ARTICLE: “The Politics of Disaster”. By Lexington. The Economist, 08 May 2010, p. 36

Lexington points out that, at the time of this article, the President had done little for which he could be faulted. Some have referred to the Gulf of Mexico spill, if spill is the right word, as “Obama’s Katrina” but it has not yet stuck. Now, several weeks later, the name may be sticking a little more.

The President continues to say that he is in charge and that BP is doing nothing without approval. I fail to see the advantage of this. No one has more reason and incentive to stop the oil from leaking into the Gulf than does BP and the President lacks any special expertise in petroleum engineering to make his oversight of any significant value. He seems to be setting himself up for blame for any failure yet will never get any credit for a solution.

The President continues to say that BP will pay to clean up the spill but is that true? What if BP refuses (unlikely), or goes out of business (perhaps also unlikely)? Why is BP being held to a higher standard than the financial institutions were held when the financial crisis was caused by greed but the oil in the Gulf was apparently an industrial accident? What has happened in the Gulf of Mexico is indeed a tragedy but it was an accident. Everything we do in life carries some risk and we, as individuals, companies, and even governments, tend to engage only in those activities in which the benefits will outweigh the risks. Such was the case here. There were risks involved in drilling for oil off the coast but the benefits of a domestic supply of oil outweigh those risks.

The flow of oil will eventually be stopped and the cleanup will be accomplished. The greater question is what will this do to domestic oil exploration? Will we continue to drill off shore or will we now consider more drilling on land and perhaps in areas such as ANWR? And who will make these decisions? I fear the decisions will be made by the politicians based on politics and not by the engineers based on reason. Decisions may well be made based on emotion or re-election concerns rather than sound engineering reasoning. This is an area in which engineers must play a greater role. They need to explain the risks and benefits of oil exploration as well as the risks and benefits of other energy alternatives. Then, and only then, will we be able to make sound decisions which minimize risks.