Why isn't the Tea Party protesting BP?

The Jones Act Myth
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...l-spill/58915/
The truth: Not a single government that has offered its assets for free
has been refused by the U.S. ... The government, on Obama's orders, is
moving to quickly streamline the complicated procedures for waiving the
Jones Act, which only applies to ships within three miles off the coast.
The Coast Guard says that no one has asked them to waive the Jones Act
yet. ... Most of the containment and assistance offers wouldn't apply,
because ships would be well outside the three-mile threshold, or because
they fall into a category of ships with a specific purpose, like oil
skimmers. They're already exempt.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

http://www.whitehouse.gov/deepwater-bp-oil-spill/

Deepwater BP Oil Spill
"To the people of the Gulf Coast: I know that you've weathered your fair
share of trials and tragedy. I know there have been times where you've
wondered if you were being asked to face them alone. I am here to tell
you that you're not alone. You will not be abandoned. You will not be
left behind."
-- President Barack Obama, U.S. Coast Guard Station, Grande Isle,
Louisiana, 5/28/10

Read the Transcript
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...g-bp-oil-spill
Download Video: mp4 (136MB)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/videos/201...randIsleLA.mp4
mp3 (13MB)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/videos/201...randIsleLA.mp3

Information on Spill-Related Damages and Claims
Fishermen and those affected by the BP Oil Spill who wish to contact BP
about a claim should call 1-800-440-0858. For those who have already
pursued the BP claims process and are not satisfied with BP's
resolution, can call the Coast Guard at 1-800-280-7118. For more
information on assistance for small business owners and others in
affected areas, visit
http://www.disasterassistance.gov/di...deepwater.html

What You Can Do
Request volunteer information and register to volunteer: (866)-448-5816
Submit your vessel as a vessel of opportunity skimming system or submit
alternative response technology, services or products: (281) 366-5511
Report oiled or injured wildlife: 1-866-557-1401
Report oil on land: 1-866-448-5816

State specific volunteer opportunities:
Louisiana
http://www.volunteerlouisiana.gov

Mississippi
http://www.volunteermississippi.org/...IndexAction.do

Florida
http://www.volunteerfloridadisaster.org

Alabama
http://www.servealabama.gov/2010/default.aspx


Federal Response Resources
Check out the links below to find out how federal departments and
agencies are responding to the Deepwater BP Oil Spill:

Joint Information Center
At the beginning of the event, the Coast Guard elevated the response and
established a Regional Command Center and Joint Information Center in
Robert, La., inviting all partners in the response to join. Get the
latest updates from the partners on the ground in the Gulf Coast:
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com
*
Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/DeepwaterHorizonResponse

Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/deepwaterhorizonresponse/

Twitter
http://twitter.com/Oil_Spill_2010

YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/deepwaterhorizonjic

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Since the moments after the oil rig explosion on the night of April 20,
DHS has played a lead role in federal response efforts — deploying the
U.S. Coast Guard to search and rescue the 126 people aboard the rig, and
quickly leading efforts to establish a command center on the Gulf Coast
to address the potential environmental impact of the event and to
coordinate with all state and local governments. Secretary Napolitano
leads the National Response Team, an organization of 16 federal
departments and agencies responsible for coordinating emergency
preparedness and response to oil and hazardous substance pollution
events.


U.S. Coast Guard
The Coast Guard has played a major role from the very beginning, when it
responded to the explosion on a search and rescue mission to save lives.
Pursuant to the National Contingency Plan, Rear Admiral Mary Landry was
named the Federal On-Scene Coordinator to lead a Regional Response Team
which was stood up that included DHS, DOC/NOAA, DOI and the EPA, as well
as state and local representatives. As the event escalated, Coast Guard
Admiral Thad Allen was announced as the National Incident Commander for
the administration's continued, coordinated response — providing
additional coordinated oversight in leveraging every available resource
to respond to the BP oil spill and minimize the associated environmental
risks.

Department of the Interior (DOI)
The morning after the explosion, Secretary of the Interior deployed
Deputy Secretary David J. Hayes to the Gulf Coast to assist with
coordination and response to the event, and provide hourly reports back
to the administration. Since then, DOI has played a vital role in
overseeing BP's response efforts while — at the President's request
— working to deliver a report with recommendations on what, if any,
additional safety measures should be required for offshore operations.
Secretary Salazar has announced that inspections of all deepwater rigs
and platforms are underway.


Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Since the BP Oil Spill, EPA has provided full support to the U.S. Coast
Guard and is monitoring and responding to potential public health and
environmental concerns. Environmental data, including air quality and
water samples, will be posted and frequently updated on this site as it
is collected and validated by EPA's response teams along the impacted
coastlines. This data is meant to determine potential risks to public
health and the environment:
http://www.epa.gov/bpspill


National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
As the nation's leading scientific resource for oil spills, NOAA has
been on the scene of the Deepwater Horizon spill from the start,
providing coordinated scientific weather and biological response
services to federal, state and local organizations:
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/deepwaterhorizon
Weather Forecast: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lix/

Small Business Administration
SBA is making low-interest loans available to small businesses in the
Gulf Coast regions of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi
suffering financial losses following the April 20 Deepwater BP oil spill
that shut down commercial and recreational fishing in the Gulf of
Mexico. SBA's Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) are available
immediately in designated counties and parishes of each of the four
states to help meet the financial needs of qualifying small businesses
following the oil spill:
http://www.sba.gov/services/disasterassistance/


Department of Defense (DOD)
DOD continues to support the ongoing response effort by lending Naval
and Air Force bases to provide vital staging areas for boom deployments
and other activities, and providing C-130 aircraft equipped with Modular
Aerial Spray Systems, which dispense chemical dispersant — capable of
covering up to 250 acres per flight. DOD also plays a significant role
in the National Response Team, helping to lead the coordination of
response actions for the federal government. Secretary of Defense Gates
has authorized use of Title 32 status for up to 17,500 National Guard
members in four states: Alabama (3,000), Florida (2,500), Louisiana
(6,000) and Mississippi (6,000).


Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service
The Fish and Wildlife Service continues to support the joint agency
response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico with
experienced specialists, land managers, and support personnel. Booms to
capture and deflect anticipated oil are being deployed at Breton
National Wildlife Refuge, where thousands of brown pelicans and
shorebirds are currently nesting. The Service also is initiating Natural
Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration activities in this incident
to assess and address the long-term damage to impacted resources:
http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill


Department of the Interior's National Park Service
The National Park Service is focused on human safety and resource
protection in eight national parks in the Gulf area. These parks are
working to assess resources, collect baseline data, coordinate boom
placements, plan for responsible cleanup, install barriers for shore
bird and turtle nest protection, and plan for potential park closures,
if necessary:
http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/oil-spill-response.htm


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Oil spill response workers may be exposed to many different chemical,
physical, biological, and psychological hazards. These hazards vary
depending on the type and location of the oil spill, type and stage of
response, degree of coordination between entities involved in response
and recovery, and the workers' specific tasks. Therefore, occupational
and environmental hazards need to be identified, assessed, and monitored
in each oil spill response:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/oilspillresponse

Daily Updates
A chronology of the ongoing administration-wide response to the
Deepwater BP Oil Spill, beginning on April 20, is available here.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/issue...r-BP-Oil-Spill

Information on Air, Food, and Water Safety
Air: With the prevalence of vapor concerns from oil near the Gulf coast
and the controlled burning to help contain the spread of oil, air
quality is a health concern. EPA has initiated an air monitoring effort
to ensure the safety of local residents and track any developing air
quality changes.

Food:
http://www.fda.gov/Food/ucm210970.htm
Although crude oil has the potential to taint seafood with flavors and
odors caused by exposure to hydrocarbon chemicals, the public should not
be concerned about the safety of seafood in stores at this time.
There is no reason to believe that any contaminated product has made its
way to the market.

Water:
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/
NOAA is restricting fishing for a minimum of ten days in federal waters
most affected by the BP oil spill, largely between Louisiana state
waters at the mouth of the Mississippi River to waters off Florida's
Pensacola Bay. The closure is effective immediately.
Fishermen who wish to contact BP about a claim should call
1-800-440-0858.


Related Blog Posts
July 01, 2010 6:11 PM EDT
Vice President Biden's Visit to the Gulf Coast
Vice President Biden travels to the Gulf Coast to assess the ongoing
efforts to counter the BP oil spill -- get a first hand account with
photos.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/...t-gulf-coast-0

July 01, 2010 10:15 AM EDT
The Ongoing Administration-Wide Response to the Deepwater BP Oil Spill:

June 30, 2010
President Obama sends a memorandum to the heads of Executive Departments
and Agencies regarding the Long-Term Gulf Coast Restoration Support Plan
to create a plan of federal support for the long-term economic and
environmental restoration of the Gulf Coast region.

June 30, 2010 9:42 AM EDT
The Ongoing Administration-Wide Response to the Deepwater BP Oil Spill:

June 29, 2010
Vice President Joe Biden visits New Orleans and Pensacola, Fla., to
survey the response efforts, visit with Gulf Coast residents impacted by
the spill, and meet with area officials.
view all related blog posts
Related Video

June 18, 2010
West Wing Week: "Gator-cade" From the Press Office

July 01, 2010 7:26 PM EDT
Readout of the President's Briefing Today on the BP Deepwater Horizon
Oil Spill

July 01, 2010 7:01 PM EDT
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and National Incident
Commander Thad Allen, 7/1/2010

June 25, 2010 12:38 PM EDT
Vice President Biden to Travel to Gulf Coast Next

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


The Official Site Of The Deepwater Horizon Unified Command
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/site/2931/

GeoPlatform.gov/gulfresponse is a new online tool that provides you with
near-real time information about the response effort.
Developed by NOAA with the EPA, U.S. Coast Guard, and the Department of
Interior, the site offers you a "one-stop shop" for spill response
information.
http://www.geoplatform.gov/gulfresponse/


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...n-bp-oil-spill

EPA Responds to the BP Oil Spill along the Gulf Coast
http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/

http://www.epa.gov/newsroom/

British Petroleum - BP Global
Gulf of Mexico response - Offshore containment - Reports from the Gulf-
Total oil recovered from both the lower marine riser package (LMRP)
containment cap and Q4000 systems
http://www.BP.com/GulfOfMexicoResponse

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

The White House. President Barack Obama

The White House Blog
http://m.whitehouse.gov/blog

Briefing Room
http://m.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room

Issues
http://m.whitehouse.gov/issues

Photo Galleries
http://m.whitehouse.gov/mobile/photo

Video Galleries
http://m.whitehouse.gov/mobile/videos

http://whitehouse.gov/live

The Administration
http://m.whitehouse.gov/administration
http://m.whitehouse.gov/about
http://m.whitehouse.gov/our-government
http://m.whitehouse.gov/our-government/resources


http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/obamahq

http://my.barackobama.com/CleanEnergyUpdate

http://www.healthreform.gov/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 12:35:47 -0400, QuiGon7x wrote:

>
> The Jones Act Myth
> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...l-spill/58915/
> The truth: Not a single government that has offered its assets for free
> has been refused by the U.S. ... The government, on Obama's orders, is
> moving to quickly streamline the complicated procedures for waiving the
> Jones Act, which only applies to ships within three miles off the coast.
> The Coast Guard says that no one has asked them to waive the Jones Act
> yet. ... Most of the containment and assistance offers wouldn't apply,
> because ships would be well outside the three-mile threshold, or because
> they fall into a category of ships with a specific purpose, like oil
> skimmers. They're already exempt.

Then why did one country's Foreign Minister say, when they contacted the
Obama administration, they were told, "Thanks, but no thanks"?

As to why the TP isn't protesting BP, they're doing what they can to stop
the leak. Who's not is Obungler. Since you brought up the Jones Act, WHY
weren't the oil skimmers brought in when they would have done more good?
(Google it: they work best before the oil has a chance to spread)? Why
were coutreis with expertise told, "Thanks but no thanks"?

The real problem here is P_B: Preident (o)Bama.

Why are the lefties ranting about this like they did Katrina? Because
Obungler went there and ate some seafood? "It...was...delicious."

wrote in
:

> The Jones Act Myth
> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...rop-alert-the-
> jones-act-and-the-oil-spill/58915/ The truth: Not a single government
> that has offered its assets for free has been refused by the U.S. ...



If by "assets" you mean the men and equipment necessary to immediately
attack the leak and prevent it from hitting shore, then this is flatly
false. The Dutch made such an offer repeatedly, and let the offer stand
from April 23, well into May. They were refused by the US.

The Dutch did far more than that, too: The offered to help the US come up
with an emergency contingency plan to protect Louisiana beaches with sand
berms.

More, he
<http://www.financialpost.com/Avertible+catastrophe/3203808/story.html>




> The government, on Obama's orders, is moving to quickly streamline the
> complicated procedures for waiving the Jones Act, which only applies
> to ships within three miles off the coast.




"Quickly"? You mean they're now moving "quickly" to close the barn door
after the horse has emigrated to another country.

Obama could have immediately issued an Executive Order suspending the Jones
Act until the shoreline was protected and the oil leak plugged.

He never did.

Obama and Congress cared more for their personal political gain than they
did for the environment




The Coast Guard says that
> no one has asked them to waive the Jones Act yet. ... Most of the
> containment and assistance offers wouldn't apply, because ships would
> be well outside the three-mile threshold, or because they fall into a
> category of ships with a specific purpose, like oil skimmers. They're
> already exempt.



"Skimmers" were an appallingly stupid and inadequate response to the spill.
The Dutch did not offer "skimmers".

More, he
<http://www.financialpost.com/Avertible+catastrophe/3203808/story.html>


--
Tegger

Tegger wrote:
>
> wrote in
> :
>
> > The Jones Act Myth
> > http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...rop-alert-the-
> > jones-act-and-the-oil-spill/58915/ The truth: Not a single government
> > that has offered its assets for free has been refused by the U.S. ...
>
> If by "assets" you mean the men and equipment necessary to immediately
> attack the leak and prevent it from hitting shore, then this is flatly
> false. The Dutch made such an offer repeatedly, and let the offer stand
> from April 23, well into May. They were refused by the US.

You can repeat your lies over and over. But they are still lies.

The Dutch did not offer anything for free. The Dutch government
attempted to promote the services and products of some Dutch businesses
that wanted to make a profit from the spill. The US government passed
the Dutch offers on to BP. BP purchased 3 Dutch skimmers in May.

According to US law BP is required to have a plan and equipment in
place to deal with the worst case possible spill. According to BP at the
beginning of May the leak was 1000 barrels/day and BP had certified
under penalty of law that they had the equipment in place to clean up a
spill of 150,000 barrels/day.

And back in May, Tegger (who now claims to be a concerned
environmentalist lol) was saying that the oil spill was no big deal. It
was no worse than the oil that naturally leaks from the Gulf sea bed.
The very same people that for months were saying the response to the
spill was way overblown are now saying that not enough was done in the
beginning.



> The Dutch did far more than that, too: The offered to help the US come up
> with an emergency contingency plan to protect Louisiana beaches with sand
> berms.
>

The Dutch know about as much about Gulf of Mexico coastal waters as
they know about the geography of Pluto. The Dutch skimmers have turned
out to be ineffective at cleaning up the spill in the Gulf. BP, for
political reasons, has been forced to waste resources buying crappy
equipment.

The Governor of Mississippi has been very critical of those Louisiana
sand berms, According to him it is a huge waste of clean up resources
and it directs the currents and the oil down into Mississippi. Again
this sand berm thing is mostly a political stunt engineered by the
Governor of Louisiana. The first big wave from a hurricane and all that
work will be washed away.



> More, he
> <http://www.financialpost.com/Avertible+catastrophe/3203808/story.html>
>
> > The government, on Obama's orders, is moving to quickly streamline the
> > complicated procedures for waiving the Jones Act, which only applies
> > to ships within three miles off the coast.
>
> "Quickly"? You mean they're now moving "quickly" to close the barn door
> after the horse has emigrated to another country.
>
> Obama could have immediately issued an Executive Order suspending the Jones
> Act until the shoreline was protected and the oil leak plugged.
>
> He never did.

You are simply ignorant of the law - there is no reason to suspend a
law that isn't applicable. The "Jones Act" has not one thing to do with
the oil in the Gulf. Foreign ships have been involved in cleaning up the
spill since April.

>
> Obama and Congress cared more for their personal political gain than they
> did for the environment
>
> The Coast Guard says that
> > no one has asked them to waive the Jones Act yet. ... Most of the
> > containment and assistance offers wouldn't apply, because ships would
> > be well outside the three-mile threshold, or because they fall into a
> > category of ships with a specific purpose, like oil skimmers. They're
> > already exempt.
>
> "Skimmers" were an appallingly stupid and inadequate response to the spill.
> The Dutch did not offer "skimmers".
>

Have you changed your tune? According to you the Dutch did offer
skimmers. And according to you it was supposed to be the silver bullet
that solved everything.

Yes the Dutch skimmers are not very good at cleaning up the Gulf
spill. In fact nothing the Dutch has been trying to sell is very good.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:34:17 -0500, jim wrote:

>> The Dutch did far more than that, too: The offered to help the US come
>> up with an emergency contingency plan to protect Louisiana beaches with
>> sand berms.
>>
>>
> The Dutch know about as much about Gulf of Mexico coastal waters as they
> know about the geography of Pluto. The Dutch skimmers have turned out to
> be ineffective at cleaning up the spill in the Gulf.

The sooner the skimmers start operation, when the oil is thick, the more
effective they are at collecting oil. They are only 1/3 efficient when the
oil becomes a 'sheen', which is about the time the Obungler administration
allowed them in.

If this had been on Bush's watch all the k00ks would be saying "Why isn't
he DOING antyhing, but since it's Obungler's watch I guess they just
figure the oil on the water makes it easier for him to walk on it.

Amazing. You know, Obama's not really black? That's the Teflon coating
you're seeing...

In article >,
"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net says...
>
> Tegger wrote:
> >
> > wrote in
> > :
> >
> > > The Jones Act Myth
> > > http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...rop-alert-the-
> > > jones-act-and-the-oil-spill/58915/ The truth: Not a single government
> > > that has offered its assets for free has been refused by the U.S. ...
> >
> > If by "assets" you mean the men and equipment necessary to immediately
> > attack the leak and prevent it from hitting shore, then this is flatly
> > false. The Dutch made such an offer repeatedly, and let the offer stand
> > from April 23, well into May. They were refused by the US.
>
> You can repeat your lies over and over. But they are still lies.
>
> The Dutch did not offer anything for free. The Dutch government
> attempted to promote the services and products of some Dutch businesses
> that wanted to make a profit from the spill. The US government passed
> the Dutch offers on to BP. BP purchased 3 Dutch skimmers in May.
>
> According to US law BP is required to have a plan and equipment in
> place to deal with the worst case possible spill. According to BP at the
> beginning of May the leak was 1000 barrels/day and BP had certified
> under penalty of law that they had the equipment in place to clean up a
> spill of 150,000 barrels/day.
>
> And back in May, Tegger (who now claims to be a concerned
> environmentalist lol) was saying that the oil spill was no big deal. It
> was no worse than the oil that naturally leaks from the Gulf sea bed.
> The very same people that for months were saying the response to the
> spill was way overblown are now saying that not enough was done in the
> beginning.
>
>
>
> > The Dutch did far more than that, too: The offered to help the US come up
> > with an emergency contingency plan to protect Louisiana beaches with sand
> > berms.
> >
>
> The Dutch know about as much about Gulf of Mexico coastal waters as
> they know about the geography of Pluto. The Dutch skimmers have turned
> out to be ineffective at cleaning up the spill in the Gulf. BP, for
> political reasons, has been forced to waste resources buying crappy
> equipment.
>
> The Governor of Mississippi has been very critical of those Louisiana
> sand berms, According to him it is a huge waste of clean up resources
> and it directs the currents and the oil down into Mississippi. Again
> this sand berm thing is mostly a political stunt engineered by the
> Governor of Louisiana. The first big wave from a hurricane and all that
> work will be washed away.
>
>
>
> > More, he
> > <http://www.financialpost.com/Avertible+catastrophe/3203808/story.html>
> >
> > > The government, on Obama's orders, is moving to quickly streamline the
> > > complicated procedures for waiving the Jones Act, which only applies
> > > to ships within three miles off the coast.
> >
> > "Quickly"? You mean they're now moving "quickly" to close the barn door
> > after the horse has emigrated to another country.
> >
> > Obama could have immediately issued an Executive Order suspending the Jones
> > Act until the shoreline was protected and the oil leak plugged.
> >
> > He never did.
>
> You are simply ignorant of the law - there is no reason to suspend a
> law that isn't applicable. The "Jones Act" has not one thing to do with
> the oil in the Gulf. Foreign ships have been involved in cleaning up the
> spill since April.
>
> >
> > Obama and Congress cared more for their personal political gain than they
> > did for the environment
> >
> > The Coast Guard says that
> > > no one has asked them to waive the Jones Act yet. ... Most of the
> > > containment and assistance offers wouldn't apply, because ships would
> > > be well outside the three-mile threshold, or because they fall into a
> > > category of ships with a specific purpose, like oil skimmers. They're
> > > already exempt.
> >
> > "Skimmers" were an appallingly stupid and inadequate response to the spill.
> > The Dutch did not offer "skimmers".
> >
>
> Have you changed your tune? According to you the Dutch did offer
> skimmers. And according to you it was supposed to be the silver bullet
> that solved everything.
>
> Yes the Dutch skimmers are not very good at cleaning up the Gulf
> spill. In fact nothing the Dutch has been trying to sell is very good.

I agree with all you've said.
With the caveat that it's hard to separate fact and fiction at this
point.
Anybody mentioning the "Jones Act" is automatically suspect in my book.
Irrelevant, and spoken from either ignorance or politics.
All these so-called "offers of aid" are commercial offers.
There is no reason in the world to think the Dutch are experts on Gulf
of Mexico oil spills.
Like it or not, BP and the other oil industry experts working with them,
are the experts.
And the Army Corp of Engineers are the experts on the estuaries of the
Gulf. The Mississippi river and the Gulf fisheries and wetlands are not
the North Sea.
Having said all that, in my opinion the government never showed the
"sense of urgency" this disaster required.
More resources should have been applied earlier, whether foreign or not,
expensive or not. BP will foot the bill in any case, but even that
isn't important when it comes to saving our natural resources.
Even now the command structure isn't clearly defined or evidenced.
The oil hitting the LA marshes was preventable.
The issue of dispersants has not been properly aired, and there has been
an overall lack of transparency in the entire effort.
This really called for a military command operation with strict lines of
accountability, daily press conferences, etc, etc.
There is no excuse for the confusion reigning in the LA parishes and the
seeming lack of communications between the different parties working to
prevent oil invasion and clean up where it has invaded.
The buck stops with Obama, and IMO he has failed here.
I'll wait for the studies and books to come out before coming to a final
opinion, but for now it just looks to be barely avoiding being called a
plain old cluster****.

Bob Cooper wrote:

> In article >,
> "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net says...
> >
> > Tegger wrote:
> > >
> > > wrote in
> > > :
> > >
> > > > The Jones Act Myth
> > > > http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...rop-alert-the-
> > > > jones-act-and-the-oil-spill/58915/ The truth: Not a single government
> > > > that has offered its assets for free has been refused by the U.S. ...
> > >
> > > If by "assets" you mean the men and equipment necessary to immediately
> > > attack the leak and prevent it from hitting shore, then this is flatly
> > > false. The Dutch made such an offer repeatedly, and let the offer stand
> > > from April 23, well into May. They were refused by the US.
> >
> > You can repeat your lies over and over. But they are still lies.
> >
> > The Dutch did not offer anything for free. The Dutch government
> > attempted to promote the services and products of some Dutch businesses
> > that wanted to make a profit from the spill. The US government passed
> > the Dutch offers on to BP. BP purchased 3 Dutch skimmers in May.
> >
> > According to US law BP is required to have a plan and equipment in
> > place to deal with the worst case possible spill. According to BP at the
> > beginning of May the leak was 1000 barrels/day and BP had certified
> > under penalty of law that they had the equipment in place to clean up a
> > spill of 150,000 barrels/day.
> >
> > And back in May, Tegger (who now claims to be a concerned
> > environmentalist lol) was saying that the oil spill was no big deal. It
> > was no worse than the oil that naturally leaks from the Gulf sea bed.
> > The very same people that for months were saying the response to the
> > spill was way overblown are now saying that not enough was done in the
> > beginning.
> >
> >
> >
> > > The Dutch did far more than that, too: The offered to help the US come up
> > > with an emergency contingency plan to protect Louisiana beaches with sand
> > > berms.
> > >
> >
> > The Dutch know about as much about Gulf of Mexico coastal waters as
> > they know about the geography of Pluto. The Dutch skimmers have turned
> > out to be ineffective at cleaning up the spill in the Gulf. BP, for
> > political reasons, has been forced to waste resources buying crappy
> > equipment.
> >
> > The Governor of Mississippi has been very critical of those Louisiana
> > sand berms, According to him it is a huge waste of clean up resources
> > and it directs the currents and the oil down into Mississippi. Again
> > this sand berm thing is mostly a political stunt engineered by the
> > Governor of Louisiana. The first big wave from a hurricane and all that
> > work will be washed away.
> >
> >
> >
> > > More, he
> > > <http://www.financialpost.com/Avertible+catastrophe/3203808/story.html>
> > >
> > > > The government, on Obama's orders, is moving to quickly streamline the
> > > > complicated procedures for waiving the Jones Act, which only applies
> > > > to ships within three miles off the coast.
> > >
> > > "Quickly"? You mean they're now moving "quickly" to close the barn door
> > > after the horse has emigrated to another country.
> > >
> > > Obama could have immediately issued an Executive Order suspending the Jones
> > > Act until the shoreline was protected and the oil leak plugged.
> > >
> > > He never did.
> >
> > You are simply ignorant of the law - there is no reason to suspend a
> > law that isn't applicable. The "Jones Act" has not one thing to do with
> > the oil in the Gulf. Foreign ships have been involved in cleaning up the
> > spill since April.
> >
> > >
> > > Obama and Congress cared more for their personal political gain than they
> > > did for the environment
> > >
> > > The Coast Guard says that
> > > > no one has asked them to waive the Jones Act yet. ... Most of the
> > > > containment and assistance offers wouldn't apply, because ships would
> > > > be well outside the three-mile threshold, or because they fall into a
> > > > category of ships with a specific purpose, like oil skimmers. They're
> > > > already exempt.
> > >
> > > "Skimmers" were an appallingly stupid and inadequate response to the spill.
> > > The Dutch did not offer "skimmers".
> > >
> >
> > Have you changed your tune? According to you the Dutch did offer
> > skimmers. And according to you it was supposed to be the silver bullet
> > that solved everything.
> >
> > Yes the Dutch skimmers are not very good at cleaning up the Gulf
> > spill. In fact nothing the Dutch has been trying to sell is very good.
>
> I agree with all you've said.
> With the caveat that it's hard to separate fact and fiction at this
> point.
> Anybody mentioning the "Jones Act" is automatically suspect in my book.
> Irrelevant, and spoken from either ignorance or politics.
> All these so-called "offers of aid" are commercial offers.
> There is no reason in the world to think the Dutch are experts on Gulf
> of Mexico oil spills.
> Like it or not, BP and the other oil industry experts working with them,
> are the experts.
> And the Army Corp of Engineers are the experts on the estuaries of the
> Gulf. The Mississippi river and the Gulf fisheries and wetlands are not
> the North Sea.
> Having said all that, in my opinion the government never showed the
> "sense of urgency" this disaster required.
> More resources should have been applied earlier, whether foreign or not,
> expensive or not. BP will foot the bill in any case, but even that
> isn't important when it comes to saving our natural resources.
> Even now the command structure isn't clearly defined or evidenced.
> The oil hitting the LA marshes was preventable.
> The issue of dispersants has not been properly aired, and there has been
> an overall lack of transparency in the entire effort.
> This really called for a military command operation with strict lines of
> accountability, daily press conferences, etc, etc.
> There is no excuse for the confusion reigning in the LA parishes and the
> seeming lack of communications between the different parties working to
> prevent oil invasion and clean up where it has invaded.
> The buck stops with Obama, and IMO he has failed here.
> I'll wait for the studies and books to come out before coming to a final
> opinion, but for now it just looks to be barely avoiding being called a
> plain old cluster****.

There is very little to disagree with in that statement.

But bear this in mind:

The amount of oil that has leaked has been consistently under reported. We don't
really know how big this will end up being. BP could be responsible for as much as
$4000/barrel in fines plus all the cost of cleaning up the oil and restoring the
marshes, beaches and coastline. Those costs alone could easily add up to as much
or more than BP's US assets are worth. That means both BP and current
administration may already be lame ducks as a result of this and that isn't a very
pleasant thought to contemplate with the oil still flowing.

In the end this is going to be a Game Changer. The cost of this cleanup is
going to have a huge dampening effect on investment in oil exploration -
particularly in the US, but even world wide. This is going to change everything .
One way or the other the cost of petroleum just got a whole lot more expensive -
particularly for Americans. Maybe not today, but very soon. Wall street is not made
up of philanthropists. They are not going to bear this cost and they are not going
to risk bearing similar costs in the future. The users of petroleum will be the
ones who pay.

-jim

=?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= > wrote:
>
>The real problem here is P_B: Preident (o)Bama.

You want some kind of miracle here? You want the president to just wave
his arms and make it all go away? I'd like that too, but I don't think
that is going to happen and I don't expect it.

>Why are the lefties ranting about this like they did Katrina? Because
>Obungler went there and ate some seafood? "It...was...delicious."

Well, in the case of Katrina some of the problem was actually caused by
government-funded and promoted rerouting of waterways and land reclamation.

You can argue that some of the current problem is caused by a lack of
proper government regulation of drilling, but I think that's really just
trying to move the blame around. This particular disaster was exclusively
the result of BP's corner-cutting.

But, just like Katrina, it happened, and there isn't going to be any
wonderful miracle that will make everything go away. It's going to be
ugly, and it's going to take a lot of time, and there really is not much
that the government can do that will make things better.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:09:21 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= >
> wrote:
>>
>>The real problem here is P_B: Preident (o)Bama.
>
> You want some kind of miracle here? You want the president to just wave
> his arms and make it all go away? I'd like that too, but I don't think
> that is going to happen and I don't expect it.

Nope. Not what I'm expecting. But there were plenty expecting it of Bush
during Katrina. Obungler could have accepted assistance from others.


>
>>Why are the lefties ranting about this like they did Katrina? Because
>>Obungler went there and ate some seafood? "It...was...delicious."
>
> Well, in the case of Katrina some of the problem was actually caused by
> government-funded and promoted rerouting of waterways and land
> reclamation.

So, it was Bush's fault?


>
> You can argue that some of the current problem is caused by a lack of
> proper government regulation of drilling, but I think that's really just
> trying to move the blame around. This particular disaster was exclusively
> the result of BP's corner-cutting.


The rig passed a safety inspection with flying colors months before the
explosion.

>
> But, just like Katrina, it happened, and there isn't going to be any
> wonderful miracle that will make everything go away. It's going to be
> ugly, and it's going to take a lot of time, and there really is not much
> that the government can do that will make things better. --scott


Exactly. You know that, I know that. But it's funny that the bunch that
would have been howling at Bush are silent now.

That's the only real problem I have. They know Obama can't really do
anything about it, just like Bush couldn't.

=?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= > wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:09:21 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>The real problem here is P_B: Preident (o)Bama.
>>
>> You want some kind of miracle here? You want the president to just wave
>> his arms and make it all go away? I'd like that too, but I don't think
>> that is going to happen and I don't expect it.
>
>Nope. Not what I'm expecting. But there were plenty expecting it of Bush
>during Katrina. Obungler could have accepted assistance from others.

You expect immediate response from a government that is specifically designed
to be slow and careful about making decisions. That slowness and deliberation
is what makes the American government so successful. It has a downside in
times of crisis. Sorry about that.

>>>Why are the lefties ranting about this like they did Katrina? Because
>>>Obungler went there and ate some seafood? "It...was...delicious."
>>
>> Well, in the case of Katrina some of the problem was actually caused by
>> government-funded and promoted rerouting of waterways and land
>> reclamation.
>
>So, it was Bush's fault?

Nahh, it was Truman and Eisenhower's fault, really. Although the whole
notion that we can change huge forces of nature is very powerful and it
is popular with right and left alike.

Read some of Mark Twain's "Life Along the Missisippi" about how unstable
the river was back a century ago. If anything, the alterations made have
improved things a lot since then. Some of the alterations, like mrgo,
and like building on reclaimed land, weren't so good.

>> You can argue that some of the current problem is caused by a lack of
>> proper government regulation of drilling, but I think that's really just
>> trying to move the blame around. This particular disaster was exclusively
>> the result of BP's corner-cutting.
>
>The rig passed a safety inspection with flying colors months before the
>explosion.

That's nice but not really all that helpful, especially given some of what
we now know with the lead-up to the break. I feel maybe a little sorry for
the folks on that inspection team now, but not all that sorry.

>> But, just like Katrina, it happened, and there isn't going to be any
>> wonderful miracle that will make everything go away. It's going to be
>> ugly, and it's going to take a lot of time, and there really is not much
>> that the government can do that will make things better.
>
>Exactly. You know that, I know that. But it's funny that the bunch that
>would have been howling at Bush are silent now.

No, instead a different bunch are howling at Obama. But it's the same
howling, just from a different quarter.

>That's the only real problem I have. They know Obama can't really do
>anything about it, just like Bush couldn't.

Well, Obama at least is trying hard to look like he cares, which is more
than Bush did. It's all any of them can really do, but it's important to
put on a good face and do the Churchill bit. You could argue that that
sort of symbolic stuff is really the most important job of the president
even if they really doesn't directly get anything done.

And... let's face it... FEMA is about the most incompetent operation around.
It's been that way through plenty of Republican and Democratic administrations
both, and I don't see it changing any time soon.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."