Republican Joe Barton Defends BP Oil

[Drake]

There you go again with that "we" business.You're not part of the group okay?"They" got the oil so that "you" can continue to pay whatever price "they" want.I mentioned how Saddam started trading his nation's oil in euros instead of the dollar.You conveniently and cowardly left that part out of my statement.Unlike like you I do have a problem with over a million dead innocent people because that fake texan bush lied to the nation.

And you keep conveniently leaving out the bluff by Saddam. Dodging the facts won't make you any more right. You conveniently left out George Tenet's apology for giving Fmr President Bush bad intel. You also conveniently left out that Saddam must've had WMDs at some point, as I'm sure the Kurds didn't mustard gas themselves.

I bet you are also leaving out a quote from Saddam himself admitting he was using the idea of WMDs to stall us. You proably left out the launch pads intercepted in the mediterranean.. origin Iraq. I bet you even left out the sarin gas discovered by US soldiers. Did you even leave out Chemical Ali's testimonies?

Maybe you even left out the fact that Saddam truly did mislead, lie to, and block UN weapons inspectors?

All of these are facts. All you provide is a shady "ooooh maybe THEY are out to get US with their LIES..." Great research methodology there, Sherlock. What's next? Bread crumb trails?

[1bad65]

I've answered you question, did I miss your answer to mine?

I actually felt those were answered in my previous post. In a nutshell, it's the Judicial Branch's responsibility to deal with the spill's consequences, not the Executive or Legislative Branch's responsibility. If you still are unsure of my stance, ask again and I'll answer those specifically.

The waivers didn't start with Obama, and aren't special compensation for donations. They are business as usual for the MMS. And as for Mr. Patton, he was operating under the rule and regulations of the MMS as he knew them.

Who cares who they started with. Let's say Bush gave out 5,382 waivers. Let's even say Bush openly sold the waivers. Obama promised "Change", so where is it?

And BP Oil also operated under the rules and regulations of the MMS. So why was their CEO grilled by Congress while Mr Patton was not?

The waiver was only to avoid an environmental impact study before drilling. Had they done that study do you really think, that they would have come up with an answer that would lead them to deny BP’s request to drill? They were over confident that nothing could go wrong, because nothing had gone wrong, in US waters at least.

The well blew up because the BP employees on the rig ingored warning signs, BP did not inspect thier equimpment as required, and because BP allowed the rig to operate with only one B.O.P., dispite the fact that almost every other rig was using two B.O.P.'s.

So it's all BP's fault?

Face it, they were operating lawfully, and 100% within the regulations. You finding ways to completely absolve Gov't in ANY way is getting ridiculous. At least I admit it's partially BP's fault, and partially the Federal Government's fault.

In this case the rule/regulations that were suppose to prevent this were messed up.

By Mr Patton, yes. Yet he gets a pass.

I would like more light on what changes are being made. And I would like to see tougher penalties for public servants who engage in bribery.

But according to you, it was all BP's fault. So if it's 100% their fault, why would we need to toughen the penalties for bribery? According to you there was no bribery in this case at all.

[SanHeChuan]

I'll accept that as an answer to the first but this is still unanswered.

Do you think there should be an artificial government cap on businesses financial responsibility, and how does blocking the removal of that cap fit into the Republican Party’s platform of less government? Removing the Cap would be less government would it not?

Face it, they were operating lawfully, and 100% within the regulations.

Even if that's true, the government regulations aren't all encompassing, there is still plenty of room for BP to comply and still **** up. Are you advocating for more invasive regulations?

I'm not absolving the government of responsibility; they just had a different responsibility. The government did fail, but failing to check behind someone else’s work is not the same as failing to do the work to begin with. BP had the primary responsibility for ensuring the safety of their own equipment, regardless of any oversight.

By Mr Patton, yes. Yet he gets a pass.

No they were messed up by design, like having looser safety regulations for rigs registered in foreign countries. Why would you trust the safety of a rig operating in the gulf coast to the Marshall Islands?

You keep waiving this waiver around like proof of a government misstep; the waiver was only for an environmental impact study. How would doing such a study have affected the outcome of the spill? They already had studies on the environmental impact; they just grossly underestimated the possibility of a large spill.

The failure of the MMS is not in the wavier. It's in failing to create strong regulations that were progressive for the industry and the technology of the time. Why didn't they make BP use two B.O.P.'s? The failure of the MMS was complacency.

But according to you, it was all BP's fault. So if it's 100% their fault, why would we need to toughen the penalties for bribery? According to you there was no bribery in this case at all.

General principal.

[1bad65]

Even if that's true, the government regulations aren't all encompassing, there is still plenty of room for BP to comply and still **** up. Are you advocating for more invasive regulations?

I'm not absolving the government of responsibility; they just had a different responsibility. The government did fail, but failing to check behind someone else’s work is not the same as failing to do the work to begin with. BP had the primary responsibility for ensuring the safety of their own equipment, regardless of any oversight.

There should be no cap, but the Judicial Branch does need to be sure they only have to pay for actual damages, none of this pain and suffering or punitive damages crap. They were in full compliance with all laws, so there is no need for punitive damages.

Good to see you admit the Gov't did fail in some capacity. Do you agree that the knee-jerk reaction of more laws and more Gov't is not necessarily the best policy in this caes?

You keep waiving this waiver around like proof of a government misstep; the waiver was only for an environmental impact study.

It was a safety waiver.

The failure of the MMS is not in the wavier. It's in failing to create strong regulations that were progressive for the industry and the technology of the time. Why didn't they make BP use two B.O.P.'s? The failure of the MMS was complacency.

Are you calling for more regulation? You do realize more regulation will only 'offshore' even more american jobs, right?

General principal.

But we operate under the law, not general principle.

And if we do decide to operate under "general principle" instead of law, whose principles do we operate under?

[1bad65]

Do you think there should be an artificial government cap on businesses financial responsibility, and how does blocking the removal of that cap fit into the Republican Party’s platform of less government? Removing the Cap would be less government would it not?

There should be no cap set by the Executive or Legislative Branches of our Gov't. This should be left to the Judicial Branch. This is a civil matter, not criminal. BP was operating 100% in compliance with all laws.

[Drake]

The specifics of the safety waiver are important. There's a monumental difference between an environmental impact assessment and a waiver for having bonfires on the rig. The specificity IS important.

Pain and suffering crap? These are basic legal rights of the plaintiffs, and you said yourself people are suffering down there. Now, if Bobby Jindal would mobilize the troops the government authorized him to, instead of just a handful which he used to censor the media, they might be able to help down there.

[SanHeChuan]

Why cap any damages, let them fight it out in court like everybody else.

If I am wrong about the waiver, then tell me what exactly did the waiver cover?

These laws have been in the works for a long time, they are just using the momentum of current popular support. The laws didn't hurt or cause the spill, nothing the MMS did prevented BP from guaranteeing their own safety, and so more laws aren't going to hurt safety, but they might improve it.

I'm calling for better regulation. As for jobs, since they are drilling in our water we can take steps to ensure that are using our bodies.

Laws are created and changed based on general principal.

[Reality_Check]

If I am wrong about the waiver, then tell me what exactly did the waiver cover?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050404118.html

"The Interior Department exempted BP's calamitous Gulf of Mexico drilling operation from a detailed environmental impact analysis last year, according to government documents, after three reviews of the area concluded that a massive oil spill was unlikely.

The decision by the department's Minerals Management Service (MMS) to give BP's lease at Deepwater Horizon a 'categorical exclusion' from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on April 6, 2009 -- and BP's lobbying efforts just 11 days before the explosion to expand those exemptions -- show that neither federal regulators nor the company anticipated an accident of the scale of the one unfolding in the gulf."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060204385.html

"The agency gave all eight operations "categorical exclusions" from the National Environmental Policy Act -- a waiver that freed oil and gas companies from completing a lengthy environment impact statement. The checklist does not mention the prospect of a blowout, does not address the impact of an operation's noise on marine mammals and minimizes an oil spill review for any drilling site within four miles of national marine sanctuary."

[1bad65]

Pain and suffering crap? These are basic legal rights of the plaintiffs, and you said yourself people are suffering down there. Now, if Bobby Jindal would mobilize the troops the government authorized him to, instead of just a handful which he used to censor the media, they might be able to help down there.

I'm no lawyer, but I think you only get pain and suffering when one party causes damages by breaking the law. And BP was operating 100% within the law.

Even if those damages are allowed, I'm against allowing an accident to bankrupt a law-abiding company.

[SanHeChuan]

Yeah, that's what I said.

[1bad65]

"The Interior Department exempted BP's calamitous Gulf of Mexico drilling operation from a detailed environmental impact analysis last year, according to government documents, after three reviews of the area concluded that a massive oil spill was unlikely.

The million dollar question is who conducted those reviews.

[Reality_Check]

Yeah, that's what I said.

Yes, I was just providing backup for what you said.

[Reality_Check]

The million dollar question is who conducted those reviews.

No idea. I was just pointing out that your claim that it was a safety waiver was incorrect.

[1bad65]

No idea. I was just pointing out that your claim that it was a safety waiver was incorrect.

Here is a good article about the waivers, MMS, and BP Oil. And it's not a FoxNews article.

Source:
http://www.cbs8.com/Global/story.asp?S=12441598

This part said alot:

"Last year, the Interior Department exempted BP from a detailed environmental analysis of its Gulf of Mexico operations, even as BP in early April stepped up efforts to lobby for more such "categorical exemptions" from federal law.

Official documents show that pushback from the oil industry resulted in easing of requirements for new technologies to prevent the kind of blowout that led to the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and ensuing leak of at least 5,000 barrels of oil a day, and possibly much more, into the Gulf of Mexico. Pushback from BP and others against installing a new kind of acoustic blowout preventer succeeded. The Minerals Management Service declined to make them mandatory, as other oil-producing nations have.

Moreover, a safety document from the Minerals Management Service 10 years ago raised the alarm about the potential for catastrophic spills, which could be alleviated by requiring backup and secondary blowout preventers for deepwater drilling. But the MMS didn't require any such system, leaving it to oil companies to decide what was best."

[SanHeChuan]

um, how does that article make a point for you? It's just say what I've been saying.