Hurricane Alex is now churning and pushing that oil to shore. The response boats have had to stop operations and move to shelter.
Let's see how much oil will foul up Texas (and Mexico) now.
Hurricane Alex is now churning and pushing that oil to shore. The response boats have had to stop operations and move to shelter.
Let's see how much oil will foul up Texas (and Mexico) now.
The eye is pretty far to the west, but the bands have been pictured reaching as far east as the spill. Oil and disperent rain is not out of the question, its almost expected along the coast the entire distance between the spill and the west edge of where the hurricane made landfall.
Not to mention the waves (12+ feet) reaching the spill site has made clean up attempts impossible
http://www.cnbc.com/id/37999266/Damage from Gulf Disaster Will Last Lifetime
Published: Wednesday, 30 Jun 2010
By: Ian R. MacDonald, Ph.D.
Can there be anything good to come out of the BP oil spill? In his June 15 speech, President Obama committed to “a long-term plan to restore the unique beauty and bounty of this region.” I am grateful for the plan but ultimately skeptical about whether restoration can really succeed in my lifetime.
A year or so from now, the well will be plugged; the television crews will be gone from Louisiana bayou country; the white sands of the Pensacola beaches will be mostly clear of visible oil; and some glib spokesperson for BP will appear on camera—perhaps even on CNBC—to proclaim, “See, thanks to BP’s unstinting expenditure of many billions of dollars, the region has bounced back.”
This is what was said by oil industry apologists about Prince William Sound after the Exxon Valdez spill. It was untrue then and it will be untrue a year from now.
Despite all the skimmers and sweepers, most of the oil sinks to the bottom or washes up on the shore and then sinks down in shallow layers below the sand, profoundly restructuring the ecosystem. The change cannot be undone in a lifetime.
On a Gulf of Mexico coastline, thousands of species that burrow into the bottom—crabs and worms, snails and clams, fish and sea stars—will now find layers of toxic sludge. Many will die, breaking part of the food chain.
Shore birds and sport fish, oysters and shrimp will still exist, but in fewer numbers. This is what happened in Prince William Sound, where twenty years after Exxon there are still too few herring to support a fishery, fewer herring for the salmon to eat, fewer salmon for bears to eat.
So even when the tourists come back to the beaches, they will be returning to a lesser Gulf of Mexico—no matter how much money BP spreads around. And many of the small businesses that depend on a healthy gulf, that pay directly into our economy through tourism and tax dollars, will not make it. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men could never put Humpty Dumpty together again.
I write these words not in despair, but in the hope that a lesson will be learned. We derive great benefits from healthy ecosystems, but mostly we don’t pay for these benefits. In fact, many corporations reap profits by exploiting the ecosystems that should be considered the common heritage of all humankind.
How might we pay in the future for the privilege of an economy and culture based on hydrocarbon fuel? We could begin by making ourselves pay the true, full cost of oil. This cost includes the risk of catastrophe.
For years, the oil companies have pointed to the economic risks of deep-water oil production and convinced Congress to excuse them from paying royalties and taxes. They prepared for that kind of risk by accruing record profits year after year and cutting costs wherever possible.
What they did not prepare for was what happened when the well exploded on April 20. Then it turned out that they had no equipment, no plan, and no experience that could begin to cope. They should have earned smaller profits and charged a higher price for their oil to prevent and prepare for a catastrophic event. And we should have been willing to pay more as well.
No price is enough to buy back what has been lost, but perhaps we can pay enough to invest in a future beyond a total dependence on oil.
As I've said earlier, the ironic thing is that by the time these coastlines recover from the oil spill, they'll be submerged by the effects of our warming planet. (WHICH IS CAUSED (in large part) BY BURNING OILLLL!!!! BWAHHHAAAHAAAAAHAAAA!!!. . . . .
. . . . . .
)
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Holy cow, has BP finally decided to start taking clean up seriously?
Nope, whistle blower to testify that BP is sinking oil (the dispersent they refuse to stop using) in order avoid paying fines.
Bp is acting in their own interests. Anything to reduce their legal liabilities and put their public persona in a pretty hat. With frills.Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
What's really infuriating (to me) is our government claims they're in charge, but they're also playing hat tricks for the media and what consumers see/read. They're more willing to protect their image than actually protecting US: the people, wildlife, waters and lands.
Thad Allen has fallen down for the legal eagles by keeping media 75 feet away from any of the action, claiming "public safety concerns". But they're not requiring or distributing HEPA masks and proper hazard gear, medical units for all responders or beach dwellers, or telling BP to stop using the Corexit. Even though toxicologists and marine biologists have said the dispersant is not just masking problems but making them worse.
(What you can't see won't bother you.)
But Bp has a new tv commercial (without Hayward) to tell us what they're doing. They care about us. They have a heart. They're sorry. They're on top of it all. Really.
So much for transparency
Remember folks, BP is a victim of being strong armed by the governmentCNN reporter Anderson Cooper says, "A new law passed today, and back by the force of law and the threat of fines and felony charges, ... will prevent reporters and photographers from getting anywhere close to booms and oil-soaked wildlife just about any place we need to be. By now you're probably familiar with cleanup crews stiff-arming the media, private security blocking cameras, ordinary workers clamming up, some not even saying who they're working for because they're afraid of losing their jobs."
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 07-04-2010 at 01:43 PM.
Like I said, the safety claim is BS. Wonder if they "own" the airspace, too. Use some helicopters with telescopic cameras.
Concern over the risk of damage to equipment makes a lot more sense, but really this new rule is so odd I have to wonder if there isn't something going on that the reporter doesn't mention or doesn't know. Something that's not OG's constant assumption of conspiracy.Like I said, the safety claim is BS. Wonder if they "own" the airspace, too. Use some helicopters with telescopic cameras.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Damage to booms, that can be damaged by high waves and hurricanes anyway? Because that's the only "equipment" out there. There are already mariner rules about how close you can get to bigger boats and ships and who has Right of Way. They've already restricted fishing in most areas, so it's not like fishermen "get in the way".
Again, if the government truly cared for public safety and health, they'd mandate respirators and Hazmat gear for every clean-up worker, they'd close public beaches when needed, they'd post clear Danger Signs---just as they do for dangerous surf or weather conditions.
Bp only cares about being sued. That's why they're happy letting the government set the rules, and ignore potential liability. They'd say to a judge, "You can't hold us liable for jobless claims, when it was government that closed the beaches....You can't hold us liable for future illness/injury, when it was the government that didn't close the beaches....."
Oil lands in Texas. Oil has finally spread to all 5 Gulf states, a span of over 500 miles.
BP also admitted to faulty safety practices. You think?
Why the heavy blame on BP given the US laws on this that clearly got in the way?
There are US laws that restrict the building of land dikes? Or the proper use of oil booms? RTFA, its about more than just the ship skimmers.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 07-06-2010 at 04:25 PM.
What's it called, the Jones Act or something, that prohibits foreign ships from working in US oceans. It can be lifted by a Presidential order. I recall reading Bush did that after one of the larger hurricanes.
I'm not sure I get this... according to the article, it's the US govt. that's been acting weird
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The government isn't being helpful, old and new laws are popping up that are restricting both clean up and observation.
But clean up has always been an BP run affair, which sadly seems to have allowed the problem to become much worse than it should have been. Slow response, slow funding, sinking oil to avoid cleaning it, outdated and incorrect procedures. Name a corner that could be trimmed, and BP's already beat you to it.
So now you're attacking BP for not breaking an American law?
Hope is the denial of reality
Only you could make that connection Loki.
Spoiler:
No I get what you're saying about BP cutting corners, I'm just saying that the article seems to make it pretty clear that the problems it brings up have been on the govt's part. Eg. not permitting the use of efficient cleanup tech, not allowing it to be managed by experienced personnel, etc.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
They were technically not allowed to use those skimmers even if they'd been American, going by the article.Only you could make that connection Loki.
Spoiler:
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
But this is BP, I think I recall someone on here even claiming something like "who would have more experienced personnel than BP?"
BP has also "personally" turned down the help of deep water groups. Such as the people who worked with the Titanic wreck.
There is nothing stopping BP from hiring smarter and more experienced personnel, except for BP's bottom line.
correct, which is why I assume the dutch has them, and not us.
Yes yes yes but what I'm saying is that the article you posted and what you're saying about that article don't match up, and now you've gone from talking about the article to talking about something someone may have said sometime in this thread.But this is BP, I think I recall someone on here even claiming something like "who would have more experienced personnel then BP?"
BP cutting corners and doing irresponsible things in order to save money, that's a bad thing. The US govt. doing lots of stupid things to make this worse than it has to be, that's also bad. Going by that article, the US govt. did some stupid things in managing this oil spill, and I get that Dread would wonder why anyone reading that article would place so much of the blame solely on BP.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The disaster plan mainly. The one that the dutch offered, including land dikes, and BP has thus far turned down and denied funding local governments in constructing.
Also found Loki's BP is better prepared post.
You're expecting OG to criticize Obama (pbuh)?
Hope is the denial of reality
Its almost as if you completely ignored all of my transparency complaints, just to stick with your regular schedule of popping in to drop a zinging 1 liner without adding anything to the discussion.
Amazing ain't it?
Unions?
I dunno about the funding, but your article seems to attribute the problems with the disaster plan (including the super skimmers and the dikes
Better prepared than the army corps of engineers yesAlso found Loki's BP is better prepared post.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The US government is "in charge", but they rely on Bp's "experts" to be honest and make wise recommendations. Neither is doing a bang-up job. Even MMS and Fish and Wildlife agencies passed the buck on Preparedness Plans. The Dutch must look at us and roll their eyes.
Just because they worked around the Titanic wreck doesn't mean they have relevant experience. If I had to take a guess, I would speculate that being able to take a submersible down to the Titanic at 12,500 feet and take photos is different than operating drills, pumps and other specialized equipment at 5000 feet. Ever hear of too many cooks in the kitchen?But this is BP, I think I recall someone on here even claiming something like "who would have more experienced personnel than BP?"
BP has also "personally" turned down the help of deep water groups. Such as the people who worked with the Titanic wreck.
There is nothing stopping BP from hiring smarter and more experienced personnel, except for BP's bottom line.
Yup, agreed.
You realize how many submersibles BP was operating down there (or how many operators it takes to manage all the moving parts on one)? They had to shut down operations less than 2 weeks ago because they drove one of the machines into a containment cap
Yet again, you are fabricating your own information to fill in the gaps. No one made any claims about drilling or pumping.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 07-06-2010 at 08:02 PM.
So, I say again, ever hear of too many cooks in the kitchen?
I'm not fabricating information, I'm speculating about why they might reject such an offer. You're fabricating that it's some kind of malicious issue, while still admitting they already have submersibles.
Let's also not forget that you're making up that the folks who work with the Titanic offered help in such a manner. James fucking Cameron offered help. Big difference. Though they did reject a $200,000 extra estimate by Woods Hole early in the process, which the Coast Guard later requested.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote