( CNN ) -- A timid judge is a lawless judge . U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman , it would seem , is not a timid judge . In deciding to lift the Department of the Interior 's six-month moratorium on deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico , Feldman certainly looks like a decisive jurist . His criticisms of the department 's ban were forceful . But Feldman was remarkably selective in his criticism . He was willing to scrutinize the government harshly , but not the oil industry . His opinion made important points about the department 's mistakes . He noted that the moratorium affects drilling in water deeper than 500 feet , even though a scientific panel that the department commissioned expressed concern with wells in water deeper than 1,000 feet . He worried that the department had no framework for lifting the moratorium . And he is not wrong to suggest that the moratorium might reflect political rather than scientific judgment . Feldman 's opinion also properly expressed concern that the livelihoods of many Gulf residents depend on continued oil production . Feldman , however , did not similarly train his critical eye toward the oil industry . He stated that we can not conclude that `` because one rig failed . . . all companies and rigs drilling new wells at over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger . '' That is simply false . The accident reveals exactly what the contingency plan is when equipment fails in a deep water rig ; the plan is not to have the equipment fail . This is much akin to the Titanic 's contingency plan for hitting an iceberg ; the plan was not to hit an iceberg . To be sure , the oil companies had complied with regulatory requirements that they file contingency plans . Plans exist on paper , but they are completely worthless . Some of these plans literately call for the hiring of an expert , who is now deceased , in an effort to protect walruses , which do not live in the Gulf . Consequently , we have witnessed two months of BP foundering from one ad hoc scheme to another while millions of gallons of oil pour into the Gulf . By filing a lawsuit against the department 's moratorium , oil companies have shown that they do not intend to use this disaster as an opportunity to craft a meaningful response plan based on sound engineering principles . The suit itself shows remarkable hubris in which the oil companies demand the right to continue drilling on federal land , as if nothing had happened . Feldman 's decision , unfortunately , might allow them to do just that . Opinion : The case against the moratorium . Feldman had all the facts he needed to judge both the department and the oil companies to be sloppy . He critiqued the department thoroughly . But as to the oil industry , he concluded that `` no one yet knows why '' the Deepwater Horizon rig failed . That is true enough , but we certainly know that no oil company has a sensible means of responding to a deep water blow out . The reality is that drilling for oil in the Gulf is more dangerous than we thought , and more precautions are in order before proceeding . Feldman 's sensitivity to employees on the drilling rigs is appropriate , but myopic . A moratorium can force the oil companies operating in the Gulf to craft a realistic plan for addressing a deep water blowout . With a moratorium in place , oil companies have enormous incentives to identify a sound set of contingencies for the kind of accident we have seen that would reduce the flow of oil long before a relief well can be dug . Feldman 's lifting of the moratorium is akin to allowing the passenger ships to cross the Atlantic without an adequate supply of lifeboats right after the Titanic sank . Fortunately , the department will likely appeal the ruling , or re-issue it with further justification . Deepwater drilling is and will remain a valuable part of America 's energy supply . One-third of domestic oil production comes from the Gulf , and comes from increasingly deep waters . The fact that engineers can devise ways to send a pipe through 2 miles of rock under a mile of water is itself amazing . But such drilling has inherent risks , and oil companies need to use these engineering techniques to develop a coherent plan B before they proceed . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jeffrey Rachlinski .
Jeffrey Rachlinski says judge is willing to scrutinize terms of ban , but not oil industry so much . Judge says BP spill does n't presage others ; but companies still lack sound disaster plans . Comment: Rachlinski : Ban would force oil companies to come up with plan to prevent future disasters .