BP, Obama, and the EPA

BP’s Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill has caused environmental and economic damage and a political circus. Have you ever heard of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan Act? This law was passed in 1994 and it specifically charges the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with mitigating damage from major oil spills. In response to that act, the EPA, itself, says, “When a major oil spill occurs in the United States, coordinated teams of local, state, and national personnel are called upon to help contain the spill, clean it up, and ensure that damage to human health and the environment is minimized. Without careful planning and clear organization, efforts to deal with large oil spills could be slow, ineffective, and potentially harmful to response personnel and the environment. In the United States, the system for organizing responses to major oil spills is called the National Response System.” The Act makes a prompt and effective response to a major oil spill a national priority. So how are they doing?

Some (mainly conservative) columnists have attributed Obama’s Nero-like lack of concern to ulterior motives. For instance, Obama’s refusal to accept aid from the Dutch government is said to be a sop to the labor unions. And, Obama is using the oil spill disaster to renew his push for Cap & Trade climate legislation.

Maybe there are ulterior motives, but more likely, the less-than-prompt and effective response is probably due to incompetence by Obama and his bureaucracies, just like FEMA’s failure after Katrina. For instance the EPA dithered while considering the possible toxic effects of an oil dispersant that BP wanted to use. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is incensed with the Coast Guard because they stopped cleanup efforts to check whether the crews had proper fire extinguishers and life vests.

Meanwhile, Congress is holding hearings, with all their sound and fury, in a feigned effort to investigate BP (and give “face time” to legislators). Such hearings have no practical value in mitigating the oil spill.

Obama used the oil spill as an excuse to impose a six-month moratorium of deep water drilling, possibly to promote more “alternative energy” schemes. Obama said is was for “safety” concerns by the Department of the Interior, but analysis by the Wall Street Journal shows that this was all about politics. Another possible ulterior motive: the oil spill and Obama’s moratorium will aid Obama contributor George Soros who is heavily involved in Brazilian oil. Brazil stands to benefit from the BP oil spill catastrophe as the US moratorium makes more rigs available for other countries.

Yes, BP should be held responsible for the loss of economic activity caused by the accident. But government action, and inaction, is making things worse. They are not letting a good crisis go to waste.


  1. It’s not Obama’s fault. After all, he’s only a community organizer, not a real president.
    I guess we’ll have to wait ’til 2012 for the real thing to show up.

  2. BP and USCG will eventually use tankers to collect the oil that has been released into the Gulf of Mexico as a result of  the Deepwater Horizon blowout of April 20, 2010.  Unfortunately, this decision will be made after the devastation of many coastal communities.Since May 17, 2010, Renergie, Inc. has submitted unsolicited proposals for the purpose of using three Panamax class crude tankers for the collection and onboard separation of the BP oil spill to every federal agency, state agency, state elected official and federal elected official with even a remote interest in the BP oil spill.The USCG response to Renergie’s proposal stated, “Unfortunately, the Coast Guard does not currently have a mission and is not hiring contractors. However, if BP requests names, I will recommend and forward your company.”The blowout of April 20, 2010 aboard the Deepwater Horizon was clearly preventable. The fact that the BP oil spill has been allowed to reach coastal areas is inexcusable.For a clear understanding of the issues involved, visit:http://renergie.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/bp-is-not-the-only-responsible-party/andhttp://donovanlawgroup.wordpress.com/2010/06/05/the-oil-pollution-act-provides-for-the-federalization-of-the-bp-oil-spill/andhttp://donovanlawgroup.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/why-bp-does-not-want-an-accurate-measurement-of-the-gulf-oil-spill/

  3. This thing Blew on Arril 20th . . . and here it is June 20th. 2 months later and all Dear Leader Obama is doing is looking for “Somebody’s Azz to kick.” A great example of leadership.
    Hey, Mr. President, we’re not in the streets of Chicago now, and I have a suggestion for you.
    Why don’t we stop the oil leak first, then let’s worry about kicking someone’s azz. Sound good to you?
    Annother suggestion would be to get in touch with your Czar for Disasters and ask him if this is really a disaster. If it is, Ask him what to do.
    After all, he’s on the payroll, isn’t he? THe ball seems to be in his court.
    Yer pal, Ferrari Bubba

  4.  Does BP = Enron II ?With global warming hysteria now widely discredited, the left has found a new “rationale” to make America Green. To no one’s surprise,  it appears  that Obama  is going to use the Gulf oil spill as leverage to pass his  Cap and Trade agenda before year’s end.   It  now looks like  BP’s cost-cutting measures and  risky drilling procedures may have lead directly to the Gulf disaster.  But, despite its  tarnished image as a green energy company, “ Beyond Petroleum”  BP, could actually become a  winner, as potential beneficiary to large subsidies for renewable  energy, should  Cap and Trade pass the Senate.  In  true “Enronesque” fashion, BP plays a game called political capitalism.  BP, like the former  Enron Corp, sports a green image and lobbies for  Cap &Trade  and other government intervention in the energy markets,  hoping to  make big profits on its huge holdings in solar and wind technology. Will this pay off,  or will BP suffer the same fate as Enron, a victim of its own meddling and incompetence?

  5. Where is the mainstream media  —  AGAIN?
    BREAKING NEWS!  —  Maybe the Goldman Sachs crystal ball is working better that anyone elses’.
    In the first quarter of 2010, Goldman Sachs divested itself of 4,680,822 shares of British Patroleum stock. Why?
    And . . . in the same period, B.P. C.E.O. Tony Hayworth sold aprox. 1/3 of his B.P. shares. Why?
    All this just before Deepwater blew on April 20th.
    Remember, you heard it here first.  —  Yer pal, Ferrari Bubba

Comments are closed.