Yachting, Golf, and the Oil Crisis

There is quite some furor over the fact that the CEO of BP, formerly BRITISH Petroleum and now simply BP, just as KFC, once actually had something to do with Kentucky and FRIED Chicken, went yachting and Pres. Obama played golf. I believe that this is highly dangerous, much less misguided. In any job in which you can work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, it is VITAL to take time off. If you do not take time off, you can burn out and will definitely become less and less effective over time. That people are furious over the fact that they are taking such breaks is a sign of public ignorance and that the media seems to be amplifying this sentiment is making it much more difficult for two vitally important people to function properly. We can discuss whether or not the President plays golf TOO MUCH, TOO OFTEN, but to act as if NEVER should be the appropriate amount is detrimental to the health of our President and all future Presidents going forward.

Now, let’s get to to the CEO of BP. He SHOULD take a break. Do we really expect him to work for 60 days straight, 24 hours a day, without any breaks? How about an additional 30 days? 60 days? 120 days? Some have said, “He should take his yacht and go skim oil in the Gulf.” Well friends, THAT is part of the problem. US LAW, specifically the Jones Act, functionally PROHIBITS foreign vessels from helping out in the efforts to contain the leak in the Gulf. BP has sought to bring in foreign flagged vessels to help and some congressmen, senators, and governors have sought to have the Jones Act waived for this specific event, but the government has REFUSED. Sen. Kay Bailey-Hutchinson  wrote that:

The Jones Act is currently preventing resources, however, from being used in the massive cleanup in the Gulf of Mexico. This legislation that has been on the books since 1920 is hindering foreign vessels from assisting Gulf communities, as they work to prevent oil from reaching their shores. Currently, foreign vessels need to obtain a Jones Act waiver from the federal government in order to help with the cleanup efforts. For many of the vessels wishing to respond, this request needs to be reviewed by three separate agencies: The coast guard, the maritime administration and customs and border protection. That is three layers of bureaucracy when time is of the essence. During this crisis, we need to cut through the red tape we must get all available assets on the scene as quickly as possible. I think everyone agrees – and other countries have offered their services; they’ve offered to help. There are European countries that also drill in the oceans and waters on their shores, and they’ve offered to send ships to help to try to absorb the oil and skim it off. There are volunteers waiting with the right equipment, and they’re willing to come to our aid.

Some argue that it is NOT the case that the Jones Act is harming the clean up effort, particularly those whose jobs are protected by it. Another excellent argument as to how and why it should be done may be found here.

It seems to me that it is unconscionable for the administration to take the position that it seems to be taking. The Jones Act must be waived immediately, the necessary resources must be brought to bear as soon as possible from any port under any flag. Clearly current efforts are FAILING to prevent oil from washing ashore and therefore one must strongly question the contention that the Jones act is NOT hindering efforts especially in the face of arguments to the contrary by leaders of all of the states directly involved and by those in the oil industry. Might we want to utilize vessels designed to clean up oil spills that hail from other nations? I think that the obvious answer is “Yes” and that those opposed to waiving the Jones Act in this instance need to explain why the answer is “No.”

Just my two cents.

-David