• U.S. to Roll Back Safety Rules Created After Deepwater Horizon Spill
    33 replies, posted
[URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/us/trump-offshore-drilling.html?ribbon-ad-idx=3&rref=politics"]source[/URL] [QUOTE]WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is poised to roll back offshore drilling safety regulations that were put in place after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico that killed 11 people and caused the worst oil spill in American history. A proposal by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, which was established after the spill and regulates offshore oil and gas drilling, calls for [URL="https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2017-27309.pdf"]reversing the Obama-era regulations[/URL] as part of President Trump’s efforts to ease restrictions on fossil fuel companies and generate more domestic energy production. Doing so, the agency asserted, will reduce “unnecessary burdens” on the energy industry and save the industry $228 million over 10 years. “This proposed rule would fortify the Administration’s objective of facilitating energy dominance” by encouraging increased domestic oil and gas production, even as it strengthens safety and environmental protection, the proposal says.[/QUOTE]
$228 million over 10 years, which is literally a penny drop compared to the money you will lose dealing with their bullshit if they cause another spill, and a penny drop compared to what they make
Can someone point to an evidence based argument that shows the positive effects of these regulations? I feel like that's kind of a baseline before deciding whether getting rid of them is bad or not.
Well, quickly looking through the document for proposed rule making it seems that what they're trying to do is update the standards the Federal regulations require. [url]https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2017-27309.pdf[/url] Seems that they use industry standards organizations to inform Federal regulation requirements. These organizations being [url=https://api.org]API[/url], [url=https://www.ansi.org/]ANSI[/url]. and [url=https://www.asme.org/]ASME[/url]. Seems that these organizations published updated rules (it appears every year). And this Federal agency is wishing to update their regulations based on these rules just like they did back in 2010. So not doom and gloom as the New York Times makes it out to be. They are simply updating the rules based on the same sources they used to update them last time. The only difference is the how it was framed to comply with Executive Orders. Also, this is purposed rulemaking that hasn't even gotten to the stage of actually being purposed yet (read though the document and you can clearly see it is a draft).
[QUOTE]The Obama-era rules, written in 2016, tightened controls on blowout preventers, devices that are intended to stop explosions in undersea oil and gas wells, and called for rig operators to have third parties certify that the safety devices worked under extreme conditions. In the Deepwater Horizon spill, a supposedly fail-safe blowout preventer failed after a section of drill pipe buckled.[/QUOTE] And an artcile about the obama era regulations from April 2016. [url]https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/15/us/politics/us-issuesnew-rules-on-offshore-oil-and-gas-drilling.html[/url] So in response to Sgman91's question, no, there would be no info on it as this was a short lived program thanks to Trump instinctual hating anything with Obama's name on it, and the oil industries having an absolute domination of this discussion under his administration. [QUOTE]The National Ocean Industries Association, which also represents domestic offshore energy firms, welcomed the move. “The proposed revisions to the Production Safety Systems Rule mark an integral step in the regulatory reform promised by President Trump,” Randall Luthi, the group’s president, said in comments released on Thursday. “This ‘second bite at the apple’ provides an opportunity for further dialogue, discussion and debate to assure the nation’s offshore energy resources are developed safely and expeditiously,” Mr. Luthi said [/QUOTE] NOIA, isn't at all an environmentally minded group. They are a drilling lobbiest group. I think this is a pretty transparent move from the ex reality TV star Donald Trump and the lobbyists that back him currently.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53015229]Can someone point to an evidence based argument that shows the positive effects of these regulations? I feel like that's kind of a baseline before deciding whether getting rid of them is bad or not.[/QUOTE] Id rather have [I]some[/I] kind of regulation that might or might not have an impact, than have no regulation whatsoever. And I'm not even going to address how broken someone's moral compass has to be to believe that rolling back regulation that protects the environment, and by extension human lives, is a [I][B]good idea[/B][/I]
[QUOTE=T553412;53015280]Id rather have [I]some[/I] kind of regulation that might or might not have an impact, than have no regulation whatsoever. And I'm not even going to address how broken someone's moral compass has to be to believe that rolling back regulation that protects the environment, and by extension human lives, is a [I][B]good idea[/B][/I][/QUOTE] I simply think it's a false assumption to assume that a regulation actually achieves the goal it intends to achieve. They ought to need to demonstrate their usefulness just like everyone else trying to make an argument. [editline]29th December 2017[/editline] How do you know that this has helped the environment and/or human lives?
[QUOTE=sgman91;53015290]I simply think it's a false assumption to assume that a regulation actually achieves the goal it intends to achieve. They ought to need to demonstrate their usefulness just like everyone else trying to make an argument. [editline]29th December 2017[/editline] How do you know that this has helped the environment and/or human lives?[/QUOTE] It hasn't been around nearly for enough time for it to have even been a proven positive or negative at all, as HumanAbyss said Lets not forget that $228 million over 10 years in the grand scheme of this industry is virtually negligible. That may as well as not even been a dent. That isn't even pocket change. Changing a safety regulation put in place over a deadly accident because they'll save some slight amount of money isn't going to magically save the economy.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53015290]How do you know that this has helped the environment and/or human lives?[/QUOTE] can you list the benefits to the environment that removing these regulations provide
[QUOTE=lxmach1;53015333]can you list the benefits to the environment that removing these regulations provide[/QUOTE] I don't remember claiming that removing them would help the environment.
I think the obvious answer to arguing for these regulations is to look at another set of similar regulations that have been in place for a longer period of time and see how they've helped another industry
[QUOTE=J!NX;53015339]I think the obvious answer to arguing for these regulations is to look at another set of similar regulations that have been in place for a longer period of time and see how they've helped another industry[/QUOTE] That would be fine, as long as they're comparable. My general point is that the burden of proof for regulations is almost never met. We're expected to accept regulations for what they are based on the goals of the regulator. For example, here's a graph of workplace deaths in the US, over time: [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/ba3zEgR.jpg[/IMG] *Data is from the National Safety Council Notice how there's no noticeable change after the creation of OSHA? Isn't that surprising? An entire agency created with the sole purpose of increasing workplace safety had essentially zero effect on the rate of workplace death decline.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53015336]I don't remember claiming that removing them would help the environment.[/QUOTE] tldr the regulations propose general upgrades to the failsafe system such as a second shear ram in case the first one failsas it did in the mexican gulf spill, as well as annual mechanical assessments of said failsafe system with that in mind, i think the regulations would demonstrably have a positive effect on the environment simply because the spill proved that the failsafe mechanism didnt do its job, and so updating that system would arguably be the most reasonable course of action as for Kigen's post, they're partially right in that they said they would update OR remove the regulations. it is not entirely made clear.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53015352]That would be fine, as long as they're comparable. My general point is that the burden of proof for regulations is almost never met. We're expected to accept regulations for what they are based on the goals of the regulator. For example, here's a graph of workplace deaths in the US, over time: [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/ba3zEgR.jpg[/IMG] *Data is from the National Safety Council Notice how there's no noticeable change after the creation of OSHA? Isn't that surprising? An entire agency created with the sole purpose of increasing workplace safety had essentially zero effect on the rate of workplace death decline.[/QUOTE] Yeah and it also took the clean air act and clean water act actual decades before we started seeing any real positive effects. We're only really starting to feel them in the last thirtyodd years Just like it took a while for the effects of OSHA to start being felt on that graph. Like that plunge a in the mid seventies. Just a scant few years after its foundation Almost as though it takes time for new regulations to take effect. As though it takes time for the new standards to propagate out through the various systems and businesses and be adopted wholesale as workers are retrained and old equipment is phased out or brought up to the new standards The first FMVSS regulations were laid down in the late sixties but it wasn't until the early 2000s after lots of amendments and addendums that crashworthiness as we know it now started to really take effect. If you're in an accident in a mid eighties car you've got a good chance of dying. Get hit in something made in 2016 and there's so many crumple zones you'll probably get away with minor bruising And bouncing briefly back to OSHA, you can look at, say, China to get a good idea of what it's like both with and without a regulatory agency creating and enforcing safety standards looking out for worker safety and giving them legal recourse for unsafe work conditions China still has a pretty high incidence of workplace death and injury but there's been a serious push over the last decade to strengthen workplace safety regulations and it just so happens that rate has [url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4822395/]plummeted[/url] from what it used to be The biggest reason you see so much pushback against regulations is pretty simple. It eats into corporate profit margins. I think most regulations showcase their benefits quite readily if you bother to actually look at the way things [I]used to be[/I] It's anecdotal, but I personally enjoy the fact that despite living fairly close to one of the larger cities in the US with a very large volume of both air and ground traffic passing through and over it every hour of every day, there's no visible haze of smog that stretches on for miles and miles like there might have been fortyodd years ago
[QUOTE=sgman91;53015352]That would be fine, as long as they're comparable. My general point is that the burden of proof for regulations is almost never met. We're expected to accept regulations for what they are based on the goals of the regulator. For example, here's a graph of workplace deaths in the US, over time: [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/ba3zEgR.jpg[/IMG] *Data is from the National Safety Council Notice how there's no noticeable change after the creation of OSHA? Isn't that surprising? An entire agency created with the sole purpose of increasing workplace safety had essentially zero effect on the rate of workplace death decline.[/QUOTE] So if it doesn't improve things within a few years it's a failure? That line of thinking is why we're in this mess in the first place. [editline]30th December 2017[/editline] The reason you don't see an improvement is because nobody bothered enforcing the regulations, which you are always going to see failure if nobody cares, just like gun control.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53015229]Can someone point to an evidence based argument that shows the positive effects of these regulations? I feel like that's kind of a baseline before deciding whether getting rid of them is bad or not.[/QUOTE] well unlike the Trump admin these rules were written by a lengthy evidence based process which probably resulted from the findings of the deepwater horizon spill and others, but because its costing money thats all the evidence we need to chuck them today Also Osha was created to deal with those few workplaces that refused to make conditions safe, using industry safety standards that many of the larger companies had already adopted through union or legal negotiations. The real importance is that its continued existence provides a need to consider worker safety when designing plants or equipment, something people just did not consider before when designing things which leads to more productive workplaces and less lost time due to injuries as well.
Every day this administration just does something dumber and outragous than the previous. I can't even be shocked anymore.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53015229]Can someone point to an evidence based argument that shows the positive effects of these regulations? I feel like that's kind of a baseline before deciding whether getting rid of them is bad or not.[/QUOTE] Most regulations are not evidence based at all, and it'd be unreasonable to hold them to that standard. Evidence for the effectiveness of regulations will always be fairly low quality - you generally don't do randomized controlled trials, so most studies will be focused on trying to find an effect among a myriad of other factors. When we're talking laws like this, made to prevent relatively infrequent - but fairly catastrophic - incidents, going with "this makes sense" is really all you can ask for. Whether this law reaches that standard (though "hey this thing failed when it shouldn't have, maybe we should do extra controls on this" doesn't sound completely unreasonable), I don't know, but requiring evidence for this specific law is kinda weird.
Sgman, we should be doing [I]anything possible[/I] to prevent another Deepwater Horizon. Earlier this year I had the privilege of visiting a community in southern Louisiana that was greatly affected by the spill. This community is slowly being eroded away because of sea level rise and the last thing they need is another spill. The oil infected their shellfish grounds, they still can't fish there anymore. Shrimp are deformed (no eyes, second heads, etc...), the catch of various species has dropped drastically - as a result of both the oil and dispersant used to get the oil off of the surface. They get a lot of tourism and the spill shut that down for a while. Grand Isle will never be the same again. It's people and community have faced hurricane after hurricane, disaster after disaster, and the least the federal government can do is to not fail them at least once. The government needs to actually have steps in place to prevent spills. Rolling these protections back will have very negative consequences.
BP makes a billion dollars profit every quarter, what's 22.8 Million a year to them if it means better protections against disasters that fuck everything up? I was stepping on tar balls for a year after that spill and that shit ain't easy to get off. Can only imagine what it does to things that actually live and breathe it underwater
[QUOTE=sgman91;53015352]That would be fine, as long as they're comparable. My general point is that the burden of proof for regulations is almost never met. We're expected to accept regulations for what they are based on the goals of the regulator. For example, here's a graph of workplace deaths in the US, over time: [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/ba3zEgR.jpg[/IMG] *Data is from the National Safety Council Notice how there's no noticeable change after the creation of OSHA? Isn't that surprising? An entire agency created with the sole purpose of increasing workplace safety had essentially zero effect on the rate of workplace death decline.[/QUOTE] What about workplace accidents that result in bodily harm but not death? Can you show that OSHA didn't help there as well? I'm just worried you might be excluding a larger population of data that could shed more light on your point
It's pretty incredible after one of the worst oil spills of all time, we have people who would readily say "Who gives a shit, regulations probably wouldn't help anyways". Why can't we have nice things? Because we let the people who are apathetic about our continued existence on this planet compared to how many dollar signs can be raked in rule damn near everything.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53015352]That would be fine, as long as they're comparable. My general point is that the burden of proof for regulations is almost never met. We're expected to accept regulations for what they are based on the goals of the regulator. For example, here's a graph of workplace deaths in the US, over time: [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/ba3zEgR.jpg[/IMG] *Data is from the National Safety Council Notice how there's no noticeable change after the creation of OSHA? Isn't that surprising? An entire agency created with the sole purpose of increasing workplace safety had essentially zero effect on the rate of workplace death decline.[/QUOTE] Also can you provide the article that you used to reference against the graph to come to the conclusion that the graph represents no discernible impact? When googling for that image I found a wordpress blog and Vox as the primary users of graphs from the National Safety Council, and Vox uses it to detail how the workplace has gotten safer since OSHA was founded. I'm just trying really hard to figure out how you used a graph and nothing else to prove that OSHA is useless, especially since OSHA functions not only to prevent death, but also general injury through enforced safety standards. Additionally, OSHA allows employees of companies to anonymously file concerns regarding workplace safety, which can lead to OSHA performing inspections without disclosing which employee filed the complaint. Employees also can't be discriminated against or terminated in any way for having filed a complaint regarding workplace safety. My point is, that not only did you only cover fatalities in the workplace, but you didn't even do it using tangible information, just a graph to point to and say "look the line didn't drop a crazy amount". Where's the studies backing up your point? Why not include workplace injuries? or instances where injuries were prevented through OSHA safety enforcement? Including that metric with injuries in addition to a rising national population and growing workforce over time would give a much more accurate picture of the efficacy of OSHA as an institution.
I hope Trump doesn't repeal seatbelt regulations
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53016302]But do they really make a difference? What if we make drivers safer for nothing? /s[/QUOTE] "It's the seater's rational, conscious decision if they want to use seatbelts and it doesn't affect anyone else but them if they don't use it. We don't need the government babying us." The exact argument someone else made on a similar topic. I wouldn't put it past people to argue this exact thing for repealing regulations like OSHA and seatbelts, among other things such as this regulation.
There's no reason to not have this regulation.
Removing regulation has been a problem for years
"And through your hubris, your rivers shall taint with waters of fire."
[QUOTE=Chris Morris;53017896]"And through your hubris, your rivers shall taint with waters of fire."[/QUOTE] Oh we're already past that and people forgot thats why we setup the EPA in the first place
[QUOTE=sgman91;53015352]That would be fine, as long as they're comparable. My general point is that the burden of proof for regulations is almost never met. We're expected to accept regulations for what they are based on the goals of the regulator. For example, here's a graph of workplace deaths in the US, over time: [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/ba3zEgR.jpg[/IMG] *Data is from the National Safety Council Notice how there's no noticeable change after the creation of OSHA? Isn't that surprising? An entire agency created with the sole purpose of increasing workplace safety had essentially zero effect on the rate of workplace death decline.[/QUOTE] Remind me, what are long term occupational hazards? What are significant but non-life threatening injuries? Personal protective equipment isn't always cheap, and I'm sure most work places would elect to not provide if given the choice
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.