UPDATE: Ok, so the verdict has a handful of very legitimate complaints with the DOI report.
1) The data reviewed by the panel of experts was different from what was presented in the report because the threshold of "deepwater" was changed from 1000ft to 500ft, which is somewhat justified because that's the threshold at which floating rigs must be used. However, just the use of floating rigs shouldn't be in question, but rather the effects of drilling in deep water that causes equipment failures and restricts access.
2) The report does not defend the need for a 6 month moratorium in particular, and as such was deemed to be arbitrary. Furthermore, the panel of experts never saw this recommendation and more than half do not agree with it. It would make more sense to halt drilling on rigs until new safety standards are met on a case by case basis. That argument would be highly defensible, would not be arbitrary, and would be supported by the panel of experts who do believe in the tightened regulations.
3) Legal precedent says that the moratorium is only appropriate if the threat of injury is certain rather than hypothetical, which it is not. However, if I read the verdict correctly, it is also defensible if the threat is irreparable and far outweighs the harm done to the affected party. It sounds to me the defense just made the wrong argument.
The less legit arguments in the verdict:
1) The possible damages in the absence of the moratorium are not properly described... has the judge not been watching the news? The risk is a repeat of what is happening now.
2) The report is case specific to the Deepwater Horizon disaster and there is no link to the rigs being affected by the moratorium... really? They use the same technology, the operators all have identical emergency protocols, and I don't see how the judge can argue they are unrelated and at the same time agree with the panel of experts that new industry wide safety standards must be implemented. That makes no sense. Need new safety standards for all... but totally unrelated...
3) Drawing the parallel to a car crash or an airplane crash is inappropriate. This is more akin to a recall like with the Prius brake pedal incident. Safety faults have been established, fixes have been mandated, operation should not resume until these requirements are met. The main point being that this is not just operator error or a unique defect, this is an industry wide safety failing with a developing technology.
4) Studies showing statistically significant numbers of mechanical failures exclusive to deep water operations are irrelevant... Are you KIDDING ME!?! With the particular example he gave, there was a 7.5% chance of failure in deep water. That means if there are 100 deepwater rigs, there's a chance 7 of them will have pipe cutting errors, and it only takes 1 error to be potentially catastrophic. How is that not significant? Furthermore, is this REALLY the sort of thing you want to roll the dice on and assume was an isolated incident?
I agree that the moratorium as it was defended should not be upheld, particularly the arbitrary 6 month aspect, but I am calling shenanigans on all four of those last points. In order for an appeal to be accepted the 6mo standard should be changed to a case by case adherence to the new safety regulations, the risk of injury should be very strongly presented, and it needs to be made clear that this is akin to a recall and just as safety regulations should be applied to all rigs using this technology the moratorium should apply to all rigs using this technology.
As a side note, I have been trying to find data on how many commercial drilling platforms and exploratory platforms use the same technology and share the same risks, to see how statistically significant this leak is. I have found it is VERY hard to find data as this blogger suggests, and there really aren't answers available on the internet. The map seems to indicate there are only 5 rigs at the 5000ft+ depths, but hundreds at 500ft+. It would seem to me the definition for deep water should not depend on the use of floating rigs, but rather the impact of the increased pressure and inaccessibility at the greater depths. While increased safety standards may need to be implemented on all floating rigs, the moratorium may only be applicable to a small number of rigs that really are at risk, and I hope this change is considered for the appeal.
