"At the end of the day, the government tells BP what to do."

[Laelth]

Forgive me if this has been posted and discussed, but there are still a number of people here who seem to be of the opinion that BP is actually in control of the oil catastrophe in the Gulf and that BP is, therefore, solely responsible for their failed efforts to contain this mess.

I was of the same opinion until I saw a link to this Washington Post piece. I was not aware, for example, that the government ordered an end to the "top kill" plan because it was creating increased pressure that threatened to blow open the entire well.

"At the end of the day, the government tells BP what to do, and at the end of the day, we will hold BP accountable for all of this," she said.

She (White House energy and climate adviser Carol M. Browner) also sought to portray the administration as in charge and engaged. She said an administration "brain trust" led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu urged BP to stop adding pressure to the well through the top-kill maneuver because "things could happen that would make the situation worse."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/30/AR2010053002195.html?sid=ST2010053002290

Perhaps Browner was merely puffing--trying to make it look like the government was in control when, in fact, it wasn't. On the other hand, perhaps the government's attempts to make it look like BP is in total control are merely an attempt to shift blame for a catastrophe in which many parties (BP, the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party) are complicit.

Either way, I wanted to share this insight because I have the sense that the government has more control over this matter than many here think.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Coyote_Bandit]

1. And the EPA

wanted BP to stop using toxic dispersants. Didn't happen.

The fucking government and BP were complicit in causing this catastrophe - some combination of poor oversight, careless operations and an incestous relationship. And they are equally incompetent in both plugging the damned hole and mitigating the environmental damage. They are all clueless. They blew a hole in the lid to Pandora's box and they are too stupid to realize the innocents that were damaged can't be made whole.

Fuck 'em. All of 'em.

[Laelth]

2. If I recall, EPA wanted BP to stop using Correxit, but wanted it to use other dispersants, instead.

It appears they came to a compromise, merely limiting the amount of Correxit BP could use. When BP used more than was allowed, they blamed it on a "mechanical failure."

I am not sure this disproves the point I am making, either way, because the EPA's opinion carries very little weight, even among Democrats. It should, but it doesn't.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Coyote_Bandit]

4. The government and BP

are mutually complicit in the action/inaction that led to the catastrophe. Had there been stronger regulation and oversight and a less incestous relationship the conditions that led to the catastrophe ought not to have existed.

Both the government and BP appear to be mutually incapable of stopping the gusher and effectively mitigatiing the damage.

The forces of nature are in control. Not the government. Not BP.

[Laelth]

8. There's plenty of blame to go around. That's not what concerns me.

The question I am asking is, "Who's really calling the shots on this operation?"

Is Ms. Browner lying when she says, "at the end of the day, the government tells BP what to do," or is that the truth?

I don't know. I would like to hear what you (and others) have to say on that subject, however.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Coyote_Bandit]

14. The forces of nature are in control

Given the incestuous relationship between the government and given the fact that nobody knows what to do to stop the gusher and mitigate the damage I have little problem imagining BP engineers and government regulators knocking back a keg or two while discussing how to proceed.

Neither the government or BP are in control. They don't fucking know what to do. They both wlll claim responsibility for anything that helps in the least. The government should maintain the appearance that BP is in control if they want to place full liability on BP for continuing losses - otherwise BP can always respond by saying the continuing losses were partially the responsibility of the government that directed and controlled their actions.

But neither BP or the governemnt is in control. And if the government wants to claim control that may not be the smartest legal position to take.

Given the fact that the government lacks both expertise and equipment the most control they can exercise is that of a cranky backseat driver.

[Laelth]

15. Of course, you're right.

But I don't think Mother Nature ordered two relief wells to be drilled. I don't think she ordered the "top kill" project to be discontinued, either. Neither do I think she approved the continued use of dispersants on the oil slick.

Who, do you think, ordered (approved/had final say) over those things?

:dem:

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--sloppy proofreading.

[Coyote_Bandit]

16. Ummmm......

I think I've said several times that I think the government and BP are mutualy complicit in this clusterfuck. Complicit as in mutual participants making decisions together. One may initiate one action while the other initiates another - but neither BP or the government controls the other.

Both will claim credit for success and point fingers of blame. But in the end neither know what to do. They are watching each other with fear and suspicion - and relying on each other to generate new ideas to fix their mutual clusterfuck.

No way the government or BP is in control of anything in this situation. Not the forces of nature. Not other interested parties. Not even their own organizational response.

[Laelth]

19. I heard you, and I agree both are complicit.

But honestly, someone is calling the shots. Someone ordered the end of the top kill initiative.

Is the government doing BP's bidding or vice versa? That is my question, and I do not know the answer, but I am curious to know and am open to any evidence, one way or the other.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Statistical]

6. The EPA could have banned the dispersant but didn't. Why?

The EPA actually only requested BP look into alternatives and either
a) switch to alternative
or
b)provide information why alternatives are not as effective.

BP complied with the request providing information on why they feel other alternatives are not as effective.

The EPA has the power to ban substances in the United States not just ask a company to look at alternatives.

The question never address is WHY didn't the EPA do that?

[Coyote_Bandit]

9. The government and BP

Are mutually complicit in causing this catastrophe and mutuially incompetent in stopping the gusher and mitigating the damage.

[Laelth]

10. That's a good question.

Personally, I think the use of dispersants is a terrible idea. The oil needs to be skimmed and removed from the Gulf. That's impossible if you disperse it.

I have only one working theory, and it's not pretty. The government is in control, and the government didn't ban the use of dispersants because it too wants to hide this ecological disaster rather than dealing with it appropriately.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Statistical]

12. DING DING DING. Winner winner chicken dinner!

That is my suspicion also.

The larger the spill the more powerless/incompetent the government looks.

I mean they approved the drilling site, they were responsible for inspections (routinely done), they accept BP 2 page safety plan without requiring any sort of demonstration, they said modern oil drilling is very safe and accidents rarely happen.

The govt has a strong incentive for this spill to be as "small" as possible.

[BeFree]

17. I'll be...

...I agree. It is a conspiracy. To strong a word? How about collusion?

They know, if we knew, what they know, then we'd know
that we are SCRUDE.





Ya got to love that term a DUer came up with, eh? SCRUDE

[treestar]

3. Well now I see an agenda to trash the administration regardless

They aren't in charge and should be. But if they are, they aren't doing a good enough job.

BP is responsible at the end of the day.

[Laelth]

5. Just curious. Who do you think is really in charge of the efforts to plug the well? n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[asdjrocky]

7. Maybe the government shoud tell them about the whole free press thing.

[Laelth]

11. Maybe the government wants to cover up the magnitude of this disaster too.

Perhaps the government isn't very interested in the whole "free press" thing you've mentioned.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Sheri]

13. sorry. i accidentally unrec'd your thread.

i think you're asking an important question.

who is in charge, really?

[Laelth]

18. That's O.K. I've done the same on occasion.

So, who do you think is in charge?

:dem:

-Laelth

[Scurrilous]

20. Thanks for the info.

K & R :thumbsup:

[Laelth]

23. My pleasure. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[amborin]

21. Wishful thinking that gov's in control; that's why BP keeps defying the EPA & using Corexit, etc...

as for top kill.....nah....after reading TOD, it looks as if BP quickly stopped TK itself, since an actual TK does not take a long time at all, if it's working.....

[Karmadillo]

22. K&R

nt

[blindpig]

24. The government, the capitalists, whose got a scorecard?

Does it make any difference? How can ya tell?

[Odin2005]

25. That's backward, BP tells the government what to do.

[Laelth]

26. You may be right. What's your evidence? n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Odin2005]

28. The Coast Guard is doing BP's bidding.

[FLPanhandle]

27. Why did the CG report the Topkill was working when BP had already stopped trying

The government is constantly two steps behind what BP is doing. That tells me all I need to know about who's calling the shots.