Top Stories -   

1
This undated photo provided by the office of U.S. District Judge Martin L. C. Feldman, shows Judge Feldman. (AP / Office of U.S. District Judge Martin L.C. Feldman) This image from video early Wednesday morning, June 23, 2010 shows oil continuing to gush millions of gallons a day, from the broken wellhead, at the site of the Deepwater Horizon oil well in the Gulf of Mexico. (BP PLC) Louisiana National Guard vehicles are parked on the beach under storm clouds as booms collect oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill in Grand Isle, La. on Tuesday, June 22, 2010. (AP / Charlie Neibergall)

Oil spewing in Gulf after crews forced to remove cap

Viewer

CTV News Video

CTV News Channel: Coast guard Admiral Thad Allen
One of the officials in charge of the oil spill clean up effort updates the media saying that the containment device has collected more than four million litres in 24 hours, a new record.
Canada AM: CNN's Sandra Endo in Washington
The White House will appeal a judge's ruling that oil companies can return to oversea drilling, as the U.S. president really wants to show he is doing something to prevent further oil disasters from occurring.
CTV National News: Tom Walters reports
The Obama administration suffered major legal setbacks Tuesday in its bid to prevent deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. A judge ruled against the ban, which is setting off instant reactions.
CTV News Channel: Jay Gray, NBC News
A correspondent with NBC says it is ironic that the people fighting the oil are the ones who want the drilling to continue, but he says it is their livelihood. He also says that it is expected the White House will appeal the decision.
CTV News Channel: BNN's Michael Hainsworth
Despite a judges ruling to lift a moratorium on offshore drilling, stocks on Wall Street took a tumble, as the spill in the Gulf continues to spew.
CTV News Channel: Enda Brady, Sky News
A correspondant from Sky News witnessed BP executive Steve Westwell being heckled by protesters in London.
CTV News Channel: Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen
The top federal official in the spill response, has said construction on the relief wells remains ahead of schedule.
Canada AM: Peter Block, managing partner
A managing partner at Cohn & Wolfe, a public relations company, and a crisis management expert says if BP fixes the spill in the Gulf it will improve their communication failures and explains what companies should do when facing a similar crisis like BP.

A A |  Email ThisEmail  | PrintComments (46) Facebook   

This undated photo provided by the office of U.S. District Judge Martin L. C. Feldman, shows Judge Feldman. (AP / Office of U.S. District Judge Martin L.C. Feldman) This image from video early Wednesday morning, June 23, 2010 shows oil continuing to gush millions of gallons a day, from the broken wellhead, at the site of the Deepwater Horizon oil well in the Gulf of Mexico. (BP PLC) Louisiana National Guard vehicles are parked on the beach under storm clouds as booms collect oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill in Grand Isle, La. on Tuesday, June 22, 2010. (AP / Charlie Neibergall)

Photos

This undated photo provided by the office of U.S. District Judge Martin L. C. Feldman, shows Judge Feldman. (AP / Office of U.S. District Judge Martin L.C. Feldman)

View Larger Image

Date: Wed. Jun. 23 2010 9:04 PM ET

NEW ORLEANS — Oil spewed uncontrolled into the Gulf of Mexico again Wednesday after an undersea robot bumped the cap being used to contain it, forcing BP engineers to remove the device and then scramble to reattach it.

The latest setback left nothing to stem the flow of oil at its source. A camera recording the well showed huge clouds of black fluid coming out of the seafloor. BP hoped to quickly replace the cap, which since June 4 had been carrying some of the oil gushing from the blown-out well to a surface ship.

In recent days, it was sucking up about 110,000 litres an hour, crude that spewed back into the Gulf on Wednesday. Another ship was still collecting a smaller amount of oil and burning it on the surface.

BP engineers removed the cap after the mishap because fluid seemed to be leaking, creating a possible safety hazard because of the flames above, and they were concerned ice-like crystals might clog it. They were working to replace it Wednesday night.

The latest problem with the nine-week effort to stop the gusher came as thick pools of oil washed up on Pensacola Beach in Florida and the Obama administration sought to resurrect a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling.

Under the worst-case scenario, as much as 393,670 litres an hour -- 9.46 million litres a day -- is flowing from the site where the offshore rig Deepwater Horizon exploded April 20, killing 11 workers.

Bob Dudley, the BP managing director who took over the spill response from his company's embattled CEO Wednesday, said engineers expected to replace the cap in less than a day.

"It's a disruption, and the crew again did exactly the right thing because they were concerned about safety," he said. "It's a setback, and now we will go back into operation and show how this technology can work."

When the robot bumped into the equipment just before 10 a.m., gas rose through a vent that carries warm water down to prevent icy crystals from forming in the machinery, Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen said.

Crews were checking to see if the crystals called hydrates had formed before attempting to put the cap back on.

Ed Overton, a professor emeritus of environmental science at Louisiana State University, said he suspects crews are pumping air into the line to flush out any water before they try to reattach the cap.

"It sounds pretty easy and straightforward, but nothing is easy and straightforward when you're doing it remotely from a mile away," he said.

In May, a similar problem doomed the effort to put a bigger containment device over the blown-out well. BP had to abandon the four-story box after the crystals clogged it, threatening to make it float away.

The smaller cap had worked until now. To get it to the seafloor, though, crews had to slice away a section of the leaking pipe, meaning the flow of oil could be stronger now than before.

Meanwhile, pools of oil washed up along kilometres of national park and Pensacola Beach shoreline and health advisories against swimming and fishing in the once-pristine waters were extended for 53 kilometres east from the Alabama border.

"It's pretty ugly, there's no question about it," Gov. Charlie Crist said.

The oil had a chemical stench as it baked in the afternoon heat. The beach looked as if it had been paved with a 6-foot(2-meter)-wide ribbon of asphalt, much different from the tar balls that washed up two weeks earlier.

"This used to be a place where you could come and forget about all your cares in the world," said Nancy Berry, who fought back tears as she watched her two grandsons play in the sand far from the shore.

The Obama administration was plotting its next steps Wednesday after U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans overturned a moratorium on new drilling, saying the government simply assumed that because one rig exploded, the others pose an imminent danger, too.

The White House promised an immediate appeal of his ruling. The Interior Department imposed the moratorium last month after the BP disaster, halting approval of any new permits for deepwater projects and suspending drilling on 33 exploratory wells.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in a statement that within the next few days he would issue a new order imposing a moratorium that eliminates any doubt it is needed and appropriate.

"It's important that we don't move forward with new drilling until we know it can be done in a safe way," he told a Senate subcommittee Wednesday.

Attorneys for the oilfield services companies that sued over the moratorium filed court papers accusing the Obama administration of ignoring Feldman's decision. They said Salazar's comments about a new moratorium have had a chilling effect on the resumption of drilling.

Several companies, including Shell and Marathon Oil, said they would await the outcome of any appeals before they start drilling again.

BP's Dudley said that Americans have been too quick to blame his company for the environmental disaster, now in its third month.

"I'm somewhat concerned there is a bit of a rush to justice going on around the investigation and facts," he said.

Comments are now closed for this story

Julie
said

He need not worry. He'll be able to recoup his losses. Last year I asked roofing companies why they were charging so much. "Because of the high costs of oil they said. It's our suppliers that are adding on this cost and the cost of roof tiles depends mainly on the cost of oil."This year I asked them why the costs of roofing are going up by 16% in July during a recession. "Because of the high costs of oil," they said.What? But the costs of oil have dropped! Are the oil companies planning on recouping their damage costs through other forms of extraction from the people?


JC
said

Once again the "Learned Individuals" have society's best interest at heart!


Craig from AB
said

As a business person who has intimate knowledge of the drilling business and the associated supplies and technologies, it continues to baffle me how skewed this whole issue has become.The cause of the 'accident' is simple. The blow out preventer (the BOP) - and who supplied it is a matter of public record - failed. The supplier sources their products mainly from low cost off shore countries. Nevertheless, the onus is upon the supplier to ensure that the devices to protect against a blow out such as this do function. Obviously this BOP did not.While the media can continue to point fingers at BP, Transocean, and whomever they like the truth is still simply that a device failed. The supplier of that device failed to ensure that it would perform properly.Aside from the tragedy of the mess created by the failure, mankind again demonstrates the trend of the immediate past and what I dread will be the future. No one lines up anymore to take responsibility for the equipment failure. Insurers only look to those with deep pockets. Lawyers twist the law so that the largest settlement is the goal, not the P. Eng who signed off on the functionality of the BOP.Who cares to sue the little guy (hiding from responsibility) when you can demonize BP? I'll believe America wants the truth when the greenies get on their bicycles in Fargo, ND in January and peddle to their lawyers office.Shame on all of the greed!


viral venus
said

When small minds argue that one incident does not constitute a "track record" of failure they completely ignore the severity factor. Even one incident of this magnitude causes so much damage that it SHOULD be enough to warrant a temporary supsension of new activity until the spill is stopped (so we would be armed with effective control methods should another incident occur when drilling resumes instead of enduring repeated failed attempts) and there is an opportunity to define categorically what kind of safety features would have prevented the incident (so they can be in place when new drilling resumes). It is not anti-business to expect responsible methods be employed while making vast amounts of money.


Susan
said

And we're surprised why now? Let's be honest, our "partners" to the south of us overall are corrupt elitists who think nothing of strong-arming other countries into their way of thinking...regardless of the impact this has negative or otherwise (and as of the last 20 years...huge on the negative).Perhaps Canada should seek more stable trading partners and let the US sink themselves.


Prof. Pye Chartt
said

@ Danny Dinosaur: The BP disaster represents an "accident" caused, ultimately, by corporate negligence. The U.S. Administration has, to this point, been unable to demonstrate, legally, that one incident clearly represents overwhelming environmental risk against substantial economic loss, within an industry that has a track record to rationally judge by. Only in the minds of those less intelligent does one such past event serve as "proof" of a forthcoming one. Take your flawed argument up with Judge Feldman. Thanks.


Dr. M
said

Sorry Professor, but you're just confused here. The point of the moratorium is to discover exactly what the exact causes of the disaster were- my point was that one example of a potential cause was the lack of the right kind of blowout preventor. Other causes may include a poor job of cementing the casing by Haliburton, lack of oversight in the placement of the well, faulty machinery...the possibilities are endless. But that's the point- until there is a complete investigation, it is impossible to know exactly what the cause(s) was/were. And why should we be risking not only the environment, but the lives of more oil rig workers, just so BP can make more money? By the way, the financial hit to the other industries involved, the other victims of BP's negligence and lack of government regulation, are to be compensated by BP. So the argument that the economy of the Gulf rests on 33 exploratory wells is wrong on all counts- BP will pay restitution to other companies and individuals, including the workers, and BP will have to suffer the financial consequences of their own negligence, which is only fair. Get it?


Danny Dinosaur
said

Prof. Pye chart you state: when no legitimate evidence existed that they posed an actual risk. Are you kidding? There is a gulf full of oil that looks like evidence to me. And it is still filling with oil - months later. I can not imagine what stronger evidence would look like. As to whether the industry should be punished for this or held up in their production, it seems to me that they have put the environment and people at risk - without a solution. Until they find a solution to an industry problem, they should not be allowed to re-create the circumstances that caused the problem. Unfortunately it does affect a lot of people in the industry, but why why should they be allowed to continue something that has proven to be a massive and unthinkable risk to an even larger group? This is why regulations are needed. As with the banks and many other examples, greed does need to be regulated at times or it will place the greater society at unacceptable risk.


kg1
said

totally saw that coming; of course he would nix it, he is trying to line his pockets, as most greedy people do regardless of the consequences and the impact on others.


Western Canadaian
said

Corrupt Legal System in Favor of OIL INTERESTS - guess YOU CAN SWIM IN OIL in you don't have connections!!!!! Enviroment v.s. Politics - guess we ALL loose in favour of OIL STOCKS hitting bottom. Corrosion, Technical Expertise, Records of Inspections, and most of all DRUG testing after employment starts are all part of the question!!!!


Lz in Edmonton
said

Oh look, a prius CAR was involved in a Fatal accident and fell in a lake and has contaminated it badly with its batteries. Lets BAN ALL CARS until we figure out why this happened. End result, people would lose their jobs, the economy in that state would stop, and people would be suing the car company. Next, the judge, who also drives a car, overturns the broad ruling but he happens owns Toyota stock. Must be a bad apple with no sound judgement and common sense. Throw him out. Wait a minute, that's just too darn simplistic of an explanation......the government has it right....


Pii R2
said

It's the Amurcan way Find an oil friendly judge! Take that Obama. Quick get him on the BoD.


eddytoronto
said

Why did current CEO of BP Tony Hayward dump approximately one-third of his BP stocks before the oil crisis? Why did Goldman Sachs dump a hefty 44% of its BP stock prior to, particularly given that Peter Sutherland was formerly CEO of both BP and Goldman Sachs at the same time? What are the odds that former Vice President Dick Cheney’s firm Halliburton would purchase a company which focuses on oil spill prevention and blowout response, just weeks before the so-called biggest environmental crisis of all time would strike? These telling transactions at the highest levels of business, politics and finance coincidence very meaningfully with the multiple accounts from inside BP, the oil platforms in the Gulf, and the related lawyers that demonstrate a willful negligence towards the conditions of the oil assets which would later explode and spill.

Jim in Ottawa
said

While I do not see any evidence of conflict of interest in the judge’s judgment, and I do trust that he is a highly ethical person, I do concede that for the sake of his own professional integrity, he should have excused himself from this case in order to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest. As for “Rob’s” comment that he “should lose…all of his stocks and profits he has made in the oil patch”—absolutely not—I could not disagree with you more. On this continent, all persons regardless of their profession or any other attribute (nationality, race, religion, etc.) are allowed to hold private property, a freedom that is the cornerstone of our society.


eddytoronto
said

It is a travesty that the local governments of Louisiana have not learned from the lessons of Katrina. The federal government will not help, the corporations will not help. You must pick yourself up by your dock-boots and clean this up yourselves. Send BP and the federal government the bill and if they don’t pay sue ‘em then don’t let BP do business in Louisiana.BP said they will provide money for legal claims, hold em to it. Force them to stop using chemical dispersants that are at least 4X’s more toxic that the oil it is dispersing.

Rob
said

"Feldman overturned the ban Tuesday, saying the government simply assumed that because one rig exploded, the others pose an imminent danger, too."I assume this judge would've contiued using the Space Shuttles after the Challenger explosion too, without waiting to find out what went wrong.


EricB
said

Pretty much everyone who has diversified mutual fund investments holds money in big oil. Using that logic, the majority of the population would therefore incapable of making an impartial decision.


Richard in Ontario
said

I don't quite understand the logic in some remarks that say that the moratorium should not be put in place because of one incident. "If a car has a problem, we don't ban all cars". Silly argument. I totally agree with President Obama since if we read a little more, BP for instance, apparently has problems with other wells.. Why not close the drilling down for six months until everyone is assured that all precautions are being taken. As for the Judge, he must be a tad embarassed today. Can you say "Conflict of Interest".


Sean
said

The government should move away from the argument regarding the likelihood of a leak and instead say that they are no longer satisfied that oil companies are sufficiently prepared to deal with an oil leak as the US and BP are currently overwhelmed trying to deal with the oil that is currently leaking out. Any company that proposes to start drilling needs to prove that they can handle, on their own, a leak of 100,000 barrels a day. Not just say they have a plan. If the other companies had the systems in place to deal with a leak of this size, doesn't it seem reasonable that the US would contract 20% of their response resources each to deal with this disaster? The ONLY conclusion is that no one has resources ready.


Doug # BC
said

Big deal.Do all the low lifes in Canada,who always have to find a scapegoat for everything tht ever goes wrong,not realize that this judge is not the only one who owns shares in oil and gas opertions.In fact,in that part of the USA,you would be hard pressed to find anyone who DOES NOT own some shares.Every Tom,Dick,and Henrietta in those southern states owns shares in the oil industry.AND,this judges investments were actually not large by any standard. As to the question of what this has to do with politics in Canada,I suggest plenty.Ignatieff is already using it formulate Liberal policy on the back of his hand.In fact,given the flip flops comong from "iggy",I am quite sure he met with Hillary when she was here,and she set him straight on several issues.This being one of them. He is actually a CIA plant,sent here to make sure Alberta oil has only one route to the market place.The good old USA.That is really why "Iggy" has,without even a discussion with the provinces involved,decided that there will be no oil exports from Canada unless it is to the good old USA.Hillary and "Iggy" have spoken.So BC and Alberta had better sit down and shut up. "Intelligent Liberal",my a**. Policy on the fly,and with no provincial consultaions,no debate,and no studies what-so ever.How desperate can they get? Just like with Obama,this is to much about politics,and to little about pragmatic solutions.All before the jury sits,or hears the evidence.


steve
said

It is simple .They do not have the technology to address the problem.Untill it is developed oil companies should follow the moratorium.It is like gambling on nature.We have too much to lose!


Rick
said

In the universe there is no force more powerful than American Greed. The American dream has become a nightmare for the surrounding world.


Conservative Mike
said

I think a wise appeal would be one based on the grounds that a clear "conflict of interest" in the ruling judges decision tarnishes the verdict. It doesn't matter what side of the issue you take on this one, that's a conflict of interest. We wouldn't allow a relative of an accused suspect try a case, why should we allow a judge with offshore oil investments to try a case on the short term future of offshore oil drilling?


reece
said

This is why I don't vote anymore. Democracy is an illusion. But that illusion is more apparent in the USA where no leader can get anything done because of lobbiests who bought and paid for senate and house members. The courts are loaded with right or left leaning judges who have already prejuded a case because he was selected not for his jurispudence but for his politics. They then have tha audacity to point fingers at other nations for lacking democracy and having kangaroo courts. Listen, don't waste your time voting. You are being punked into supporting the illusion of democracy. There is no such thing. I only want a beer, to retire on some beach and be left alone. If anybody wants a revolution or two give me a call.


Paul
said

$15,000? Thatès it? He probably spends more than that on dining out every year. To us poor people we would call that 15 large, but to a guy like him it is pocket change.


Earthwatcher
said

So a two year old report shows he invested approximately $15,000 in the same company. Until such time as financial records show he made his ruling while STILL having any amount invested with them, then there can be no conflict of interest allegations. Having said that, how long will it take to disclose that?To drag the validity or wisdom of his ruling is pointless, insofar as compared against any alleged conflict of interest on his part. Wait and see what his involvement is before condemning the man.if it comes to light of day that there was a conflict, skewer the greedy pig.


themacguy
said

Do any of you know what "3 Card Monty" is?Obama orders a stop to drilling. Knowing that it's not a good idea but that the public will applaud his attempt. Then he has this judge overturn his order and the judge takes all of the flack...Citizens of the US, you are being conned...lol


Prof. Pye Chartt
said

@ Dr. M: I'm afraid that you've torpedoed your own argument with flawed logic. (By the way, the Administration failed to make the specific court case you're making, which immediately renders your assertion suspect. Perhaps you should take the case if you've got superior facts to argue.) If both the "cause" of, and "solution" to, the problem is, in fact, already concretely known, then, why impose a blanket moratorium for an arbitrary period of time? Why not simply require that no company be allowed to drill without the "available" fix employed? Period. The amount of money evaporating each day a rig remains out of service is huge, and the cost to the industry (and those it employs) is astronomical. To suggest that 6 months isn't a big financial/economic deal is to demonstrate a complete lack of factual understanding. (Why do you think that Gulf Coast states and communities are vehemently opposed to the moratorium, despite already suffering related consequences?) No logic and reasoning, or business barrier, prevents your alleged "solution" from being implemented expeditiously. Your argument (logic) mixes with the known facts like oil and water. I'm comfortable remaining on the side of a judge who heard the case, including all the evidence, for the Administration's knee-jerk ban. Sorry, Doc.


mkm
said

It has been almost 3months since it happened.Result of the spill is so devastating in many aspects.Environmentally,economically,socially, politically and so on.BP does not even have technology to cap the spill .If any company invent the technology to address the problem as soon as it happens then off shore drilling should be allowed .To recover the eco-system in that area to normal it will take few decades.We've got too much to lose.


adm
said

Can you say "conflict of interest"! No matter what wording he used, I believe it still comes down to money.


Downey
said

It's interesting how the Canadian media who NEVER report on the background of judges involved with controversial rulings are going into the background of this judge. No bias here....move along. Why not report on the background of some Canadian judges who let child rapists and murders walk with little punishment, or let gang members walk the streets, etc. I got no problem with reporting on the personal history of a judge, in fact I think it should be done much more, but don't be so selective about it!


Bill in ottawa
said

@ Shawnthe main difference here is that if someone has a car accident, it doesn't pollute our food chain and destroy an entire ecosystem. If that were the outcome of a car accident, you can sure as hell bet that the industry would be shut down - not because a government said so, but because it is morally and fundamentally WRONG to support an industry that kills your food and kills everything within a 2000KM radius.


Larry Wazny
said

A biased judge gets picked for an important assesment is ridiculous. It is obvious there should be no deep offshore drilling as we have no means to correct any problems. Is it possible to dismiss this judge as he cannot make a decision and which oil company chose Feldman to preside on this issue?


Justin #1
said

Maybe the media should be looking into "PETROBAS" (Brazil) and getting the real scoop on that story and how it stands to gain from the scheme going on with banning US offshore drilling before every one starts playing "holier than thou". The theatrics from the Obama administration just keep getting better and better!


Havelock Heavy
said

Why would a judge be allowed to hold investments and not be required to put them in a blind trust? Why would a judge, knowing that he has stocks in the very company that caused or contributed to this disaster agree to hear the case, when there is such a clear perceived conflict of interest? Judges are supposed to be impartial and be seen to be impartial. Whether his decision was the right one or not is now tarnished.


Dr. M
said

I disagree with professor pye Chatt's logic. The reson for the recent disaster has to do with the failure of oversight by hte Federal agency responsible, but also for the failure of BP to use a specific piece of equipment designed to prevent these catastrophies (at a saving of $500,000). These extra blow out preventors are used in the offshore areas of other countries that have better oversight, and so far there have been no problems. But these new exploratory wells were being drilled without the preventors, and therefore posed an unacceptable risk. This is no different than forbidding Tylenor from selling more medicine once it had been established that some of its product was suspect. It would be the height of irresponsibility to allow more exploratory wells to be drilled without updating the equipment. Preventing only 33 more wells from being drilled is hardly a blow to the industry, but does allow time to prevent another disaster. Sometimes the environment does have to take precedence over the economy.


Rob
said

He should lose his job and all of his stocks and profits he has made in the oil patch. Greety BAS


Brian in Ireland
said

The whole concept of one being wrong so they may all be wrong is not that over rated. Just ask any Toyota owner.Why allow drilling when we don't know why this one went bad? Maybe find out what happened then make sure all future drillings has a safety plan for that type of incident.


Jim McB
said

The Obama administration is likely behind this "low life" announcement. If you don't like the solution attack the individual, even though the decision was made within the constraints of the position.Socailists of all breeds seem to have only this one mode of operation: just look at the parliamentary committees in Ottawa.The administration fails to address the problem of the thousands of people that will be out of work while they knee jerk for political expediency. It would appear that the new way of doing things had a harbiner "the old way of doing things".The probability of Obama as a one term President is increasing daily and will increase as the General sets him straight today!


Shawn
said

It would be interesting to see if there is anyone out there without some sort of interest in oil companies - I wonder how much of each of our pension funds, mutual funds or other investments have some ties to "big oil".Regardless, it doesn't seem that his decision was unreasonable. We don't stop building cars because there was an accident, we don't stop mining because of all the issues in West Virgina.US regulatory bodies approved the oil rig, US regulator bodies exempted this rig from regular inspections. Is the US gov't going to make BP pay for all the other oil rig workers and related industry salaries and potential business failures even though their lives may not yet even be touched by this? As much as it is sad that this did occur, the US gov't has assumed very little responsibility in this matter. I am no suggesting that BP be given a pass on this at all, but the gov't imposed ban seems to be more about politics and less about reality. Heck, state and municipal gov't officials in louisiana even think the ban is ridiculous (perhaps that is just politics too since they may be more affected by the ban). And the fact is, we currently need oil - not just for fuel but for all the other products it has a part in producing - how much of what we purchase is plastic? How much will the economy suffer while they try to come up with alterntatives? They really should be concentrating on how to clean up the mess first then figure out safety and regulator issues.


Eduard
said

They use the law to commit crime


CYL
said

here we go again, it's all about money money money. This judge probably got there by money so it's time he gets the sack. Message to Mr Judge, you soon won't have food on the table anyway.


Prof. Pye Chartt
said

Not a surprising judicial decision. The imposition of the 6-month moratorium was little more than a knee-jerk political reaction in advance of any competent and specific understanding as to what actually precipitated the disaster. Slapping a ban on drilling punished an entire industry (tens of millions of dollars per day), including residents/workers already suffering, when no legitimate evidence existed that they posed an actual risk. Oceanic drilling isn't anything new. Abruptly assuming that an industry with a respectable track record would suddenly start adding to the ongoing problem stretched logic and reason too far. The Obama Administration needs to make a more sound case. (Fix the BP leak.)


Kojak
said

what does Canadian politics have to do with this issue. Nothing. Back to the drawing board....


Intelligent Liberal
said

Americans are often nasty to elite academics and judges. Why? Because they are jealous! That is why Iggy came to the greener grass of Canada, and if Judge Feldman wants to get away from all the American negativity, the Liberal Party of Canada could certainly find employment for him, given his legal background and impressive academic qualifications.


Spence in Ontario
said

I think the ruling doesn't make very much sense on the judge's part. First we do know the potential conflict of interest, but aside from that the US federal gov't has the authority to chose if companies are allowed to do exploratory drilling or not. There is no logical reason to claim that they cannot put a moratorium in place based on that authority alone. Second I have heard otherwise as to it being simply one rig, a manager of another BP rig has claimed that he found similar design problems in his rig and they used very similar designs for several others. The other reason for the 6 month moratorium is simply time to figure out the regulatory failures and how to overhaul the regulatory agency.


Share with your social Network:

Facebook DIGG Newsvine Delicious Twitter StumbeUpon Reddit Yahoo! Buzz

 

Advertisement

Contest

In Pictures

BP CEO Tony Hayward, wearing red tie, leaves the Rayburn House Office Building following his testimony before an Energy and Environment Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on the role of BP in the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill, Thursday, June 17, 2010, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)

BP goes to D.C.

As BP's CEO testifies on Capitol Hill, contrasting images from the Gulf.

Booms surround Queen Bess Island as clean up operations of oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill continue in off the coast of Louisiana Tuesday, June 8, 2010. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)

The Big Mop-Up

Boats, booms and bulldozers chase down oil spill, going in all directions.

Brown Pelicans mired in oil

Natural Disaster

Brown pelicans mired in oil -- victims of the Gulf oil leak.

University of South Florida biological oceanographer Ernst Peebles stands in front of blue screen diagram of the Deepwater Horizon's location in the Gulf of Mexico during a news conference Tuesday, June 8, 2010, in St. Petersburg, Fla. (AP / Chris O'Meara)

The Big Fix

The public is offering BP their solutions for the oil spill.

Epic Oil Disaster

Epic oil disaster

25 photos reveal the magnitude of the worst spill in U.S. history.

BP oil disaster

No way out?

No way out?

BP's big problems keep piling up.

Steven Skurka

Crime Sheet

Were oil crimes committed in the Gulf? Steven Skurka with his analysis.

Today's Top Stories

An interpretive trail and viewing platform overlooking glaciers along the Icefields Parkway in Jasper National Park, shown in this artist's rendition. Environment Minister Peter Kent is giving a green light to a controversial glacier-walk project in Alberta's Jasper National Park. (Brewster Travel Canada)

Controversial Jasper Park 'glacier walk' to go ahead

More   7 Comments 7  

RCMP looking for Sawyer Clarke Robison, 27, considered a person of interest in shootings of two of RCMP members.

Search continues for man connected to RCMP shootings

More  4 Video(s) 4

Canadians rescued, sailors, Left to right: Mitchell, 29, West, 9, and Bradley James, 32, address media following their rescue off the coast of Hawaii, Thursday, Feb. 9, 2012.

Three Canadian sailors rescued off coast of Hawaii

More   12 Comments 12    5 Video(s) 5