Perspective on Problem Solving: Gulf Oil Spill
By Wayne Pearson
The massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is said to be the greatest ecological disaster
ever to hit our country, and we knew that was the case from the get go. The question is
why has the response of the US Government been so casual and non-chalant? Much has
been written about problems and how to solve them, and the oil spill could and should be
added as a case for study.
Fundamentally, you cannot solve any problem until you can define it. So what was the
problem?
A deep well in the Gulf exploded sending massive amounts of oil into the Gulf. There was
no known way to stop the flow except to drill another well which would take 90 days.
First, let’s set aside the question of whether we should be drilling for oil in the ocean a
mile deep. Dealing with that would be like being upset over spilled milk. Therefore, that
is a question for another day. We need to deal with the spilled milk (oil) right now.
What Happened?
We learned on April 20, 2010 that British Petroleum’s (BP’s) rig in the Gulf of Mexico
exploded killing 11 employees, injuring 17 others and destroying the rig. At the same
time we learned that oil was escaping from the well at an estimated 50-100 thousand
barrels per day, (roughly to 2-4 million gallons per day). BP immediately announced that
it was drilling another well to by-pass the flow from the damaged well and that it would
take 90 days to complete.
Based on this flow rate and the 90 days needed to plug the well, a grammar school child
could calculate the amount of oil that would be in the Gulf. The answer is 90 days times
2-4 million gallons per day or 180-360 million gallons. One should have said: “WOW!
That is a Hell of a lot of oil!!” Right, it would be enough to cover about 10,000 square
miles of the Gulf: enough to reach the barrier reefs of Louisiana and all of the beaches of
Alabama, Mississippi and Florida. In other words, many times the size of the Exxon
Valdese spill. The damage to businesses in fishing, shrimping, beaches, tourist attractions
and fish, fowl and other marine life could be expected to be gigantic at a cost of billions
of dollars.
In other words this would be a crisis of astronomic proportion; one requiring immediate
and round the clock attention of the top leaders of both the oil company and the US
government.
Immediate Actions Required
· The damaged well would need to be by-passed and/or plugged as soon as is
physically practicable.
· A massive force would need to be organized to collect and/or contain the massive
amount of oil that would flow constantly for 90 days.
Who Should Take Charge?
· Only BP and/or other oil drilling companies have the technology and tools to plug
the leaking well.
· Only the US Government with its vast resources and ability to commandeer and
manage the resources of all the parties, including Corporate, State, and Federal
and Foreign entities and have the power to waive regulations that might hinder
efforts would be capable of taking charge of the massive organization needed to
contain the spill and conduct the cleanup.
WHAT HAS BEEN THE RESPONSE?
By BP:
· They began drilling second and third wells aimed at plugging the initial well.
· They have been working 24/7 to employ every technique known to plug the leak
· They have been doing what they can to contain the spill from the leak.
· They are gathering evidence to determine what caused the problem
· They have agreed to pay all reasonable expenses for the damage to beaches, wild
life and businesses.
By the US Government:
· The Administration initially refused to take any responsibility for the oil spill, the
analysis of it or for actions required to deal with the consequences of the spill
· It placed a moratorium on all drilling in the Gulf for six months.
· It had the Attorney General tell BP that they had performed criminally regarding
the alleged lack of safe guards, and that the government would bring criminal and
probably civil suits.
· The President badgered BP into agreeing to a fund of $20 billion to pay for all
costs, including pay for the unemployed caused by the drilling moratorium
· Henry Waxman convened his committee to interrogate the CEO of BP, each
member individually asking such “do you still beat your wife” questions such as:
“Were the short cuts you took designed to save time or money?”
Some 40 days after the leak the Administration began to grasp the fact that the
magnitude of the problem exceeded the physical resources of BP. Then it acted only
half heartedly in the development of and implementation of a plan to deal with the
effects of the spill.
· They let the bureaucrats in the EPA block the efforts of the Gulf governors to
build berms and take other such actions to prevent the oil from reaching the
critical beach and river areas.
· They allowed the 1920 Jones Act to block foreign skimmer ships from coming
to the Gulf to help.
BP may be responsible for not employing all the safety features that would have been
prudent to minimize the prospect of such an explosion. This is not clear at this early
point, especially since the US Government’s Mineral Management Administration
(MMA) gave clearance to BP’s protocol just weeks before the explosion. Of course the
Administration fired the woman in charge of this MMA activity as soon as the problem
arose.
Needless to say, spending any major effort to get answers to these questions at this time
cannot be a major priority while one is trying to stop the leak and organize the necessary
cleanup. Moreover, the last thing you want to do is distract the managers who are
working 24/7 to figure out how to solve the problem. The investigation and how to
prevent future incidents can and should be left for another day. Any prudent and
competent manager knows this instinctively.
So, what explains the actions or lack of by the President and his Administration? Let’s
hypothesize:
· They are ideologically driven and want to take advantage of such a catastrophic
event to initiate another program to transform America.
· They have no practical experience in how to do things, and thus are technically
incompetent.
· They are both ideologically driven and incompetent.
What are the Clues?
Ideologically Driven
Their first actions give us the direction of their thinking. They immediately blamed BP
and the Bush administration for the cause of the explosion. Then they promptly placed a
six month ban on off-shore drilling. This was followed by the President’s Oval Office
talk about the need for an energy bill that included “cap and trade”. Their argument for
the ban was that we must cut our dependence on foreign oil.
This does not pass the laugh test. How does reducing the production of oil from United
States owned resources cut our dependence on oil from foreign suppliers? Moreover, has
anyone noticed what our sources of foreign oil are? Surprise surprise, 85 % of our
imported crude oil is provided by counties that have to be considered as friendly to us.
This especially includes our first two primary sources, Canada and Mexico respectively,
who together, provide 35% of our imported oil.
The fact that the Administration made no effort to waive regulations on environmental
issues or the Jones Act, which was intended to protect US maritime union jobs, tells us a
lot about their penchant to think and act ideologically.
Incompetence:
They have manifested their incompetence. There were many needed actions that did not
require an ideological framework to determine what to do. For example, they could have
immediately taken charge of what was needed to control the oil spill and arrange for the
clean up. This would have required them to organize an armada of ships, equipment and
personnel from all over the US and the world. Instead they dilly dallied for over forty
days, while their only actions were to vilify BP and harass the management of BP with
the threat of law suits and congressional investigations. At a time when BP management
needed to focus on the problem of stopping the leak and containing the released oil, these
government led distractions were irresponsible if not criminal in themselves.
Both Ideological and Incompetent
Based on the above discussion, it must be clear to anyone that they are driven by
ideological desires to transform America to order to spread the wealth. At the very same
time, they are staffed by ideologues that have little if any experience in doing practical
things. If you have no experience that is pertinent and required to deal with the problem
at hand, that is the definition of incompetence. The fact that the person or persons have
fabulous educations and diplomas of all types do not make them capable of handling the
job they have been assigned.
We the People are the bosses of these ideologues and incompetents. We the people can
decide whether we have to put up with their insubordination as regards to not doing our
bidding and their demonstrated incompetence. We the people have been polled, and our
wishes are perfectly clear:
· As a top priority we want this Administration to encourage private enterprise to
create jobs.
· We do not want a 2000+ page health care bill that cannot be understood by
anyone.
· We do not want a 2000+ page bank regulation bill that also cannot be understood
by anyone.
· We do not want our deep indigenous supplies of coal and natural gas to be
replaced by deminimus supplies of expensive solar and wind.
The world is becoming an increasingly complex place and problems of the magnitude of
the Gulf oil spill require the highest level of experienced competent managers. So, what
Action Should We the People Take?
FIRE THE ENTIRE BUNCH. Begin this November by replacing the incompetent
ideologues in Congress. Then FIRE THE BOSS in 2012.

1
PERSPECTIVE ON “MORAL COMMPASSES”:
The need for and how to implant them in children. By Wayne Pearson
In my previous Blog we theorized that the reason the Wall Street investment bankers
seemed to go astray regarding the sale of derivatives and credit default swaps was the
lack of moral compasses in those who created and promulgated the dubious value
financial devices. We further reasoned that the problem might have roots going back
forty years when we began to dismantle the structure that had been in place for centuries
to build these moral compasses in children. We concluded by claiming that “We threw
the baby out with the bath water”. This Blog explores what can be done, if anything, to
rescue the “baby”.
We start by reiterating the four pillars of the structure that formed the mechanism for
implanting a moral compass in a child.
· The parent accepted the responsibility for leading the process
· The neighbors thought they were partners and participated
· The schools felt an obligation to be partners and were involved
· The Churches added an historical and spiritual foundation.
Our analysis of what changed included these factors:
· Out litigious society’s penchant for suing everyone for everything
· The family break-up.
· A misunderstanding of how self-esteem is created
· The efforts by the A.C.L.U. to get the principles promulgated by the Churches out
of our schools
Litigious Society:
We won’t even consider trying to do anything about our litigious society.
Family Breakup:
We probably cannot make much of a change, if any, in the break-up of families. It is too
easy for partners to divorce because of the no-fault factor.
Parenting:
With both parents in the work force and the family based on two incomes, the role of the
parent is confused and compromised. Society has condoned the idea that the parent, not
having time to be the manager, can become the friend or pal of the child. This has led to
the absurd idea that we have to be careful about how to treat the child for fear of
destroying the child’s self-esteem. In this circumstance, something will have to give. That
something is likely to be the task of building a moral compass in the child.
This concept must be eradicated. Self-esteem cannot be bestowed; it must be earned.
Moreover, only an adult can build a conscience into a child because there is nothing in
natural law that would lead the child on its own to understand what a conscience is let
alone how to build one.
2
In short, the parent must be placed back in charge of creating the moral compass. And
society needs to provide help for this parent. There are some new writings that provide
this support. One of the best is a book by E.D. Hill entitled: “I’m Not Your Friend, I’m
Your Parent: Helping Your Children Set the Boundaries they Need….and Really Want”.
This book is chock full of great advice and useful tactics for how to raise a child so that
there is an intact and functional conscience by the time the child is 18 years old. The subtitle
of the book, namely, helping the child to find the boundaries that they need and want
is worth the price of the book. Hill and her husband have 8 children ranging from babes
to late teen agers. She includes examples of what can be done to get the attention of and
how to help each of the children regardless of age.
Schools:
This will surprise you, but I think that we should stop fighting the A.C.L.U in their quest
to remove all semblances and artifacts of the church from our schools. Battling the
A.C.L.U. on this issue is futile because the A.CL.U. will probably win the argument
anyway due to the separation of church and state. In addition, the legal expenses would
be enormous.
Assume that the A.C.L.U wants to remove the Ten Commandments. We could say, OK
we will take the first four of the commandments that have to do with how we are to relate
to God out of the school. Actually, they have no direct tie to ethics save for frightening
one who believes that God is looking over ones shoulder. But what about the next six
which include: don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t murder, and don’t covet other’s property, don’t
commit adultery and honoring ones parents? Well, maybe the A.C.L.U. would want to
drop coveting others property, not committing adultery and honoring ones parents.
Surely, the individual members of A.C.L.U. would not want their children to steal and
murder and lie!
The obvious next question is: If the Ten Commandments are tied too closely to religious
concepts and rules, what list of secular rules should we use? The number and type of such
rules will undoubtedly be highly controversial, but the discussion about this subject will
be most useful to both the child and the adult. Let’s begin by listing at least some of the
possible rules.
· As a general tenant, follow the Golden Rule:
“Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You”
Do not harass, bully or physically harm other persons
· Do not lie, be honest at all times.
· Do not steal anything tangible or intangible
· Do not commit murder
· Adhere to your commitments and vows; let your word be your bond
Students using such a list could be tested periodically to determine if their Conscience is
progressing to where the student can tell what is right from what is wrong. The student
should be encouraged to and taught how to seek advice from those who seem to know the
3
difference between right and wrong. The teaching should include actual examples such
as “Is it OK to take an employer’s pencil home because it has so little value?” The
teaching should progress so that the application of the moral compass becomes rote, so its
use becomes unconscious. For those reading this blog and who don’t know the answer to
the pencil question, the answer is unequivocally NO!
So, how would the A.C.L.U. teach the child to know right from wrong? Would it want
the child to learn by noting that a friend, relative or parent was in jail and thus, deduce
that what the imprisoned person did was a bad thing? In the first place it would be a little
late to learn that lesson, not to say how ridiculous that method of teaching would be. No,
the teaching of ethics must be a fundamental part of the equation of how to build a
conscience in a human being. Since the child is in school for 6 hours a day, five days a
week, about 40 weeks per year for about 15 years or about 18,000 hours why is the
school not the place to focus on the teaching of ethics to construct functioning moral
compasses in our children?
Neighbors:
Historically the neighbor was willing and even felt an obligation to be a partner with the
parent in the raising of children, and it was understood to be a two-way street, a mutual
understanding. With the expansion of college graduates going into law and the need
therefore for them to create a need for their services, it was only natural that there would
be law suits for anything that you could think of. Soon, the neighbor fearing a suit for
correcting a neighbors child, decided to ignore the child’s bad or dangerous behavior.
There is a way to correct this. If the parent realizes that he or she needs the help of the
neighbor, that wise parent will approach the neighbor to seek the neighbors help. The
way around the legal question is to propose a “hold harmless” agreement. With this the
parent can spell out what he or she wished the neighbor to do if the parent’s child is seen
or caught in the act of performing some activity that runs counter to the parent’s plan to
build a conscience into the child. The agreement would entail that the neighbor be
empowered to stop the action that is wrong, bring the child to the parent and tell the
parent what happened. The agreement would also entail the parent’s thanking the
neighbor in the presence of the child for terminating the wrong activity and bringing the
child to the parent. Hopefully, this arrangement could be on a “my word is my bond”
basis, but maybe it should be in writing in a friendly, non-legal basis.
Now that we have some ideas about what we can do and what we probably cannot do
about rescuing the baby, here is what we recommend that the parent, the leader of this
task, do.
ACTIONS FOR PARENTS OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN:
For Yourselves
Understand that you are primarily responsible for seeing that your child has a functioning
conscience, a functioning Moral Compass, by the time the child is 18 years of age. Know
also, that this job starts very shortly after the child is placed in your arms. Burn into your
4
brain that you as the parent are the leader of the team that you will employ to help with
this vital task, and that you are the parent not the colleague of your child.
Remind yourself that as E.D.Hill’s book subtitle states you are “Helping Your Children
Set the Boundaries they Need….and Really Want”. Acquire, read and use E.D.Hill’s
book as a reference and guide. There are doubtless other comparable books, and if found
they should be employed.
With Your Neighbor:
Form a relationship with your neighbor or neighbors that permits their being your partner,
so that the neighbor feels comfortable to assist you when you and your child need it.
With Your School:
Become involved with the teachers and the school administration to form a partnership
with them comparable to the one described for the neighbor, so that the personnel in the
school will feel free to keep you informed about the ethical progress of your child. This is
not the same as grades for deportment or conduct which may be on the report card. You
want the teacher or administrator to know that you will hold them harmless if they tell
you the truth.
Help the school to develop a list of rules of ethics that you would like taught to your
child. This may and probably will require you to become active in the PTA and to meet
and know some of the School Board members. Use these meetings to mutually develop
the list and the words to employ in the rules of ethics that you want the school to adopt.
With Your Church:
The Church can and should be employed as a partner in this endeavor if it at all possible.
If the child understands that you have decided to be the leader of the group that is
working to help the child find the boundaries that they need and seek, then their
resistance to attending Sunday School may be lessened and will make your job of
installing a moral compass in the child easier. There is no doubt that the lessons taught in
Sunday School will enhance and strengthen your program. And it probably helps for the
child to believe that God is watching.
In conclusion, it is true that “rescuing the baby” may seem insurmountable on a national
basis. But there are some principles that are applicable. Many of you readers who are
parents are already applying these principles, but as a society we are not. Yet, there are
actions each of us can take to promulgate these fundamental principles. If each individual
will work in his or her immediate circle of friends and/or family, a haven can be created
that will foster the creation of moral compasses in your individual child or grandchild.
Then, perhaps like tossing a stone in the proverbial pond, circles of understanding may
spread out until the entire society is reverberating with the waves from that tiny stone.