I think we all remember the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. People were outraged as tons and tons of oil leaked into the gulf, killing animals, polluting the water, and wasting oil. Since then, the government implemented a moratorium on deep-water drilling in the gulf and several new regulations on shallow-water drilling. Obtaining a permit to drill in the Gulf used to be a quicker and easier process, but now with the new regulations, many people in the oil industry are complaining. The new requirements include detailed spill response plans and responses to worst case scenarios, which are leading to setbacks and delays. Companies claim that this is costing them millions of dollars and leading to layoffs. An extremely small number of permits have been approved since the spill, but not because regulators are being more selective. Many companies have not even submitted applications for permits because they are so confused with the new intricate rules and requirements. However, the government states that it is not trying to make it harder on the industry, it is just trying to make it safer. Although I understand the frustration of the oil companies, I am not very sympathetic. After seeing what happened in the oil spill, I want the government to take every precaution. Kieran Suckling, the director of the Center for Biological Diversity in Tucson, Arizona states that the oil industry is just going to have to get used to not having a close and personal relationship with the regulators. Being more of an environmentalist myself, I am all for taking extra precautions when it comes to oil drilling and believe that the oil industry will just have to learn to follow the new rules. Thoughts?
For more information...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/09/14/national/a023045D68.DTL
8 comments:
I agree. I have little sympathy for the oil industry after the incident in the Gulf of Mexico. And sadly, much like the San Bruno disaster, it takes a disaster or an incident to get the government to react and implement strict regulations that should have been there in the first place. Our strong reliance on resources such as oil, should be met by even stronger regulations of those resources. But at least the government is reacting and actually taking action.
Regulation is a double edged sword though. More regulation will lead to more responsibility in business and will help protect the environment. But regulation would also cause businesses to lose millions of dollars, the federal govt' would be throwing away millions of dollars watching over these businesses when they could be using it for useful projects. Ie: School funding. Even with more regulation it is not certain that those business practices would be safer. The FDA is a government program that was designed to protect consumers from dangerous food and drugs; but as we seen this agency allows unsafe food and drugs to go on the market. This federal program costs millions of tax payers money yet constantly fails to keep us safe. Regarding the oil spill, I doubt the federal government has the money and time to regulate it right now as we are currently in a major recession.
I'm completely for regulation depending on the item or services that are being regulated. But regulations that only protects a select group people (Oil regulation only helps people on the coast and raises the prices of oil on all the people around the country) does not appeal to me.
I agree. It is important for the federal goverment to make sure we regulate the big companies like the oil companies to make sure that our country is safe. We cannot afford to have another incident as the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill because we have lost a lot from it already such as ecosystems and money. I know that by adding strict regulations, the negative side is that businesses will not be able to make as much money as they have been but we will be much safer making sure incidents do not happen as much as it possibly can. I know that by putting in regulations though, we will be having more responsibility towards the federal government, and if another big accident happens again, everyone will blame the federal goverment. I would like to say that we gotta make sure we know whose fault it was if something bad ever happens, knock on wood.
More regulations are fine, but the true problem is that most of the oil rigs are being closed due to a "reexamination" of the supposed problems with the rigs. The oil spill was devastating to the people of the Gulf Coast, but the real heart of the problem lies in the way these regulations are conducted. As many of these Gulf Coast citizens rely on either the oil companies or the fish that surround the coast, it is important to realize that in many places the entire economy is at a standstill. The oil rigs are money makers, while strict regulations are very important. It is necessary to realize the amount of jobs that are at stake. With more expensive regulations, smaller oil companies will be forced to close down. With NASA moving out of the region, the Gulf Coast is at a loss for jobs. The oil industry is a major aspect of their economy, so it is important to consider the loss of a free-flowing economy. But, the environment is very important as without all the jobs would be gone. I am in favor of slight increase in regulations, but there are too many loopholes and back deals for any regulation to be really that effective. In the end, the ones who must hold accountability is the company as the government cannot always be there. The government is only as strong as its citizens. We cannot practice a totalitarian system, so in the end we must trust the people to do the right thing.
Although I am all for the safety of the ecosystem and the American people, I believe these regulations should be taken away. If permits are harder to obtain, it'll be that much harder to obtain and drill oil. Americans are always complaining of higher gas prices, and these regulations will do nothing but raise more outcries from the American people. Even though yes, BP's screw up was devastating to the ecosystem in the Gulf of Mexico, this allows a new type of ecosystem to grow. Since most animals and ecosystems within the Gulf are devastated, new species and animals can dominate the waters, leading to eventual diversity that may be beneficial to Americans, especially fishers and those who live off the coast. In addition, as seen by the "oil-eating microbe[s]" that "may have adapted over time due to periodic leaks and natural seeps of oil in the Gulf," it is obvious that there are solutions outside of new regulations in which the government has to spend more money on. This money can be used to fund things that will benefit a larger group of people as much of the Gulf oil spill concerns mainly those who live and thrive off the coastal regions. Why get angry at the government for spending too much money on regulating the coast when the government could be providing money for schools and welfare?
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/08/24/new-microbe-discovered-eating-gulf-oil-spill/
It's only right that this regulation be implemented immediately considering the fact that there is currently about 170 million gallons of oil down at the Gulf. It's true as McDragon said that millions of dollars would be thrown away regulating these businesses, but how much money exactly was spent cleaning up that mess? Without the regulations, the so called "useful projects" would've probably been destroyed by a burning 30 inch gas line or engulfed by crude oil.
@Stephen Chan
I wouldn't believe anything that fox news says. Haha
OT: I Agree with you entirely, why blow this money away on failed regulation that could "stop" a disaster when we could use this money on helping our public schools. The United States has fallen behind on nearly all aspects regarding academic performances, it would be a wiser investment to help our future out and get ahead of other countries.
I would have to agree to an extent, but if I were to choose, I would ultiamtely disagree with the idea of new regulations. Yes, i can see how these new regulations can be beneficial despite the setback for the oil companies. This can benefit and save our already heavily polluted planet and prevent us humans from destroying the planet. Even though it will cost oil companies millions, I would rather have them lose money than destroy our entire ecosystem which can have disastrous effects seeing how many of us depend on the ocean for our food, but also it gives many jobs to fishermen and practically everyone that does things with animals in the water. It can be so bad, it could ruin the human race and break the ecosystem chain too, although that is an extreme case. Very, very extreme. But it's possible still. However, these regulations can also be bad too. If oil companies are unable to drill due to these stringent regulations, how are we supposed to get oil? We don't have solar powered cars or any advanced technology and millions of families depend on transportation that consumes gas and oil to get to work and such. Think about how detrimental it would be to us humans too as transportation is so essential in our everyday lives. If we can't get to work, how is anything going to be done? If we can't go to school, how are we supposed to learn? So there are both pros and cons each side, but ultimately I would disagree with new regulations. Despite the many losing jobs, I'd rather have only a part of the American population affected instead of the entire population. And even though it might have disastrous effects on the ecosystem, like Stephen said, new species will come about too which can replace those that died. And although it can ruin the entire human race, that idea is so far fetched that it has an extremely slim chance of happening. I'm not saying I don't care, it just has little possibility happening. Through all oil spills it's not like they actually were on the verge of doing that anyways. So ultimately, I would disagree with these new regulations.
Post a Comment