket change ($0.5B today).

This is why I don't think stricter penalties alone will work. No amount will deter someone who thinks the probability of an outcome is 0. Likewise I doubt the penalties will be paid in the event of a catastrophe, through either aggressive lawyering or clever accounting.

Prevention requires an engineering approach from top to bottom, which in turn requires the development of standards and penalties for failing to follow them. This could be done within each company, with an industry standards body, or with a government agency. It doesn't really matter how it is organized; roughly the same people will be doing the same work regardless. At some point some of the people involved will be lazy or corrupt and oversight will fail. There is nothing magical about either government or industry in this regard.

[quote=apocalypse;218394]This is why I don't think stricter penalties alone will work.[/quote]I agree.

BP was allowed to drill even though they put false information on their application. That shouldn't have been allowed

I'm not aware that existing regulations were actually insufficient, or need extending. What _is_ needed is more sincere enforcement: "You don't get permission to drill unless you prove that what you said on the application is actually true."

[quote]Prevention requires an engineering approach from top to bottom, which in turn requires the development of standards and penalties for failing to follow them.[/quote]As implied in the 2005 BP presentation I've linked, the oil industry's engineering prowess might not yet be sufficient to give adequate assurance that drilling in 5000-foot water can be safe enough (to meet the same safety standards as for shallower drilling).

Perhaps the answer is, or should have been, to allow only carefully-monitored tests in deep water until the industry can/could demonstrate that its safety engineering is mature enough for that.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;218373]Apparently, you want me to perform both sides of arguments, instead of taking the time to do it yourself. That's just lazy of you, George.[/quote]

OMG! Hypocrisy from the master of responding to words [I]exactly[/I] as they were written! I never claimed I wanted you to present both sides of an argument. I must now take great offense at having my words so terribly twisted - and on top of that to be personally attacked. Oh the horror. :smile:

You say you're not a liberal. Fine, I don't really care one way or the other. I was merely suggesting how the lack of balance leads to the appearance of a liberal bias --- which is how the words "you" and "liberal" end up in the same sentence. It's the Soap Box, relax, no need to get one's panties tied in a knot.

[quote]you have such a naive view of history and government that you think it would be sufficient to rely on verbal agreements, whistleblowers and magic -- no paperwork involved[/quote]

Let's see. Thousands of criminal laws are on the books detailing what I can and can't do. I'm in compliance with every one of them and haven't filed one shred of government paperwork. Magic!

So, Congress passes a new criminal code (bearing in mind I'm no lawyer): Regarding anyone working on a drilling rig or any executive in charge of drilling rig operations, it is illegal to knowingly tie pay, bonuses or other compensation to corporate profitability, drilling rig success, or timetables. Punishment is 10 to 50 years in prison. I believe you can also make it a corporate crime with a separate monetary fine of up to $10 billion.

Where is all the new paperwork? There are fraud statutes on the books - that doesn't mean corporations must submit every contract to the government anti-fraud division for review.

As to changes required to drilling leases. The government has an army of lawyers. It shouldn't take them long to modify future drilling lease contracts to add some of my proposed teeth. Once signed, no on-going paperwork or inspections are required.

But enough about my naive ideas. Let's hear from you about your grand proposals. I hear you like regulations.

P.S. I get extra credit for making it through the whole post without using the word "regulator". I haven't been given permission to use that word until you use it first.

------------------

I see you just posted: "What _is_ needed is more sincere enforcement" so ignore my request for your grand proposals. Alas, I can't reply until I'm allowed to use the banned word.

[QUOTE=apocalypse;218394]I think the problem runs deeper than profit pressure or complacency.[/quote]

I think optimism is the natural result of complacency. So I am in agreement.

[quote]Prevention requires ... the development of standards and penalties for failing to follow them.[/QUOTE]

And here we are at that pesky penalties problem again....

[quote=Prime95;218406] It's the Soap Box, relax, no need to get one's panties tied in a knot.[/quote]Oh no it's not! It's the Science and Technology sub-forum.

Is this the five minute argument, or the full half hour?

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;218419]Oh no it's not! It's the Science and Technology sub-forum.[/QUOTE]

Big oops on my part!! Cheesehead's post railing against Conservatives made me believe this was a political conversation in the Soap Box rather than a scientific conversation in Science & Technology. I navigate the forums via "New Posts" and did not double-check which sub-forum I was in. I'm terribly sorry for creating such a big diversion.

Full retraction for all parts of my posts that were tongue-in-cheek and/or quick-and-incomplete policy proposal.

I still believe stricter penalties, both civil and criminal, can improve drilling safety, but fuller debate on that belongs elsewhere.

[quote=Prime95;218406]I never claimed I wanted you to present both sides of an argument.[/quote]My "both sides" comment was in response to this paragraph of yours:

[quote=Prime95;218326]As an aside, you are a bit like Fox News, advertising yourself as fair and balanced yet the bulk of your posts are bashing conservatives. Now they may well deserve much of that bashing, but liberals have just as many ridiculous beliefs. The lack of balance makes you appear to be a liberal just as Fox News appears to be conservative.[/quote]Yes, you _did_ want me to present both sides!

[quote=Prime95;218406]I was merely suggesting how the lack of balance leads to the appearance of a liberal bias[/quote]"lack of balance" -- doesn't that mean not presenting both sides?

So, wouldn't wanting me to have "balance" in my postings be pretty much the same as wanting me to present both sides?

[quote]Let's see. Thousands of criminal laws are on the books detailing what I can and can't do. I'm in compliance with every one of them and haven't filed one shred of government paperwork. Magic![/quote]Really?

You've never filed a tax return? (Because you've never in your life had taxable income?)

You've never filled out any form in the vehicle license bureau? (Because you've never in your life had a driver license, or owned a car?)

Never registered with Selective Service?

Rare. Or forgetful.

[quote]So, Congress passes a new criminal code (bearing in mind I'm no lawyer): Regarding anyone working on a drilling rig or any executive in charge of drilling rig operations, it is illegal to knowingly tie pay, bonuses or other compensation to corporate profitability, drilling rig success, or timetables. Punishment is 10 to 50 years in prison. I believe you can also make it a corporate crime with a separate monetary fine of up to $10 billion.

Where is all the new paperwork?[/quote]That "new" straw man was unintentional by you, I'm sure.

It's quite possible that existing (i.e., not-new) paperwork (such as SEC filings) has all the information needed for enforcement of your proposed law.

Not requiring "new" paperwork isn't the same as not requiring [I]any[/I] paperwork.

[quote]There are fraud statutes on the books - that doesn't mean corporations must submit every contract to the government anti-fraud division for review.[/quote]Straw man: We weren't discussing fraud.

[quote]As to changes required to drilling leases. The government has an army of lawyers. It shouldn't take them long to modify future drilling lease contracts to add some of my proposed teeth. Once signed, no on-going paperwork[/quote]Again the (probably) unintentional "on-going" straw-man. Didn't you realize that "future drilling lease contracts" are paperwork?

[quote]or inspections are required.[/quote]So, you have faith that no company would ever decide to "cut corners" because of, say, desire to cut costs or meet some company-imposed deadline? (Even though it was just revealed that BP did exactly that.)

Or is it that you think any company that did so would be so honest as to alert the government that it had just violated the law? (Even though BP didn't.)

Is that why no inspections are required? Because you think no company ever acts like BP did?

[quote=xilman;218419]Oh no it's not! It's the Science and Technology sub-forum.

Is this the five minute argument, or the full half hour?

Paul[/quote]
May I cheekily suggest a thread entitled
"Useless posts from cheesehead, et al"?

David

[quote=davieddy;218653]May I cheekily suggest a thread entitled
"Useless posts from cheesehead, et al"?

David[/quote]... or just fold George's and mine into the existing "Useless ..." thread at [url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=12945[/url]

[quote=cheesehead;218656]... or just fold George's and mine into the existing "Useless ..." thread at [URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=12945[/URL][/quote]
No need for that. The discussion is informative and entertaining for at least some of those of us who are less able (through ignorance) to take part directly.

I would say that the entire thread could be moved to the soap box where it clearly belonged right from the start.

[quote=Brian-E;218657]
I would say that the entire thread could be moved to the soap box where it clearly belonged right from the start.[/quote]
Or perhaps the detergent box?

[quote=cheesehead;218656]... or just fold George's and mine into the existing "Useless ..." thread at [URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=12945[/URL][/quote]
Unfortunately it is closed.
The "Last Post" was yours.
Seems like the French lawnmower has been at it again.
(coup de grace)

David

[quote=davieddy;218662][quote=cheesehead;218656]... or just fold George's and mine into the existing "Useless ..." thread at [URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=12945[/URL][/quote]Unfortunately it is closed.
The "Last Post" was yours.
Seems like the French lawnmower has been at it again.
(coup de grace)

David[/quote]C'est la guerre.

(But ... "Naked Oiled Supertankers" ??)

This thread is better entertainment than I've had all year.

[QUOTE]I've never, ever claimed that I was balanced - Cheesehead[/QUOTE]

I will print this quote out and make jumbo sized posters which I will mail to Ernst and George. We all need to keep in mind that we might just be unbalanced.



I've seen a lot of repartee but no real effort to define the problem. Everyone thinks that BP wants to stop the oil from flowing. This is NOT exactly correct. If it were that simple, the blow out preventer would have been designed with a cut off valve, end of story. The problem is that shutting off the flow at the top of the well will just cause it to rupture pipes below and force oil out along the well casing. So BP is trying desperately to figure out a way to cap the well and to pump the oil into some kind of storage. That is NOT easy to do when you are a mile deep in the ocean.

The only certain way they can stop the flow is to drill into the well from a side angle and pump enough concrete into it to plug it. This is being done but will take another 2 months to complete.

DarJones

[quote=Fusion_power;218863]This thread is better entertainment than I've had all year.
[quote]I've never, ever claimed that I was balanced - Cheesehead [/quote]I will print this quote out and make jumbo sized posters which I will mail to Ernst and George. We all need to keep in mind that we might just be unbalanced.[/quote]I wish to state that I am not now, and have never been, balanced.

Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.

Paul (with acknowledgments to Jorge Agustín Nicolás Ruiz de Santayana y Borrás and Weldon Bruce Dayton, but not necessarily in that order.)

[quote=Fusion_power;218863]I've seen a lot of repartee but no real effort to define the problem. Everyone thinks that BP wants to stop the oil from flowing. This is NOT exactly correct. If it were that simple, the blow out preventer would have been designed with a cut off valve, end of story. The problem is that shutting off the flow at the top of the well will just cause it to rupture pipes below and force oil out along the well casing. So BP is trying desperately to figure out a way to cap the well and to pump the oil into some kind of storage. That is NOT easy to do when you are a mile deep in the ocean.

The only certain way they can stop the flow is to drill into the well from a side angle and pump enough concrete into it to plug it. This is being done but will take another 2 months to complete.[/quote]Because this belongs in the "BP Oil Spill ..." thread, I'm posting my reply there.

[QUOTE=xilman;218873]Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.[/QUOTE]

For those who haven't seen this, it's worth watching...

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHmhxpQEGPo"]Rachel Maddow- The more spills change_ the more they stay the same[/URL]