Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Massive Gulf Coast Oil Spill


BeeR
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here's a new world-wide conspiracy theory for you guys.... 17 nations got together within a week following the oil spill and decided that if the press calls them to ask about the offer of help for the oil spill that each would say that the US had turned down their offers, even though that hadn't actually offered to supply their resources. They all did this because they hate Obama and want his policies to fail. That and they figure that it will help them to gain favor with BP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 693
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nobody see's the Military fuel contract with BP fishy? And the fact they are STILL buying military grade fuel from BP? And now the official BP oil disaster web site has been taken over by the US?

 

yeah ok...tell me I'm a loon.

I will address this without name-calling. (just to show it can be done)

 

The time to cut BP contracts off at the knees would have been before the disaster. The EPA was already considering such measures due to the many safety violations the company had piled up. Maybe that would have prevented this disaster. But no action was taken.

 

Now it seems we may be stuck. Because BP has to have the $ to pay for the lives and property they have destroyed. So ironically. because of their irresponsibility, the way I see it, we now have no choice but to continue feeding the bastards.

 

Nothing really fishy about it to me. Just a sickening reality.

Edited by rattsass
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a new world-wide conspiracy theory for you guys.... 17 nations got together within a week following the oil spill and decided that if the press calls them to ask about the offer of help for the oil spill that each would say that the US had turned down their offers, even though that hadn't actually offered to supply their resources. They all did this because they hate Obama and want his policies to fail. That and they figure that it will help them to gain favor with BP.

Yeah, that sounds about right. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes, when you post an article it's like no-one reads the whole thing:

 

Those offers of international assistance that were not accepted, while greatly appreciated, did not meet the operational requirements of the Unified Command. These offers have not been declined because they may be needed in the future as response strategies change. Some challenges in accepting these offers included:

 

* Equipment failed to meet US requirements/specifications (i.e. dispersant not on approved list/containment boom made of non-approved material)

* Contingencies placed on the offers proved logistically impracticable when compared to other sources.

* In one instance, the offering country’s export laws prohibited delivery of the assistance

* Contingencies placed on the offers made it difficult for the Unified Command to meet the contingency

 

U.S. disaster aid is almost always free of charge; other nations expect the U.S. to pay for help.

 

"These offers are not typically offers of aid," said Lt. Erik Halvorson, a Coast Guard spokesman. "Normally, they are offers to sell resources to BP or the U.S. government."

 

So, just to make this clear, everyone hear complaining about us not spending money for every bit of offered assistance, no matter how redundant or unnecessary it would have been, would have been giving Obama props for doing the opposite? Talk about desperately needing to politicize a disaster.

Edited by bushwacked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes, when you post an article it's like no-one reads the whole thing:

 

 

 

So, just to make this clear, everyone hear complaining about us not spending money for every bit of offered assistance, no matter how redundant or unnecessary it would have been, would have been giving Obama props for doing the opposite? Talk about desperately needing to politicize a disaster.

 

Seriously? Seriously? The costs are going to be passed along to BP... redundant help, you say, are three oil skimmers redundant? Yeah boss, we have 3 skimmers in the gulf, we don't need anymore. Are booms redundant? What offers are unnecessary? Oil skimmers, boom, cargo ships? So what I'm hearing from you guys and the government is that they had everything under control and these other redundant systems were unnecessary?

 

If things were redundant or unnecessary, as you and your article assert then why the Penny Lane is their oil washing up on shore, why hasn't the majority of the oil been cleaned, why have they only contained, according to a CBS news article today, a few hundred thousand barrels of oil. Redundant and unnecessary, not free... yeah these sound like stellar reasons for not getting the other equipment here.

 

In regard to the Jones act, well, maybe they have a point. But here would be my question in regard to that; It states that ships not flagged as US ships or those manufactured are not allowed into the ports. These tankers, whatever the hell they are, that clean the oil off of the rig that is not in US territorial water have to go to shore or deposit what they siphon onto other ships that go to shore to drop off the contaminated water. Are these skimmers that are foreign built and flagged not allowed in because they would essentially be unable to perform the aforementioned task, might this be the area where the problem occurs (I don't know, but am asking.)

 

ETA: and in regard to some of the assertions that they did not meet the "operational" requirements, it has been noted that yes, some of the methods/equipment are not approved by the EPA. The biggest one are the skimmers from Norway and the Dutch, I believe, whose skimmer ships siphon the oily water in, clean it and pump the bilge back out. What they pump back out is only 99.8% clean, thus it is considered contaminated water by the EPA and therefore this technology would not meet the "operational" requirements.

 

ETA2: You know, there were a lot of people on these boards over the past years, myself in certain circumstances, that supported certain Bush admin policies and ended up looking like horses with blinders on... You gave them a ration of diaper dirt for this. Me thinks you have fallen into the same trap here, my friend. You can look all you want, but the facts are the facts, they are now accepting help, 2 months later that they originally declined, because it didn't meet their initial operational goals, does this not tell you in and of it self that thye have no clue what the details of their operational goals are or should be.

Edited by SEC=UGA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me thinks you have fallen into the same trap here, my friend.

 

Disputing right wing talking point claims originating from Fox and Friends using information from a non-partisan fact checking site is “falling into a trap?” :wacko:

 

Alrighty then.

Edited by bushwacked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you are saying is that disputing right wing talking point claims originating from Fox and Friends using information from a non-partisan fact checking sites is “falling into a trap?” :wacko:

 

Alrighty then.

 

No, not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that you are missing the bigger picture here, the clean up effort had been rife with mistakes and inaction. If you don't see that, you have blinders on. And I really don't care what your little fact check thingy says, it is picking at nits and again not looking at the problem as a whole.

 

It is the exact same thing that got us into the gulf war. UN weapons inspectors were unable to get into Iraq to confirm or dent the existence of WMD. We were relying on antiquated intelligence that stated that they did in fact exist and used faulty and trumped up info as a basis for invading Iraq. We didn't do our homework, the info and plan we had was inadequate, but those who supported it based there support on what information they had.

 

They are looking at the oil spill and saying, "hey, wait, we have accepted foreign help, there is equipment from 7 foreign nations put there as of June 23rd. And really no help was offered since they wanted to charge us for it." So remind me me again, when did the rig blow and oil start leaking? Within a week a number of foreign nations said they could mobilize, in many cases at a cost, equipment to help in the clean up. We said no because we had a sound operational plan. Well, the operational plan proved to be impotent, they changed operational plans two months later and began to allow in foreign equipment. Now, what I'm asking is, does it sound like the response was adequate? Does it appear that they did the proper thing in turning down the help. If you answer yes to these questions I can't help but think your buying a line of BS or have blinders on.

Edited by SEC=UGA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that you are missing the bigger picture here, the clean up effort had been rife with mistakes and inaction. If you don't see that, you have blinders on. And I really don't care what your little fact check thingy says, it is picking at nits and again not looking at the problem as a whole.

 

It is the exact same thing that got us into the gulf war. UN weapons inspectors were unable to get into Iraq to confirm or dent the existence of WMD. We were relying on antiquated intelligence that stated that they did in fact exist and used faulty and trumped up info as a basis for invading Iraq. We didn't do our homework, the info and plan we had was inadequate, but those who supported it based there support on what information they had.

 

They are looking at the oil spill and saying, "hey, wait, we have accepted foreign help, there is equipment from 7 foreign nations put there as of June 23rd. And really no help was offered since they wanted to charge us for it." So remind me me again, when did the rig blow and oil start leaking? Within a week a number of foreign nations said they could mobilize, in many cases at a cost, equipment to help in the clean up. We said no because we had a sound operational plan. Well, the operational plan proved to be impotent, they changed operational plans two months later and began to allow in foreign equipment. Now, what I'm asking is, does it sound like the response was adequate? Does it appear that they did the proper thing in turning down the help. If you answer yes to these questions I can't help but think your buying a line of BS or have blinders on.

Sounds about right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the operational plan proved to be impotent,

 

That's because the only "sound" operational plan for a disaster of this magnitude would consist of having a relief well in place at the same time as drilling the main well. It's rather apparent that when a well is leaking at a significantly higher volume that can technically be recovered, even in the best case scenarios, mitigation attempts are going to be largely futile.

 

It's easier to ignore this and play political scapegoat. You guys like to get each other worked up and act as if Obama had a silver bullet at his disposal that he didn't use. This is ridiculous premise. Sorry that the info presented in factcheck.org didn't sit well with you as the Fox News stuff. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because the only "sound" operational plan for a disaster of this magnitude would consist of having a relief well in place at the same time as drilling the main well. It's rather apparent that when a well is leaking at a significantly higher volume that can technically be recovered, even in the best case scenarios, mitigation attempts are going to be largely futile.

 

It's easier to ignore this and play political scapegoat. You guys like to get each other worked up and act as if Obama had a silver bullet at his disposal that he didn't use. This is ridiculous premise. Sorry that the info presented in factcheck.org didn't sit well with you as the Fox News stuff. :wacko:

 

 

Last try here. Do you think it was prudent for him to turn down help two months before he accepted it on the same terms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because the only "sound" operational plan for a disaster of this magnitude would consist of having a relief well in place at the same time as drilling the main well. It's rather apparent that when a well is leaking at a significantly higher volume that can technically be recovered, even in the best case scenarios, mitigation attempts are going to be largely futile.

 

It's easier to ignore this and play political scapegoat. You guys like to get each other worked up and act as if Obama had a silver bullet at his disposal that he didn't use. This is ridiculous premise. Sorry that the info presented in factcheck.org didn't sit well with you as the Fox News stuff. :wacko:

Obama has done EVERYTHING possible and right - he is the messiah - nothing to see here - let's not ever think of blaming the messiah.

 

It may be against your ideals but you seriously think he has handled everything the right way? I agree that he can't solve every problem - you have to admit he is the Pres and then he is in charge of this mess and this mess has been a mess - this falls on him. Like it or not how can you not see this???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a great article in (of all things) Sports Illustrated this week about spill. The original premise of the article was to write about the impact on sport fishing, but it evolved into such a more poetic and timely piece. The author did a phenomenal job of capturing the mood of the area, its residents, the gloom of the future....everything. Its a tremendous read.

 

One idea I remember vividly (and I'll paraphrase): its amazing to him that so many people are spending so much energy trying to place blame, when if that energy was focused on creating new energy-saving, oil-alternative programs, we might be better off in the long run. Instead, we spend our energy uselessly blaming people, and the real irony is that the people being blamed are the one's who will ultimately benefit if we can't decrease our reliance on oil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a great article in (of all things) Sports Illustrated this week about spill. The original premise of the article was to write about the impact on sport fishing, but it evolved into such a more poetic and timely piece. The author did a phenomenal job of capturing the mood of the area, its residents, the gloom of the future....everything. Its a tremendous read.

 

One idea I remember vividly (and I'll paraphrase): its amazing to him that so many people are spending so much energy trying to place blame, when if that energy was focused on creating new energy-saving, oil-alternative programs, we might be better off in the long run. Instead, we spend our energy uselessly blaming people, and the real irony is that the people being blamed are the one's who will ultimately benefit if we can't decrease our reliance on oil.

 

Let me agree with you on your paraphrased part. We do need a Manhattan Project of sorts for alternative fuels, my favorite being hydrogen powered autos and electrical plants.

 

On to the next part about blame. Why didn't any of these people in the media or from the left on this board bother to state something similar about Katrina while Bush was being lampooned for that natural disaster?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the argument in favor of the administration's refusal to accept help (at whatever cost) because of "unapproved methods - skimmers, etc". I think that is laughable. The whole plan was to put enough TOXIC chemicals in the water as to make the problem "disappear." There was little regard given to the safety of purposefully filling the ocean with even MORE pollutants, just to hide the sight of the first pollutants. So the response was flawed from the beginning. The powers that be had no problem putting man and nature at risk with a known toxin so we wouldn't see the true magnitude of the situation.

 

And to that end (keeping us all misinformed or underinformed) they don't want any outside influences coming in - people that may shoot their mouths off about the REALITY of the situation that has been carefully kept from public view. This oil should have been allowed to gather at the surface, and skimmed. From the very beginning. And we should have had every available skimmer on the job. From the beginning. So you go ahead and hold your Obama banner high, and afterward why don't you go take a swm in that toxic stew that used to be our beautiful Gulf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why didn't any of these people in the media or from the left on this board bother to state something similar about Katrina while Bush was being lampooned for that natural disaster?

 

two things:

 

1. why are you spending energy blaming people for blaming Bush? I think this is the author's exact point :wacko:

2. in regard to comparing this aspect of the topic to Katrina...the author is saying that we need to stop blaming each other, and use that energy to become less oil-reliant so we don't necessarily need to drill long-term. How is that related to a natural disaster?

 

To your other points: yes, Obama should have accepted every olive branch offered. Yes, he should have moved faster in reacting to the crisis. The question is, why didn't he? Two answers: (1) he purposely wanted to make the situation worse or (2) his legal and crisis advisors underestimated the spill. I think its the latter, and it falls on Obama for not surrounding himself with smarter people. Obama is not an enviormentalist or a disaster-specialist. He (like every POTUS) relies on specialists to advise him, then he makes a decision. His team is HIS team, and he is responsible for that team's performance. He should be judged on those guidelines.

 

So, we can all agree the clean-up to date could have been done better, and faster....yet the problem still remains: there are millions and millions of gallons of oil spilling into the Gulf each day. That's the core of the problem....and it needs to be stopped. And if you want to make our world a better place in decades to come, we should focus our energy on coming up with ways to reduce our oil usage, so the need for drilling is minimized, and perhaps one day stopped...before its too late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

two things:

 

1. why are you spending energy blaming people for blaming Bush? I think this is the author's exact point :wacko:

2. in regard to comparing this aspect of the topic to Katrina...the author is saying that we need to stop blaming each other, and use that energy to become less oil-reliant so we don't necessarily need to drill long-term. How is that related to a natural disaster?

 

To your other points: yes, Obama should have accepted every olive branch offered. Yes, he should have moved faster in reacting to the crisis. The question is, why didn't he? Two answers: (1) he purposely wanted to make the situation worse or (2) his legal and crisis advisors underestimated the spill. I think its the latter, and it falls on Obama for not surrounding himself with smarter people. Obama is not an enviormentalist or a disaster-specialist. He (like every POTUS) relies on specialists to advise him, then he makes a decision. His team is HIS team, and he is responsible for that team's performance. He should be judged on those guidelines.

 

So, we can all agree the clean-up to date could have been done better, and faster....yet the problem still remains: there are millions and millions of gallons of oil spilling into the Gulf each day. That's the core of the problem....and it needs to be stopped. And if you want to make our world a better place in decades to come, we should focus our energy on coming up with ways to reduce our oil usage, so the need for drilling is minimized, and perhaps one day stopped...before its too late.

 

1. Business is slow and I have nothing better to do.

2. Understood

 

As for the rest, I concur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now THAT you can blame on Bush :wacko:

 

:tup: - to Bush

 

:tup: - to the democrats that controlled the house and senate for the last two years of the bush admin.

 

:lol: - to the current commander in chief that has even the European leaders wondering if he's a freaking communist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fact Check on the Jones Act claim

 

Q: Did Obama turn down foreign offers of assistance in cleaning up the Gulf oil spill? Did he refuse to waive Jones Act restrictions on foreign-flag vessels?

 

A: No to both questions. So far, offers from six foreign countries or entities have been accepted and only one offer has been rejected. Fifteen foreign-flag vessels are working on the cleanup, and none required a waiver.

 

wow, that is just bad. "factcheck", more often that not, is a complete joke.

 

YES, foreign offers of assistance have been turned down (see here, here and here). some of those refusals have been reversed after two-plus months of inaction. that doesn't mean they weren't turned down initially, and that lengthy delay was extremely costly.

To date, 25 countries and four international organizations have offered support in the form of skimming vessels, containment and fire boom, technical assistance and response solutions, among others. A chart provided by the State Department shows that as of June 23 offers from six foreign countries or entities had been accepted. Fifty more offers were under consideration — including multiple offers from a single country or entity. One offer had been declined: France offered a chemical dispersant that is not approved for use in the United States.

so six offers have been accepted, and only one has been officially outright rejected. 77 days in. and 50 others are still "under consideration". yeah that's fantastic. what exactly is the functional difference between responding to offers of help by saying, "we don't want your help" and just sitting there drooling and saying "duuhhhhhrrrhh...." for 80 days? that massive "a-whale" oil skimmer is STILL parked in dock in virginia, waiting on red tape to clear.

 

the response of our government to this disaster has been a total clusterf*ck of inaction, bureaucracy and politics. but keep defending it bushwacked, yer doing a heckuva job :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow, that is just bad. "factcheck", more often that not, is a complete joke.

 

 

 

It's not up there with David Letterman style “top 10” list generated from "info" shared on Fox News talk shows and blogs from the Heritage Foundation? You're funny. :wacko:

Edited by bushwacked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information