Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has published an opinion piece in which he laments the efforts of the U.S. Government to declare a moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf. Jindal claims this will "add insult to injury" (the injury being the leak and its economic effects) by denying people in the region the well-paying jobs on those deepwater rigs.
From Jindal's parochial point of view, it's clear: Louisiana is hurting economically, and the loss of income from the deepwater wells (not just in jobs but in other ways) is going to extend the pain. Also, there's a certain common-sense appeal about keeping things going as long as they appear to do no harm. Morning Fog argued this point in connection with A Whale, whose status and effectiveness remained in doubt as of last week. No reports since then, but at least there are no claims that it hurt anything.
On the other hand, it's unreasonable to suggest, as Jindal does, that shutting down drilling is equivalent to grounding all airlines after a single plane crash -- unlike airplanes, these wells operate 24/7; a failure in another one would almost certainly have far more serious and widespread consequences than the loss of a couple hundred more lives in a second air disaster. And, while we can understand that Jindal's concern is his own state, the rest of us (and our government) might want to take into account the potential for a similar oil spill polluting other coastlines - Florida or Texas anyone?
So what's the answer? I'd say, let drilling operations continue wherever they are currently in progress. The government's moratorium sought to block both new AND ongoing operations, which seems too much of a reach. There is risk, of course, but it is more sensible for companies to be required to check and test (is that even possible?) blowout preventers in the near term, perhaps within 90 days. The only problem with that last part is that the companies which so like to complain of government slowness would howl that such a deadline is too short. No doubt they'd file suits to prevent or indefinitely delay checks.
Which brings me to the real crux of the matter. In all the resistance to a moratorium, or even to added safety measures, it's not the economy, stupid - it's the politics. Here's an issue on which economically or technologically, different views are possible, but so are compromise solutions. Politically, though, it's not that easy. Jindal, and very possibly the judge who ruled originally against the first moratorium attempt, live in Louisiana, a state that can be plausibly argued to be an oil-industry-captive or, as Steven Mufson has put it, the "closest thing America has to a petro-state."
Jindal's entire opinion article is based in the politics of the moment, garbed for decency in more saleable mantras about jobs and "human impact." Although he begins with a complaint about "the pace at which the government has worked," but nowhere does he criticize BP - not for its faulty equipment that caused the spill, nor its failure to conduct effective safety tests, nor its pace of operation on the cleanup, nor its many efforts to disguise the truth about the extent of the disaster. No, indeed. Jindal conjures up an imagined conspiracy in which the federal government has launched a covert operation against the state of Louisiana and the defenseless oil companies that operate there.
Costly cleanup or not, BP and its industry "competitors" still have plenty of money to spend. They're spending it heavily again (after about a 30-day lull of mourning for the Gulf) for television commercials against new taxes on the industry (there's that pesky government conspiracy again!), and they'll spend it elsewhere to fight anything that could inconvenience them. Jindal knows on which side his bread is buttered (or oiled?).
Comments