»» Columnists

What if BP Doesn’t Follow Obama’s Administrative Orders?

by Tommy Christopher | 7:48 am, May 25th, 2010

» 14 comments

After Interior Secretary Ken Salazar‘s tough talk this weekend about pushing BP out of the way if they don’t shape up, I thought Monday’s hour-long White House briefing with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, and Obama adviser Carol Browner would mark a turning point in the administration’s posture toward BP, and their handling of the BP Oil Spill. Let’s see how that worked out.

On the very first question of the briefing, the AP’s Ben Feller asked Allen what Salazar meant when he said the government would push BP out of the way. Allen replied, “Well, I would say that’s more of a metaphor.”

This must have been a relief to BP executives, who doubtless feared that they would be physically shoved all over the command center with impunity, Night at the Roxbury-style.

It was all downhill from there. Allen went on to observe, of Salazar’s comment, “Well, to push BP out of the way would raise the question to replace them with what?”

Awkward silence.

Allen and Gibbs went on to brush off any suggestion of federalizing the response.

Okay, so we’re stuck with BP, because they’ve got the manpower and resources to deal with the spill. At least they have to listen to the government, right? Right? ABC News’ Jake Tapper asked Allen that very question:

TAPPER: A couple of questions. First of all, if the EPA — and maybe this is a question for Ms. Browner — but if the EPA says to BP, “We don’t want you using this dispersant. We think it’s too toxic,” and BP says, “OK, but we don’t care. We’re going to do what we want to do anyway,” then what avenue does the federal government have to — to — to challenge that?

…ALLEN: OK. If we want BP to do something, even if it appears they do not want to do it, they are issued an administrative order by the federal on-scene coordinator that has the effect of law.

TAPPER: But they’re not doing it, right?

BROWNER: Well, there’s a series of meetings going on. They started last night. Lisa Jackson is in the area, and there will be a press advisory or, I guess, a press conference later today at — what time? Do you know…

Leaving aside the fact that “federal on-scene coordinator” sounds like someone who’s in charge of ice sculptures, and an “administrative order” evokes a requisition for a red Swingline stapler, at least these things carry the force of law. Of course, there’s also a law that says I have to mow my lawn, but see if my lazy ass has done it in the past month-and-a-half. It’s one thing to make a law, quite another to enforce it and penalize the offenders.

I asked Allen what would happen to BP if they failed to comply with an administrative order, or failed to do so in a timely fashion.

Transcript:

Tommy Christopher: Thanks, Robert. First of all, are you going to brief on other topics after this or is this –

MR. GIBBS: If you’ve got a question on another topic, I’m happy to shoot.

Tommy Christopher:   All right, I have three questions then.

MR. GIBBS: Just three? Why don’t we pick our most important and we’ll see if there’s other topics on oil that — while we have these guys here.

Tommy Christopher:   Well, I have one on oil. Can I do one on oil and one not on oil?

Q    Just do it.

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Tommy Christopher:   Admiral Allen –

MR. GIBBS: Does that count as one of your questions? (Laughter.)

Tommy Christopher:   Admiral Allen, you said earlier that if the — if you guys issue an administrative order it has the effect of law. And my question is, what penalties does BP face if they either don’t comply with that administrative order if they comply too slowly?

ADMIRAL ALLEN: I can go and get you the actual cites. I’m not sure I have them top of my head right now, but I’m sure there are both civil and criminal penalties that could be invoked. We can get that information to you.

Post-briefing, I followed up with the press office, who referred me first to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which does not describe such penalties, then to the Coast Guard. I’m still waiting to get an answer from them. It’s as if the government can’t imagine that BP would ever deceive or disobey them.

Of course, as Jake Tapper pointed out, BP has already refused or slow-rolled several administration directives, with no ill effects. They don’t have to give the government the finger. They can just trade memos until the cows come home.

The administration needs to figure out what ground there is between where they are now and federalizing the response, and occupy it.

BP, BP Oil Spill, Gulf Oil Spill, Ken Salazar, Robert Gibbs, Thad Allen, Tommy Christopher

Liberty – Not Redistribution

Regardless of who says they are in-charge, the response will be the same. These government/corporatist goons are inept.
The Real Royal King

I’m afraid little follow-up will be undertaken. President Obama has allowed the practice of big oil running Amerika to continue. In the end, every Administration since Theodore Roosevelt has caved.
Liberty – Not Redistribution

“President Obama has allowed the practice of big oil running Amerika to continue. In the end, every Administration since Theodore Roosevelt has caved.”

“Allowed”? LOL…Obama is a corporatist himself, he’s part of the problem. BP gave him cash and called it donations.” Additionally, the Obama regime has given out 19 drilling lease, ALL WITH ENVIRONMENTAL WAIVERS, since this drilling spill occurred. he is part of the problem, just as BP is. You are simply just trying to apologize for his criminal acts, just as many neocons apologized for Bu$h.
The Real Royal King

Actually, I am not apologizing for President Obama in this regard, and do agree that he is an unabashed corporatist. Given that, one one level, I find highly amusing not to mention completely wrong-headed for the nincompoopery around here like the Gordon Blower Show, INB, Michelle and Righter to constantly harp on the President being a socialist, but on a more substantive level, we can clearly conclude that President Obama is part of the problem. I don’t think this White House has given Big Oil the key to 1600 as the administration preceding did, but it is far too reverent and beholding.

Transporting oil in tankers is inherently risky. Drilling, particularly off-shore is inherently risky. After each oil catastrophe we endure, the apologists come forward and assure us that it can’t happen again, that there are controls, that there is new technology to prevent these disasters. Such statements are invariably, consistently lies. I would hope that when this on-going mess finally ends, we might discuss these issues meaningfully and not be distracted by the vacous and simplistic tunes of those like the Pied Piperess of the Dense and Thoughtless who reduce meaningful energy policy to “Drill, Baby Drill.” I am not all that the confident that the Administration will present us with much of an alternative, however.
Liberty – Not Redistribution

Fair enough King.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Joe-Callan/100000200979966 Joe Callan

King and Liberty, you two really said it all.

Tommy, I know it’s obviously not on the same topic, but I’m dying to know what was your 2nd question was…
http://www.sailrabbits.com Magister

One would expect that if the chief law enforcement officer in charge doesn’t know the penalties, then they’re not exactly threatening anybody with the long arm of the law.
Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers

What surprises me is not so much that that the “drill baby drill” crowd’s “fail-safe” measures didn’t work, but rather that a proven methodology hadn’t been developed for plugging this type of leak, well in advance of authorizing drilling.
Liberty – Not Redistribution

@Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers,

Well I’m sure that you are outraged…just outraged, that the Obama debacle has issued 19, that’s NINETEEN, drill permits, ALL WITH ENVIRONMENTAL WAIVERS, since this started.

There is no difference between the previous admin, or this admin. All are corporatists crooks.
Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers

Well, with the recent Supreme Court ruling by the activist conservative voting bloc, we can probably count more of the same.
ImNotBlue

The Real Royal King says:
May 25, 2010 at 8:58 am

I find highly amusing not to mention completely wrong-headed for the nincompoopery around here like the Gordon Blower Show, INB, Michelle and Righter to constantly harp on the President being a socialist, but on a more substantive level, we can clearly conclude that President Obama is part of the problem.

I love being mentioned when I’m not around! Show’s you’re thinking about me.

Of course, I’ve never said the President was a socialist… and I’d challenge you to find an example where I did. Obama and his administration is certainly part of the problem. It’s nice to hear you finally admit that.

The problem with your statement, is that it’s overwhelmingly idealistic. Yes, oil inherently has a lot of risks involved with it… but so does everything. And while various alternatives might be less risky, or at least, less dangerous… none of them are ready for prime time. All the talk about alternative energy sources is still just a fantasy… one we WANT to believe, but one that isn’t yet ready to power our world. You cannot put all their faith in alternative sources until their ready… and until they’re ready, we’re going to need oil.
The Real Royal King

Focusing on your final paragraph, I do think you raise a perfectly point, and I appreciate the contribution.

I would say, as I did, that the crisis upon us was not unpredictible. It was only questions of time and place. I’m not sure I see any indication that our energy policy has been advanced since the Oil Embargo and the Valdez.

There is also a related matter of interest to me. Two CEO’s of two of the more prominent British enterprises on the world stage, Tony Hayward at BP, and Willie Walsh at BA, have been much in the news of late (albeit Willie Walsh less so outside of the UK and Europe). Even given the fact that the trade union at BA, Unite!, is being every bit as unreasonable as Walsh, the two men seem to be in water well over their heads, flippant, confrontational, PR disasters. In my own view, both some to be physical and emotional wrecks as well. I suspect both will wander away as the immediacy of their disasters fades, but I would really like to see some critical profiles on one of the cable business channels. I am sure that some business professor is at work on this very topic for a Fall course, but I think a good, balanced, critical review of the two in their capacities would be inherently valuable to many of us.
Liberty – Not Redistribution

Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers says:
“Well, with the recent Supreme Court ruling by the activist conservative voting bloc, we can probably count more of the same.”

The Supreme Court has nothing to do with the fact that Barry McBu$h handed out 19 drilling permits to his oil buddies, all with environmental waivers just since this BP spill happened. You, like always, are just trying to divert, distort and distract that Obama is part of the Washington problem. Like I’ve said, he is a corporatist just like Bu$h. Oh yeah, he also just awarded Haliburton with a NO BID CONTRACT, something he said he would never do.
stevor

If BP doesn’t follow his orders, that’s fine with Obama. He’d LOVE to take over the corporations, making them part of government, so when the New World Order (which George Soros and Brzezinski, Obama’s puppeteers. If you don’t know about them, READ UP ON THEM) is official, they will OWN their own power source.