OIL ... in my home town.

An Exxon Valdez every 8 to 10 days. That's the new estimate on the amount of oil dumping into the Gulf.

First, a couple of side notes on the issue. BP reported from London today that $10 billion will be put into an escrow account as a "set aside" to pay spill related claims. This is to satisfy those (like that genius Pelosi) whom want all shareholder dividends, advertising dollars, etc to be suspended until all claims are satisfied. A ridiculous demand given the years involved in paying such claims.

Also, I was shocked to learn that Obama hasn't had word one, zero conversations, with BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward. How on earth can the President claim to be "on top of the issue from day 1", even saying he is ultimately responsible for plugging the leak - noting it's the "first thing I think about in the morning, and the last thing I think about before bed" when the company who is effecting the response relief, clean up, and fix has had no executive level communication with the White House? Does anyone else find that ludicrous? In response to this criticism, now 50+ days into the spill, the White House has "summoned" (the administration's word) Mr. Hayward to the West Wing.

Furthermore, there are about 400 skimmer boats capable of collecting oil in the Gulf as of now. There could be dozens, even hundreds more except for a 1925 law known as the Jones Act. This prohibits non US ships from operating in US waters. Although there are legitimate safety code concerns within it, unions love this thing, and pound on it routinely at the idea of foreign nations employing US workers in any water based enterprise. The problem here is multiple businesses are poised with ships bought on the foreign market, ready to help, but they are to the vessel being denied access to the Gulf. The Command officer, Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, says they must deny these offers of help by law, unless a waiver is issued. The Energy Secretary says any waivers of the Jones Act must be dealt with on a case by case basis. That of course means a nearly insurmountable level of red tape, all while people pick up tar balls by hand.

Or does it?

After Katrina Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, under the Bush administration, issued a "blanket waiver" for all vessels participating in aide and recovery relief. ONE piece of paper. In addition there exists right now a blanket waiver for all vessels aiding in the implementation of wind turbines off the coast of Delaware (wonder which senator whose now VP made that happen, hmm?).

I fear union politics are at play. It's either that or flat incompetence on the part of this administration, starting with the CiC. I'm willing to entertain either reason, I assure you.

However, there is something even more dangerous afoot - in terms of effecting the Gulf Coast region and our nation as a whole. The White House has issued a moratorium on all current deep rig exploration, and suspended the issuing of new licenses for 6 months. Now lets set aside the fact that it's due to government/"green" regulations that the rigs are that far out (& not on land for that matter) in the first place, and understand something vital to this federal decision. These aren't misbehaving school children that you send home for 3 days. These are multinational oil companies that deal in a global market. 33% of US domestic oil supply originates in the Gulf South. Which means 1/5th of ALL our oil consumption comes directly from these waters. These companies are not going to simply let these deep water rigs "sit" for 6 months, unprofitable, collecting dust. They will relocate to the shores India, and the West coast of Africa, wherever there is profit. It's not as simple as turning Gulf Coast exploration on and off like a light switch. And as Haley Barbour pointed out in quite a competent rebuke of the federal decision, "they can declare it for 6 months, but it'll be 2 years."

The White House cited a commissioned probe into whether this should be done, referencing engineers from UCLA and elsewhere as their reasoning. Yet those same engineers went public today announcing, yes they gave counsel in that report but for the White House to portray it as advocating a moratorium is nonsense. "We wouldn't, nor did we urge such a thing", said a lead engineer on the report (from that bastion of conservative dogma - UCLA). This appears to be the classic case of politicians compiling the names of experts on a report, adding their own take, and releasing it to the public so as to shape the science to the policy, rather then the other way around (isn't that what they claimed Bush did with Iraq Intel?).

The bottom line is 7 out of the 10 worst oil spill accidents in US history have been from ships of import. If we suspend domestic deep water oil recovery from the region which supplies us 1/5th of all our needs, foreign supplies will only be increased, which in turn increases the likely hood of further accidents. Not to mention, a sizable disruption in recovery within that region will not only increase our cost at the pump (right as summer approaches no less), but the potential for a double dip recession goes up exponentially. Add to this the already battered employment numbers of the Gulf region can only go up with these rigs down. This one decision could turn an environmental disaster into an economic catastrophe - affecting above all the people already dealing with the oil spill.

We all know the ideology rampant within this administration demands a "green economy" (and I would add neo-Marxism), no matter the cost and expense to the individual consumer of energy. What was it that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said: "Never waste a good emergency", right? That infamous quote has been oft repeated by critics concerning Obama's government dominated economic policy, but did you know when Emanuel originally made that comment he was discussing environmental policy? Hey, when it walks and talks like a duck, especially one covered in oil ... well, I think you can see where I'm going with this.