Lets not loose sight of the fact that regardless of where the blame may lie or where the oil wells are located globally - All companies like BP should have the neccessary systems in place that ensure they are equipped to deal with disasters on the scale of what we are currently struggling to find a solution to.

Companies engaging in the exploration of oil should be re investing in the development of systems that ensure there are adequate procedures in place to guarantee all potential disasters can be effectively dealt with.

ED | June 2, 2010 22:44 | Report Abuse

The problem could never be blamed on one group of people. We all must take responsibility as a people who rely on fossil fuels. We all know where they come from and we all know it will not just appear into our products.
Why are we all so surprised to see the damage done in a worst case scenario? The dangers were obvious but instead of attempting to come up with a long term plan where we weened ourselves off of oil, we continued to ramp up production and profits. If we continue to want to use fossil fuels without attempting to cut down a significant(20% or more would be a lovely goal...) portion with alternate sources of energy, then we will have to accept the issues that will arise when things go wrong.
If we attempted a 50 year plan where we only tried to cut fossil fuel use by 1-10% every year, it would be a start. Cost is obviously an issue, and Big Oil will undoubtedly fight the loss of business tooth and nail. It could work if we make a true effort as a nation, that is stop trying to blame people and deal with the situation at hand.
If our attempts to switch to alternates work, then instead of blame we can award credit for doing what will eventually become a necessity, since fossil fuels are finite and depleting.

JR | June 2, 2010 22:45 | Report Abuse

My understanding is that, while the oil in Alaska may be easier to access, that deeper underwater wells are where most of the new oil will be. If we continue to use oil and gas, we are in a sense stuck with deep water drilling.

RM | June 2, 2010 22:45 | Report Abuse

Don't be concerned, I'm not heated....but I am a little fed up by pundits (on both political sides) who start arm-waiving on energy issues, who have minimal background in or knowledge of the energy industry.

Why are we drilling deepwater? Because that is where the oil is!! Environmentalists don't have much to do with it.

Unless I am mistaken, there are have been no big CREDIBLE recent discoveries on "the continental 48" -- the exception (maybe) being the Marcellus Shale and that is only natural gas -- and not without significant technical issues.

Energy guys have been saying for a long time that there is still crude out there: However, it is much harder to get to, it is alot more complicated and it is expensive.

In the energy world, there is no free lunch; except that the pundits (on both sides) would like to convince you that there is.

In short, they all have their head stuck up a small, smelly place.

WK | June 2, 2010 22:45 | Report Abuse

We have the solution to this problem and have submitted it to the US Government.The time will come that human race will realize that the only way of survival would be to save the remaining of the natural oil resources just for the pharmaceutical application. The future of our planet and the remaining of our future children are the one to pay the price.
And who we are to complain without having the solution for it

BG | June 2, 2010 22:45 | Report Abuse

We read an artilce earlier today forcasti g a 50% increase world wide increase of engery demand by 2035. Of course, China and Indian will be driving this. Surprising, one of the forces which will be driving this increase in energy demand is the rapid industrialization of Africa. China is already starting to "farm out" lower cost, lower qualify manufacturing applications. Also, Industrialized Africa creates a vast new markets for its consumer and industrial products.

JL | June 2, 2010 22:46 | Report Abuse

We can find many people or organisations to blame but the point is that we have ability to develop usage of alternative energy sources but delay it due to huge money which come from oil production. Spill in gulf must be a signal for all goverments to consider and inrease efforts in development of alternative energy usage.

AA | June 2, 2010 22:46 | Report Abuse

1 It is NOT a spill, a frikkin Blowout of mammoth proportions.
2 Blame AFTER this is bought under control & sealed - No leaks!

PM | June 2, 2010 22:46 | Report Abuse

The "buck" must stop at the White House, BP apparently decided not to deploy an additional element to the BOP/Subsea valve that could have been operated remotely from the surface by sound waves, for reasons best known to them (probably financial), but the US goverment should have made the deployment of this extra level of safety/security a requirement of the drilling license as is the case in Brasil and most of the North Sea.
Even if it transpires that this additional element would not have averted a disaster in this case, the White House should ensure that all future drilling, where ever it takes place, has this covered.

JS | June 2, 2010 22:47 | Report Abuse

Krauthammer writes, "Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place? Environmental chic has driven us out there."

What a stupid conclusion. Until those drilling have a way of doing it safely, they shouldn't be drilling anywhere. The Santa Barbara spill demonstrated they don't know how to do it in the Pacific. The demonstrated impacts on the North Slope and the Exxon Valdez spill have demonstrated they can't extract Alaska oil safely. And now BP has shown the glaring iinadequacies of deepwater drilling technologies.

If we need to apportion blame for the situation we are in, then I'll let others do the finger pointing. But those who have been consistent in their opposition to this reckless race for the last drop are surely immune.

CG | June 2, 2010 22:47 | Report Abuse

Simple opposition of drilling does not make you immune from blame. If you can honestly say you never use products produced from, run on, or are in any way involved with fossil fuels then you can be blame free. If you use products that support the idea of drilling for oil, then you have in some way perpetuated the idea that drilling is necessary because of our total dependence on nonrenewable energy.

JR | June 2, 2010 22:47 | Report Abuse

It's all relative, isn't it John. Were it not for backwards energy policies kept in place by massive industry lobbying, we might today be enjoying a lifestyle free of these destructive dependencies.

CG | June 2, 2010 22:47 | Report Abuse

http://kommoncents.blogspot.com/2010/06/us-has-more-oil-in-ground-than-all.html  

TF | June 2, 2010 22:48 | Report Abuse

drilling in ever deeper water is due to the fact that that's where large remaining oil fields are. 'not a secret. 'not an opinion.
re: regulatory alterations... Minerals Management Service (MMS) has essential ly functioned as an adjunct of the oil industry—many of its top regulators now work as industry lobbyists—gutting or stalling new safety regulations and failing to impose fines in the face of clear violations. 'also not a secret. 'also not an opinion.
good to know that environmentalists are not the only ones to blame.
it is astonishing to hear & read some stuff.

Bob H | June 2, 2010 22:48 | Report Abuse

We are drilling in 5000 feet of water, because that is where the hydrocarbons are.
Depth has little to do with this disaster. The high pressure encountered has much to do with the disaster.
The Pemex Ixtoc disaster, currently the largest in North America, occurred in very shallow water and took 9 months to cap.

MD | June 2, 2010 22:48 | Report Abuse

It doesn't matter where we drill because the issue isnt' the where it's the how.

The damage BP has caused with the oil they have released into the Gulf demonstrates that the safety systems in place where not sufficient. In the future it may be deemed necessary to double drill so that there is a second well immediately available to reduce pressure in the case of a blow-out.

Also, I'm much more in favour of taking the Gulf disaster as a reminder that we need to conserve oil, and reduce our consumption, not as an excuse to move future disasters out of sight.

GU | June 2, 2010 22:49 | Report Abuse

It will be interesting to see where this plays out following all of the investigation that is sure to come. However, I am continually asking myself where was the contingency planning. For that you can blame the BP and the EPA. It should not take months to know how to respond. Until we get off the oil IV, and it will be much more than 20 years, we should be considering where we can get the highest rewards with the lowest environmental risks. This includes the ability to quickly respond to a problem. Visual impacts should likely be a little lower on the priority list.

JVB | June 2, 2010 22:49 | Report Abuse

@CG

Yes, but when do the citizens start to take responsibility and attempt to correct the course of action? Lobbying and backward policies are only a problem because people stay ignorant of what their elected officials actually believe or do. Elected officials can only do what the constituents allow them too. Until enough people tell their elected officials that they don't want drilling to take place, it will continue. If the money and voter confidence is there, I assure you the Official will carry on as usual. Thats why instead of placing blame on who did what or why we are in the situation we are in, I merely suggest that everyone stops worrying about what went wrong and start concentrating on what can go right. Maybe if people looked more at where we are going, where we are and were won't need as much blame anyway.

JR | June 2, 2010 22:50 | Report Abuse

Krauthammer makes a very good point. After a 1969 spill of up to 100,000 barrels of oil due to a blowout in the channel off Santa Barbara, on California's coast, a movement began to bar drilling from along California's coast (  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Santa_Barbara_oil_spill  ).

Because California (CA) often becomes a trend-setter on environmental issues, the movement that began in CA to ban drilling from near-coastal areas soon spread throughout many regions of the country, ultimately leading to most near-coastal areas becoming off-limits to drilling.

Others, in Santa Barbara and elsewhere, simply objected to the despoiling of the viewshed that result from oil derricks being planted near the coastline (one of the major objections held by the residents of Cape Cod to the new clean, wind-energy project to be constructed off the coast of Massachusetts). I'm sure this viewshed concern will remain a difficult obstacle to overcome, regardless of the environmental friendliness of the energy source.

Since 1969 vast technological improvements have occurred that make near-coastal drilling relatively risk-free. The same cannot be said about deep-sea drilling. Although risk of no human activity will never reach 0%, we now have the containment, capping, and clean-up capabilities to safely drill near the coast, as well as slant-drilling capabilities that allow us to limit the number of structures that need to be placed in the viewshed. Near-coast extraction is cheaper, easier, and far less risky.

Even easier and cheaper yet is drilling on land, and yet environmentalists have blocked efforts to open a 2000-acre portion of the vast ANWR reserve in Alaska to drilling. Not only is drilling overwhelmingly supported by Alaska's citizens, on-land drilling is relatively low-impact and has been proven to comfortably co-exist with wildlife. The proposed area of the ANWR Reserve where drilling would take place is basically an unattractive, denuded wasteland, but would remain mostly unmolested given the technological improvements in site development and drilling that have occurred over the past few decades. Further information on ANWR (note: from a decidedly pro-drilling perspective) is available at http://www.anwr.org/

As Krauthammer asserts, it is far less risky to drill on land - especially land where a blowout would be less likely to occur, could be quickly and easily mitigated, and would not have catastrophic effects on tourism, business activity, food supplies, and wildlife.

Notwithstanding the above, there are many good reasons that it is in our best interest to continue efforts to move to less carbon-intensive technologies including clean energy solutions and nuclear power, but it is also in our interest to intelligently utilize domestic oil supplies as this transition occurs. This should occur in the context of focused and effective regulatory oversight.

The Federal government does a lot of things it shouldn't do, and when it does it usually does them poorly. Unfortunately, these things often detract from the regulatory function that it should be doing effectively. The Administration needs to quickly get its house in order in the Dept. of Interior's mineral management function so that it can carry out a rigorous inspection and testing regime to ensure strict compliance with rules put in place to protect workers and the environment.

Once it has its act together, near-coastal limits on drilling and the ban on drilling in ANWR should be re-visited while a temporary moratorium is placed upon deep-water projects until we're comfortable with the ability of oil companies to effectively handle disasters such as Deepwater Horizon.

SPC | June 2, 2010 22:50 | Report Abuse

I usually find Krauthammer's bilge utterly indigestible; however as they say, even a stopped watch is right twice each day. Now that this line of logic has been picked up by the not-so estimable former half-term Governor of Alaska, it is even less credible.

Environmentalists have a number of faults, however, blaming them for cutting costs on an oil rig in the middle of the ocean so BP could increase their already obscene profit margin is like blaming Poland for having the gaul to sit itself between Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia--how dare they!

There are many culprits in this sad episode, however, the ruling Snidley Whiplash is and will always be the guilty party--BP. Is the American public an accomplice because it wants cheap oil and doesn't want to pay the ancillary costs? You bet. But blaming the environmental community for this tragedy is just a rhetorical bridge too far. Not that I speak for the millions who wear the label, but most environmentalists aren't any more wild about drilling for oil in the middle of the ocean then they are off the coasts or in ANWR.

Krauthammer, Cheney, Palin, et al. miss the central point in their desire to shift the blame: we all know there is no silver bullet to change a century old addiction, but the sooner we start weaning ourselves from the true costs of fossil fuels on our economy and our planet, the better off we will all be.

I'd be curious to see if Krauthammer is willing to back up his rhetoric by supporting a strong national renewable energy portfolio standard or any of the other excellent starting points that are part of the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act or if he will follow the mindless drum beat of those who call it a job killing energy tax. Seems to me you can't have it both ways.

I know your point wasn't to pick an argument, but rather to incite a real debate about how we prioritize our energy future--and it is a worthy discussion. I just wish you wouldn't have used this particular ideologue as the entry point.

Hopefully, others will join in this discussion.

MG | June 2, 2010 22:50 | Report Abuse

John, It's important to understand that the mess the Gulf is in is the result of a lot of lies and irresponsible decision making. Human nature seems to require such catastrophies to bring common sense to a situation. Then it quickly fades. It's a pity.

Failure analysis is an important part of human progress, so I think your suggestion to stop worrying about what went wrong is misguided. You can be sure that long before things are even partly cleaned up the various parties will be in court playing the professional blame game. Already Transocean is trying to limit its liability to the $27 million value of its sunken rig. See: http://www.wwl.com/Transocean-tries-to-limit-liability-to--27-million/7042312

We can only hope that a re-constituted MMS will find a proper balance.

CG | June 2, 2010 22:50 | Report Abuse

How can we focus on the BP mess, when TIPPER AND AL GORE are breaking up.

JL | June 2, 2010 22:51 | Report Abuse

It was not implied that nothing should be done. Industry standards are there for a reason and should be followed. Clearly things are not going as they should. Corrative action is needed to stop the leak and better regulatory procedures are needed.

But shutting down the entire drilling industry, nor the entire nuclear industry, or the coal power utility plants (fly ash) because of unusual and unfortunate situation, is not to correct course of action. The folks that want to stop off shore drilling are the same folk that felt like the entire agriclutural industry should of been shut down, because of the poor crop management practiced, during the dust bowl days of the thirties.

Our nation simply continues to over reacts without full thinking about the long term impact. Gulf War, 9/11, Health Care, Financial Bailouts, Year 2000, and now the gulf coast oil leak. We continue to react to the "dissater of the month", instead of carefully, proactively, planning for the future.

Sorry about my jaded comments regarding Tipper and Al.

John

JL | June 2, 2010 22:51 | Report Abuse

How we push environmental cases at thirst nations when cases happen by worldwide company hasn't treated properly. Bring all cases through final court and rested all guys responsible as much as his/her position.

OS | June 2, 2010 22:51 | Report Abuse

Regardless of what choices are made there are always geographic, industry specific and other unqiue risks inherent. That is why industry and government need to really start have viable, not check the block, emergency preparedness and response programs that are integrated from the top to the bottom. These programs need to be scenario and capabilities based. And, the programs leadership and staff need to be hired based upon capabilities and experience, not their personality, politics or other non-relevant facts. That way crises can be planned for and contained quickly when they do occur.

Take a look at some of my articles written in ordon's news since the beginning of the Gulf Crisis, based upon my professional experience and training.

My latest article highlights failures in personnel and leadership and the need for accountability and to replace the non-performers quickly etc.

http://www.ordons.com/201006015095/gulf-of-mexico-crisistime-for-a-change-in-command.html

There are two other articles on the subject.

SJ | June 2, 2010 22:52 | Report Abuse

Charles Krauthammer is brilliant, every time he talks, I listen. In this case, he is right again. The environmentalists are a group of folks that are not to be trusted, they engage in propaganda, echo-terrorism, and junk science.

GM | June 2, 2010 22:52 | Report Abuse

My take on risk assessments is that oil drilling is a hazardous activity. My understanding is that BP displaced the mud from a secure well and as a consequence of poor cementing by Halliburton and the failure of the BOP (responsibility of the rig operator - I think) the oil flowed into the Gulf. Furthermore, BP appear not to have had viable contingency plans to stop such a forseeable event. No matter that it might be argued that the possibility of oil flowing into the Gulf might have been considered remote, the consequences of such an event were so grave that contingency measures ought to have been available.

As someone who cares about this planet I reject anyone trying to blame environmentalists. Blame appears to lies firmly on the regulator, BP, Halliburton and the rig operator.

DE | June 2, 2010 22:52 | Report Abuse

The Federal and local government of the United States should shoulder 100% of the responsibility for this disaster. It seems that the smooth "corruption" that is permitted in the USA allowed the engineering standards, risk analysis, environmental impact studies, disaster scenario analysis, maintenance and operating standards to be bent sufficiently so that BP and other oil companies to drill for oil in the Gulf without the proper safeguards.
What is amazing is that drilling and production of oil in the Gulf off the USA has not been stopped so that all available resources could be made available to cap the leak. At the same time technical audits of all the facilities in the Gulf should be undertaken before allowing any facility to go back into operation.
Lessons can be learnt from the Chernobyl nuclear power station disaster, which is similar in that in both cases the effect of the break could not be seen with the naked eye. The nuclear plant was shut down using all resources available as soon as the extent of the radiation became known. Thus if the USA is serious about stopping the oil spill, then it would not take another 3 months to drill the relief holes to reduce the oil flow and cap the leak. Or cap the leak by some other means.

LM | June 2, 2010 22:52 | Report Abuse

Well he is right- this is not Alaska, where beyond the seafood industry an a few cruise ships, not a lot of people get to see the Valdez legacy. The potential economic impact of this spill and the number of tourist and tourist dependent lives affected makes this far more problematic. So maybe the silver lining is that 20 years of oil might now be 10. There are huge subsidies for petroleum and the current market fails to pay for many of the associated externalities -hopefully that changes. The political backers of oil are already looking to blame government, or environmentalists, blame anything but oil.

So we drill through the Arctic then what? Global demand continues to grow and 10 years down the road we are drilling Virgina and California. Fix the market for oil - include health cost, strategic geopolitical costs, opportunity costs, dare I say climate costs - and then give alternatives a fair shot.

CT | June 2, 2010 22:52 | Report Abuse

As far as I am concerned not one more oil rig should be towed out to any sea ever. If oil companies spent as much money on developing, perfecting and making a viable case for alternative fuels as they do for oil exploration and constructing new ways to extract oil from more and more remote areas, sometimes with very good chances of failure( Gulf oil rigs), then they would have the method to keep themselves commercially viable for a much longer time period and actually might do the world some good than they would by pursuing the remaining dwindling supply of the world's oil.

I cannot believe the insanity that these oil companies put themselves through when they know their main source of income generation is rapidly disappearing and they are doing nothing to help the oil addicts of the world ( western civilization) kick their habit( this is where everyone needs to look in the mirror). I mean all of us.

RM | June 2, 2010 22:53 | Report Abuse

From what has come out publicly, there is still a lot of room for investigationas to cause. Being a cementing 3engineer and practitioner for most of the last 20 years, Halliburton's role is still highly questionable and to portray their performance as "poor cementing" is at this point more of a piling on activity, they are an easy target for the public. There are still a lot of particulars regarding the well condition and the cementing execution that require light of day to determine their part in the disaster. I for one am not a big believer in the "regulator" role either. Our government in general are not problem solvers. BP and TransOcean are the ultimate responsible parties, they are the risk takers and the experts in this scenario. There may actually be others who bear major roles, in that the machanical barriers that failed were provided by other parties.

SR | June 2, 2010 22:53 | Report Abuse

Excellent feedback everyone, please keep it up!

Mac | June 2, 2010 22:58 | Report Abuse

It's a specious argument at best.

Any credible environmental organization has taken the position that we need to stop burning oil for our energy as quickly as possible. Despite the history acrimony and polemic, this is the driving objective.

Really the only tactic they have to influence policy is to drive the price of oil up through various legal and socially acceptable means. With this approach the attractiveness of alternative energy increases.

Truly corporate oil and its inbred cousin the auto industry, have worked equally hard, and sadly more effectively to keep the price of oil low through government subsidies and cozy relationships with petrol dictatorships.

Please, let's drop this sort of blaming discussion. Make the true costs of fossil fuel consumption explicit and figure out how we get this country to clean alternative sources of energy.

BR | June 3, 2010 00:01 | Report Abuse

So we're supposed to trash our planet and then run out of fossil fuels and then figure out the alternative to oil? Here's a novel idea - how about find the alternatives to fossil fuel now and skip the part about despoiling the few remaining pristine parts of the planet left.

EN | June 3, 2010 02:30 | Report Abuse

why are they drilling out there. hmm. Because that is where the oil is. at least that is where geologists think it is. plus, near-shore production along the Gulf Coast peaked in 1997.

and to cite Krauthammer is wow. just wow. Krauthammers articles, if they can be called that since he routinely lifts copy from other writers, have been science and reality free zones for years now.

ITP | June 3, 2010 03:13 | Report Abuse

"Environmentalists" are no more to blame than somebody that counts beans along the continuum of revenue generation in this business. If it was not big money, it would not be big risk. It is absotively amazing that this hasn't happened in recent history. Being in Houston, I can tell you that BP, Halliburton and TransOcean are upstanding corporate citizens and are taking this situation as seriously as you can take any situation. I have very good friends - not just acquaintances that work at each organization. Heck, I did a presentation at TransOcean on the Wednesday after the DH caught fire. These folks were working hard.

The upshot of this incident is that there will be a way to handle a future similar situation - it doesn't even need to be exact. The direct and collateral impacts are making people think. Consider the pipeline explosion in NM where several campers were killed. Corroded pipe. How do "fix" that? Well, first you require smart pig runs on a regular basis, then a program to statistically analyze anomalies, etc. Pipelines continue to be the safest way to transport hydrocarbons around the planet.

The suggestion that environmentalists are to blame any more than anyone else (including the people that drive cars, trucks, boats, planes like you and me) is media pot-stirring at its best. The reality is that it's simply capitalism at its ugly best - the shortest distance (read: path of least resistance) to value generation can have tremendous risks, not all of which are realized.

As for the regulators, there are safeguards in place and it is necessary to regulate. To infer - directly or indirectly - that our government is incapable is a statement made in ignorance (not meaning to be harsh in the sense of being mean, but people are "blaming the regulators" mostly because people don't know what they don't know). I've been permitting for more than 20 years and have been involved in some cutting edge stuff, the vast majority of which has been onshore - but not all. None in deepwater. However, the same MMS folks that do 100 feet of water, are involved in and sometimes lead deepwater.

"Kicks" or similar scenarios are gamed all the time by MMS. One of my on site contractors staffed for an outfit that had offshore GOM assets. The MMS inspector knocked on their door, they answered. He opened his dossier, read the environmental conditions (tide, wind, water temperature, current conditions, seas and product flow), then sat down and did not say another word. I'm confident BP, TransOcean and Halliburton have all experienced this. Nobody foresaw this type of incident, individually or collectively (this alone will change the game).

Environmentalists made it tougher to drill in some areas but it's not all on the environmentalists (I prefer the term conservationist - a wise user and manager of resources). People that could give a hoot about the environment don't want to look out their window and see a jackup or 10 on the horizon, especially when they pull their SUV into the driveway ...

In the GOM, nearshore anyways, these are the best fish attracting things around given that the western Gulf is largely devoid of any significant bottom structure save for Stetson and Flower Garden range (100+/- miles). But that really is another story ...

JG | June 4, 2010 01:20 | Report Abuse

I will bow to your experience with the MMS, however the great majority of on land regulators I have dealt with are inexperienced, in many cases uneducated and in some cases incompetent, (that doesn't say they aren't willing to learn). There are certainly notable exceptions to that statement and I hope that the MMS is loaded with those exceptions. I stand by my statement that "in general" our government are not problem solvers, again that leaves room for exceptions.

I like the conservationist definition as well. Though a career Oily, I consider myself one of these, both from an energy perspective as well as environmentally. However, there is a faction of Environmentalist that fall in a totally different category. Indirectly they play a role which is miniscule when related to the role of capitalism.

SR | June 4, 2010 11:16 | Report Abuse

During an investor conference call on June 4 Tony Hayward, Chief Executive Officer of BP, indicated that the Corporation’s investigation team work thus far shows that this accident was brought about by the failure of a number of processes, systems, and equipment. There were multiple control mechanisms, procedures, and equipment in place that should have prevented the accident or reduced the impact of the spill that failed including:
1. The cement that seals the reservoir from the well;
2. The casing system, which seals the well bore;
3. The pressure tests to confirm the well is sealed;
4. The execution of procedures to detect and control hydrocarbons in the well, including the use of the BOP;
5. The BOP Emergency Disconnect System, which can be activated by pushing a button at multiple locations on the rig;
6. The automatic closure of the BOP after its connection is lost with the rig; and
7. Features in the BOP to allow Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV) to close the BOP and thereby seal the well at the seabed after a blow out.

In short, it was, “... a complex accident, caused by an unprecedented combination of failures.”

While the Federal moratorium extends over six months, during the June 4 BP investor conference call, Tony indicated that, it may be the end of the decade before the industry is prepared to return to the Lower Tertiary trend. Prior to a return, the Industry will have to fully digest the events leading up to the Deepwater Horizon incident, develop the necessary “higher safety standers,” and deploy the technology required to respond to a similar event in the future.

CK | June 4, 2010 11:16 | Report Abuse

In my own view the Government has the blame. Drilling 5000 or 10000ft is not the issue. The issue is that the regulatory control failed. In the first place, how did BP get their license/permit to drill. Did they show thoroughly that potential significant risks were borught a level as low as practicable. If this was not done, then the licensing and regulatory framework has failed. Who actually checked their risk assessment. If the US govenment could admit that they do not have the technology to control the gush, it implies that the issued license to BP blindly. If they considered worse case scenerios like this and put controls in place, recovery from this incidence would have been easy. Otherwise, the drilling should not have been allowed. Some of the developing African nation could do better to prevent or recover from this.

OC | June 4, 2010 14:13 | Report Abuse