Comments on: Why Presidents Can’t Fix Disasters

By: braybould

braybould — Mon, 31 May 2010 03:27:21 +0000

My understanding (according to comments from the Coast Guard commandant last week) is other oil companies have indicated that BP is doing everything they'd do. You are correct that it begs the question what would happen if a similar incident occurred with another drilling platform. In theory, if their cut-off valves are in working order, a similar disaster would be avoided. One would hope that based on recent events all other oil companies with drilling platforms are testing their cut-off valves.

By: Virtuallyjm

Virtuallyjm — Sun, 30 May 2010 23:15:20 +0000

What concerns me is the fact that Exxon, Shell and others are also drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. What do they have in place for such a disaster and, if they have something, why are they offering it up to BP or the government (even for billions of dollars) to mend this situation. It is scary to me that there really is nothing that can be done if one of the other companies has the same misfortune. Did they have the same federal inspectors as BP? Is anyone looking into that?

By: braybould

braybould — Sun, 30 May 2010 20:42:16 +0000

@Denis: You've correctly assessed the situation: if the technology doesn't exist, money and power aren't enough to solve the problem. As we've learned, our hindsight always indicates that more could have been done at a given point. However, I'm curious what resources haven't been allocated that should have been? Any insight you can over on this point would be much appreciated.

By: braybould

braybould — Sun, 30 May 2010 20:38:53 +0000

@Mario: Precisely. It wouldn't be a disaster if the solution was immediately available. An attitude that in a disaster we can have the same level of expectation of the people trying to solve it is ludicrous. Scrambling for answers in a disaster is significantly more messy and uncertain than responding to a measurable crisis. We must hold people accountable, but this notion that any one person can fix the problem by giving an order is short-sighted and bound to lead to disappointment.

By: Mario Vittone

Mario Vittone — Sun, 30 May 2010 17:49:40 +0000

Absolutely brilliant (and what should be obvious) post. Presidents – of anything – get far to much credit when things go well and even more blame when things go bad; neither is usually earned. The spill qualifies as a “disaster” precisely because it overwhelms our ability to respond. Knowing that doesn't make the situation any less devastating or our responsibility to respond less real; it should, however, urge us all to do what we can to help or get out of the way.

By: Experience Means Nothing – Judgement is Everything | Weekly Leader

Experience Means Nothing – Judgement is Everything | Weekly Leader — Sun, 30 May 2010 14:39:35 +0000

[...] was reminded of this while reading an absolutely brilliant post by Britt Raybould. In Why President’s Can’t Fix Disasters, Raybould asserts that though leaders may be extraordinary people, they are still people (not [...]

By: Denis

Denis — Sun, 30 May 2010 13:08:00 +0000

Article makes a good point about objective reality vs. imaginable. To solve problems such Gulf of Mexico disaster money and power are great thing to have. But not enough. There should be sufficient technological infrastructure and corporate culture both oriented to safe exploration of natural resources. Both certainly exist. But far below from their maximum efficiency. And they will not materialize magically in matter of days to safe reluctant society who believes that their citizens duties end after president election.

But it is not the whole picture. Because there is no sign of any rational analysis yet of damage brought about by oil leak so far. And as such there is no way to estimate how much and how quickly should be spent to fix the problem. Looking back to this event we will see tons of questions why resources were allocated so slowly? Because nobody wanted to see government spending for fixing the problem more then it is absolutely necessary. Even when it was obvious that situation extraordinary and may require reaction of same extend.