+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 7 1234 ... Last
  1. #1
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default Oil Spill - The U.S. Government made the disaster.

    Avertible catastrophe

    One has to ask why Comrade Couric and the rest of the MSM aren't telling this story.

    Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post Saturday, Jun. 26, 2010

    Some are attuned to the possibility of looming catastrophe and know how to head it off. Others are unprepared for risk and even unable to get their priorities straight when risk turns to reality.

    The Dutch fall into the first group. Three days after the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico began on April 20, the Netherlands offered the U.S. government ships equipped to handle a major spill, one much larger than the BP spill that then appeared to be underway. "Our system can handle 400 cubic metres per hour," Weird Koops, the chairman of Spill Response Group Holland, told Radio Netherlands Worldwide, giving each Dutch ship more cleanup capacity than all the ships that the U.S. was then employing in the Gulf to combat the spill.

    To protect against the possibility that its equipment wouldn't capture all the oil gushing from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, the Dutch also offered to prepare for the U.S. a contingency plan to protect Louisiana's marshlands with sand barriers. One Dutch research institute specializing in deltas, coastal areas and rivers, in fact, developed a strategy to begin building 60-mile-long sand dikes within three weeks.

    The Dutch know how to handle maritime emergencies. In the event of an oil spill, The Netherlands government, which owns its own ships and high-tech skimmers, gives an oil company 12 hours to demonstrate it has the spill in hand. If the company shows signs of unpreparedness, the government dispatches its own ships at the oil company's expense. "If there's a country that's experienced with building dikes and managing water, it's the Netherlands," says Geert Visser, the Dutch consul general in Houston.

    In sharp contrast to Dutch preparedness before the fact and the Dutch instinct to dive into action once an emergency becomes apparent, witness the American reaction to the Dutch offer of help. The U.S. government responded with "Thanks but no thanks," remarked Visser, despite BP's desire to bring in the Dutch equipment and despite the no-lose nature of the Dutch offer --the Dutch government offered the use of its equipment at no charge. Even after the U.S. refused, the Dutch kept their vessels on standby, hoping the Americans would come round. By May 5, the U.S. had not come round. To the contrary, the U.S. had also turned down offers of help from 12 other governments, most of them with superior expertise and equipment --unlike the U.S., Europe has robust fleets of Oil Spill Response Vessels that sail circles around their make-shift U.S. counterparts.

    Why does neither the U.S. government nor U.S. energy companies have on hand the cleanup technology available in Europe? Ironically, the superior European technology runs afoul of U.S. environmental rules. The voracious Dutch vessels, for example, continuously suck up vast quantities of oily water, extract most of the oil and then spit overboard vast quantities of nearly oil-free water. Nearly oil-free isn't good enough for the U.S. regulators, who have a standard of 15 parts per million -- if water isn't at least 99.9985% pure, it may not be returned to the Gulf of Mexico.

    When ships in U.S. waters take in oil-contaminated water, they are forced to store it. As U.S. Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, the official in charge of the clean-up operation, explained in a press briefing on June 11, "We have skimmed, to date, about 18 million gallons of oily water--the oil has to be decanted from that [and] our yield is usually somewhere around 10% or 15% on that." In other words, U.S. ships have mostly been removing water from the Gulf, requiring them to make up to 10 times as many trips to storage facilities where they off-load their oil-water mixture, an approach Koops calls "crazy."

    The Americans, overwhelmed by the catastrophic consequences of the BP spill, finally relented and took the Dutch up on their offer -- but only partly. Because the U.S. didn't want Dutch ships working the Gulf, the U.S. airlifted the Dutch equipment to the Gulf and then retrofitted it to U.S. vessels. And rather than have experienced Dutch crews immediately operate the oil-skimming equipment, to appease labour unions the U.S. postponed the clean-up operation to allow U.S. crews to be trained.

    A catastrophe that could have been averted is now playing out. With oil increasingly reaching the Gulf coast, the emergency construction of sand berns to minimize the damage is imperative. Again, the U.S. government priority is on U.S. jobs, with the Dutch asked to train American workers rather than to build the berns. According to Floris Van Hovell, a spokesman for the Dutch embassy in Washington, Dutch dredging ships could complete the berms in Louisiana twice as fast as the U.S. companies awarded the work. "Given the fact that there is so much oil on a daily basis coming in, you do not have that much time to protect the marshlands," he says, perplexed that the U.S. government could be so focussed on side issues with the entire Gulf Coast hanging in the balance.

    Then again, perhaps he should not be all that perplexed at the American tolerance for turning an accident into a catastrophe. When the Exxon Valdez oil tanker accident occurred off the coast of Alaska in 1989, a Dutch team with clean-up equipment flew in to Anchorage airport to offer their help. To their amazement, they were rebuffed and told to go home with their equipment. The Exxon Valdez became the biggest oil spill disaster in U.S. history--until the BP Gulf spill.

    - Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers.

  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,630

    Default

    Or as Obama would say ..

    "BP is responsible. BP will pay."

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    gamewell35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Or as Obama would say ..

    "BP is responsible. BP will pay."
    I'd much rather BP pay as opposed to the government.
    "Did you check under the bed?" -- Judge Crater, 1930

  4. #4
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gamewell35 View Post
    I'd much rather BP pay as opposed to the government.
    I would rather all means possible were utilized to contain and limit the damage. After all, the Dutch offered up their services and equipment at no cost. "The voracious Dutch vessels, for example, continuously suck up vast quantities of oily water, extract most of the oil and then spit overboard vast quantities of nearly oil-free water." How can the U.S. Government justify not gathering up as much of the oil as possible. Our Government and ironically, the environmental regulations have made this situation worse than it could have been.

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    And we would rather you stop being an idiot.

    But that doesn't look like it will happen anytime soon.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  6. #6
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    And we would rather you stop being an idiot.

    But that doesn't look like it will happen anytime soon.
    I see, so instead of taking all the free help you can get to get as much oil as possible out of the water you would rather it just flow onto the shores. If that is idiotic then by all means, take the Obama approach. Stand back, watch, prevent containment and let the oil ruin the coast line.

    Of course you can't refute the facts so you resort to name calling. Classic loser. I just sit and shake my head at some of the non-sense that rolls from your fingertips. I suspect there is some sort of disconnect between the brain and your fingers because no one can be that stupid.

    There, I did it, I lowered myself to your level.

  7. #7
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gamewell35 View Post
    I'd much rather BP pay as opposed to the government.
    Typical marxist. Where do you think BP's funds come from?

    Hint; unlike BHO they do not own a printing press, money tree, or Chicom money market account.

  8. #8
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by neiowa View Post
    Typical marxist. Where do you think BP's funds come from?

    Hint; unlike BHO they do not own a printing press, money tree, or Chicom money market account.
    The funny part is that many pension funds in the U.S. are invested in BP. The NYS pension fund has around 15 million shares of BP stock, it was 19 million. Since it went from $60 a share down to $27 that is a loss of nearly $500,000,000.

  9. #9
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Memphis Tn,USA-now
    Posts
    5,436

    Default

    Barack Hussein Obama is trying to use the Jones Act which protects American shippng interests to keep the spill going as badly as possible.
    While I have no problem with keeping foreign flagged ships from carrying as much cargo between US ports as the next merchie(I'm a towboat crewman at my "real job" and don't like the idea of ,say, Cuban flagged towboats pushing barges up and down the river)the firefighter I have been learning to be says "Strike another box for mutual aid".
    I thought Barack Hussein Obama was a pragmatist meaning that he will use any means to solve a problem.If there aren't enough US flagged ships to handle the problem,and all available units are on scene,why NOT have Dutch flagged or any other ships equipped for spill response assist in cleaning up the accidental spill?

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    I would rather all means possible were utilized to contain and limit the damage. After all, the Dutch offered up their services and equipment at no cost. "The voracious Dutch vessels, for example, continuously suck up vast quantities of oily water, extract most of the oil and then spit overboard vast quantities of nearly oil-free water." How can the U.S. Government justify not gathering up as much of the oil as possible. Our Government and ironically, the environmental regulations have made this situation worse than it could have been.

  10. #10
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Memphis Tn,USA-now
    Posts
    5,436

    Default

    When the Dutch were rebuffed as the article says,didn't George Herbert Walker Bush get excoriated and called an idiot for not using as many resources as were offered to clean up the spill?
    What's the difference in this case?
    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Avertible catastrophe

    One has to ask why Comrade Couric and the rest of the MSM aren't telling this story.

  11. #11
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by doughesson View Post
    When the Dutch were rebuffed as the article says,didn't George Herbert Walker Bush get excoriated and called an idiot for not using as many resources as were offered to clean up the spill?
    What's the difference in this case?
    Bush was beaten up for not responding to New Orleans as the Democratic Mayor and Democratic Governor refused the help. Just he same he responded within a week. 70 days and we are still doing noting in the Gulf and there is no plan.

  12. #12
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Or as Obama would say ..

    "BP is responsible. BP will pay."
    My point is that is about all he was saying for quite a while.

    He really didn't offer up much in the way of a plan or response. His mantra was "BP will pay" and that was about all we heard.

    BP really never said they would not pay.

  13. #13
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    My point is that is about all he was saying for quite a while.

    He really didn't offer up much in the way of a plan or response. His mantra was "BP will pay" and that was about all we heard.

    BP really never said they would not pay.
    That is exactly his plan. BP will pay. That is answer to everything, more money.

  14. #14
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Talk about closing the barn door after the horse is out. They are only about 65 days and billions of gallons late.

    UPDATE 1-US says will take foreign help on Gulf oil spill

  15. #15
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    VT
    Posts
    360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by neiowa View Post
    Typical marxist. Where do you think BP's funds come from?

    Hint; unlike BHO they do not own a printing press, money tree, or Chicom money market account.
    I have to ask, What should BP's role be?? Are you saying they have no financial responsibility in the cleanup?

    Imo, they shouldn't make a penny of profit until THEIR mess is cleaned up.

  16. #16
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pvfd27 View Post
    I have to ask, What should BP's role be?? Are you saying they have no financial responsibility in the cleanup?

    Imo, they shouldn't make a penny of profit until THEIR mess is cleaned up.
    Here is the problem I have. Back in April BP wanted to bring up the clean up equipment from the Dutch, British, Saudis, and 19 other countries. The United States Government said NO. Had there been no regulatory interference much of the oil would have been captured at sea and very little would have made it to shore.

    The next problem is that 1,000s of pension plans are invested in BP. I would be willing to bet that most municipal plans have some sort of investment in BP. There are many short sighted people who don't realize the ramifications of what is going on and the devastating effect this is having on their pension funds.

  17. #17
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Here is the problem I have. Back in April BP wanted to bring up the clean up equipment from the Dutch, British, Saudis, and 19 other countries. The United States Government said NO. Had there been no regulatory interference much of the oil would have been captured at sea and very little would have made it to shore.
    Trolling pretty hard these last few weeks. If I wouldn't know any better I would think that one of our new members is your new alter ego, and you are just on a massive Troll-Attack to get this name banned.

    Your own sources state that every one of these "generous" offers from foreign countries came with an expectation of being financially compensated.

    I am pretty sure that if there were Dutch/British/Saudi/etc ships in the Gulf, working and getting paid by the US Government, you would be on here throwing a fit asking "why didn't Obama hire Americans!?!?!"

    Obvious Troll is obvious.
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  18. #18
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Here is the problem I have.....
    The problem you have is that you're an idiot. The sooner you realize that, the better we'll (including you) will be.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  19. #19
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusKspn View Post
    Trolling pretty hard these last few weeks. If I wouldn't know any better I would think that one of our new members is your new alter ego, and you are just on a massive Troll-Attack to get this name banned.

    Your own sources state that every one of these "generous" offers from foreign countries came with an expectation of being financially compensated.

    I am pretty sure that if there were Dutch/British/Saudi/etc ships in the Gulf, working and getting paid by the US Government, you would be on here throwing a fit asking "why didn't Obama hire Americans!?!?!"

    Obvious Troll is obvious.
    Actually, the Dutch and British offered theirs at no cost.

    The Dutch know how to handle maritime emergencies. In the event of an oil spill, The Netherlands government, which owns its own ships and high-tech skimmers, gives an oil company 12 hours to demonstrate it has the spill in hand. If the company shows signs of unpreparedness, the government dispatches its own ships at the oil company's expense. "If there's a country that's experienced with building dikes and managing water, it's the Netherlands," says Geert Visser, the Dutch consul general in Houston.

    In sharp contrast to Dutch preparedness before the fact and the Dutch instinct to dive into action once an emergency becomes apparent, witness the American reaction to the Dutch offer of help. The U.S. government responded with "Thanks but no thanks," remarked Visser, despite BP's desire to bring in the Dutch equipment and despite the no-lose nature of the Dutch offer --the Dutch government offered the use of its equipment at no charge. Even after the U.S. refused, the Dutch kept their vessels on standby, hoping the Americans would come round. By May 5, the U.S. had not come round. To the contrary, the U.S. had also turned down offers of help from 12 other governments, most of them with superior expertise and equipment --unlike the U.S., Europe has robust fleets of Oil Spill Response Vessels that sail circles around their make-shift U.S. counterparts.


  20. #20
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    The problem you have is that you're an idiot. The sooner you realize that, the better we'll (including you) will be.
    Your problem is you are a sheep just following the herd. Once you learn to think on your own you will see how miserably the U.S. has performed in this disaster. Using a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the best possible response; Obama gets a 1 for his response to the oil spill and Bush gets an 8 for Katrina. Bush would have gotten a 10 had not the democratic Mayor and Governor impeded the response.

  21. #21
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    VT
    Posts
    360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Here is the problem I have...
    So...investors, be they individual or institutions, have no risk. I LIKE that!!!! Sign me the fk up!

    BP is to blame, period. Not Clinton or Obama (no mention of Bush, we KNOW he's innocent). Just plain ol' BP. I don't want a dime of my taxes going towards the clean up effort unless its' repaid, in full (and maybe a little interest) by BP. If it bankrups them, so be it...unless they too are too big to fail...

  22. #22
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    That is exactly his plan. BP will pay. That is answer to everything, more money.
    I think everyone knew BP would pay.

    But instead of working with BP, his tone has been confrontational and harsh from the outset. Things would have gone much better if the government and BP could have shown a level of cooperation, as compared to,Obama, "the great one", scolding them like schoolboys and repeating the same old "BP will pay" line at every turn.

    Hopefully in 2012, "Obama will pay".

    As I have said before, find me a reason why BP didn't want to get this stopped and cleaned up, and I'll doubt their efforts.

    On the other side, Obama has plenty of reason to drag this
    out so that he can use this whole event as ammo in his real agenda - no more offshore drilling and the passing of Cap & Trade.

  23. #23
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pvfd27 View Post
    So...investors, be they individual or institutions, have no risk. I LIKE that!!!! Sign me the fk up!

    BP is to blame, period. Not Clinton or Obama (no mention of Bush, we KNOW he's innocent). Just plain ol' BP. I don't want a dime of my taxes going towards the clean up effort unless its' repaid, in full (and maybe a little interest) by BP. If it bankrups them, so be it...unless they too are too big to fail...
    When you invest you have risk that is true.

    Question for you though.

    If there is a HAZMAT spill on land who pays for the clean up?
    If there is a fire on land who pays to put out the fire?
    If a hiker is lost in the woods or tapped on a mountain, who pays?
    If a dog is rescued form a river with a helicopter, who pays?
    How much work do various fire departments, police agencies, and other emergency agencies do where no one pays?

    Everyone thinks that because BP is so large they should automatically be required to pay.

    Unfortunately, the United States did not allow BP to use all the resources available to contain the spill. Hence the U.S. Government is 50% liable for the damage that was create.

    BTW, after the Exxon Valdez (1989) under H.W. Bush the U.S. Government started to develop systems and methods to deal with oil spills. In 1995 Clinton abandoned the program. W Bush did nothing to revive the program. And Obama stood around fiddled while the Gulf Burned. Trust me, we have 21 years of blame to give to our Presidents and elected officials. I come a little country like the Netherlands is better equipped to deal with an emergency like this. In fact, the people of New Orleans should get some lessons form the Dutch on how to protect their city.

  24. #24
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I think everyone knew BP would pay.

    But instead of working with BP, his tone has been confrontational and harsh from the outset. Things would have gone much better if the government and BP could have shown a level of cooperation, as compared to,Obama, "the great one", scolding them like schoolboys and repeating the same old "BP will pay" line at every turn.

    Hopefully in 2012, "Obama will pay".

    As I have said before, find me a reason why BP didn't want to get this stopped and cleaned up, and I'll doubt their efforts.

    On the other side, Obama has plenty of reason to drag this
    out so that he can use this whole event as ammo in his real agenda - no more offshore drilling and the passing of Cap & Trade.



    DING DING DING. WE have a winner!!!! Obama doesn't want the problem to go away. He is generating a true disaster to further his Political Agenda.

  25. #25
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Memphis Tn,USA-now
    Posts
    5,436

    Default

    If they don't make enough money to make a profit,how can they pay their taxes which if I am not mistaken probably pays your salary(if you're a paid FF)?Their profits are being reduced by the amount they are spending on cleanup and well capping efforts instead of pumping oil into US refineries for sale to the public.
    Maybe I missed reading the paper and watching the tv when they said it but I have never heard any BP official announce that they weren't going to pay for the clean up so I don't understand why people are demanding that they pay to clean up the spill.
    Aren't they showing that they are paying by actually trying to drill a relief well so they can reduce the pressure on the spilling well and cap it?It does make cleaning up an oil spill if the source isn't spewing up as much or more as you are cleaning up.
    I guess actually doing something about a problem isn't as important as talking about doing something about the problem is to some people.

    Quote Originally Posted by pvfd27 View Post
    I have to ask, What should BP's role be?? Are you saying they have no financial responsibility in the cleanup?

    Imo, they shouldn't make a penny of profit until THEIR mess is cleaned up.
    Last edited by doughesson; 07-01-2010 at 01:24 PM.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 7 1234 ... Last

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Local FD response to the oil spill?
    By nmfire in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 122
    Last Post: 06-14-2010, 10:48 AM
  2. HOUSTON walked away from this contract
    By Firewalker1 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 05-17-2007, 12:34 AM
  3. World Of Fire Report: 09-11-01 Remembered
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-11-2002, 07:23 AM
  4. AFFF or FFFP
    By Lallo in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-18-2002, 08:34 PM
  5. Today
    By mongofire_99 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-07-2001, 08:52 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register