5 ms·

Why Is the Gulf Cleanup So Slow?

12 points by rglovejoy 16y ago

anigbrowl 16y ago
Why are politically-themed op-eds so inaccurate and poorly sourced? http://factcheck.org/2010/06/oil-spill-foreign-help-and-the-jones-act/ http://factcheck.org/2010/06/oil-spill-foreign-help-and-the-...
- hugh3 16y ago
  Hmm, now I want to get to the bottom of this. This article from deepseanews contradicts sections of this: http://deepseanews.com/2010/06/the-jones-act-and-the-oil-spill-not-what-you-think/ http://deepseanews.com/2010/06/the-jones-act-and-the-oil-spi... As far as I can tell, foreign-flagged vessels can operate, but only if they're at least three miles offshore and (more importantly) have their crews replaced by Americans. I can see how this could cause problems, not only because vessel owners might be reluctant to hand over their vessels to new crews but because the new crews might not be experienced at operating them. There are definitely fifteen foreign-flagged vessels participating in the cleanup, but fifteen isn't very many. Is it not true that the Jones Act is preventing more from showing up? It still seems like a completely insane set of restrictions.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  Because they have an agenda. Ever since the man behind Fox News bought the Wall Street Journal I've had a rule of thumb that says be very wary of anything the WSJ writes anymore that touches on politics. Their OpEd section has never exactly been a left-wing/liberal haven by any means but now that there's a Fox News connection behind the scenes I expect things to slide more a certain way. Propaganda++.
joubert 16y ago
Opinion piece. Conspiracy theory.
- anon-e-moose 16y ago
  Yes, its just one man's opinion against another that the world's largest oil skimmer does not seem to be operating in the Gulf. Almost like those poor saps who think we didn't land on the moon. Didn't they see Obama walking on the beach! The man is trying!
  - joubert 16y ago
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill/print http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill/print
    - anon-e-moose 16y ago
      Excellent, that ship should help a lot if the numbers I've seen are accurate.
mkramlich 16y ago
You know you're reading a right/conservative/Repub/FoxNews-like source when the very 1st suggestion discussed for improving the clean up effort is this: "First, the Environmental Protection Agency can relax restrictions on the amount of oil in discharged water, currently limited to 15 parts per million." Welcome to Bizarro World. We do things backwards here. EDIT: skushch's reply below made a good clarification. When I originally read that portion of the article I didn't realize that was the argument made. I just saw how the very 1st solution recommended was that the EPA should allow more oil in the water, which was hilarious and consistent with many other "pro-pollution/pro-greed" efforts I've seen from The Right in past years, and I reacted to that. So on this single narrow point I think the article does make sense: we should temporarily drop any rule that commits the error of letting the quest for perfection be the enemy of the good enough now. The overall article I still think is an attack piece with highly cherry-picked statements and convenient blinders on.
- skushch 16y ago
  The point the author makes is that relaxing the filtering restrictions could help remove more oil. Sort of like saying "the filter isn't effective enough, so we won't filter at all". Bizarro World indeed.
  - mkramlich 16y ago
    I don't know enough about the chemisty and ecosystem impacts of this but from what I do know I can think of one possible reason, at least, while the EPA's position makes sense. If a certain volume of oiled water is processed by a machine that has reduced filtering standards -- essentially, only removing the bigger or easier to capture materials suspended in the water -- it may make it harder for later cleanup operations to further address the remaining pollutants that were released back into the water. Either because they become much harder to detect (harder to see/smell/taste, or react to chemical sensors) or become harder to "bind" with cleaning agents. In other words, while at a logic-only level the EPA position may appear stupid, it's possible that from a chemical & logistical standpoint it may not be. Regardless, I think it's reasonable to expect BP to be moving heaven & earth to clean this shit up as fast as they possibly can, since they made the mess in the first place.
mkramlich 16y ago
Read the whole thing. It's a well-written attack piece, paid for by somebody. I really love 2 things about it, that are glaringly overlooked. In discussing the oil disaster and the cleanup efforts so far, and why the latter hasn't been as effective as one might have liked, he cites just about everything except these 2 points, rather suspiciously: 1. new oil is STILL leaking into the Gulf -- cleaning now is a bit like running just to stand still, there will be more flowing out and hitting the beaches tomorrow, and the next day, and the next, etc. 2. BP/Transocean/Halliburton are primarily at fault, both for the original accident/leak, and for not stopping it quicker. I don't buy the argument that somehow because a government oversight agency was not as aggressive as it could have been, and/or was bribed BY these oil companies to back off and let them ignore rules that THEREFORE the government is anywhere near as at fault as the oil companies in question. It's a bit like blaming the police for not stopping a murderer -- rather than blaming the murderer. Hello?!
- anon-e-moose 16y ago
  You're right, we shouldn't clean it up quickly and effectively because its getting worse. We should wait until all of the oil is in the ocean and then clean it up all at once! That's much more effective! No, seriously, what is your point here. Also the oil companies can't tell the more effective oil clean up ships to come operate because of the mentioned government regulations and directions. Oops.
  - mkramlich 16y ago
    Of course there should be a cleanup effort ongoing. But if new stuff continues to spill out every day afterward, there will be more to cleanup the next day, and the next, and the next, forever, until we reach the point where the leak is totally stopped and/or contained the source. It's weird/naive to criticize a cleanup effort that's been going on for months if the leak has also been leaking unstopped for those same number of months as well. It can never be totally cleaned up or restored until, at a bare minimum, the leak is stopped.
    - anon-e-moose 16y ago
greenlblue 16y ago
When something obvious isn't happening all you have to do is go look for the people that have a vested interest in preventing said thing from happening. In the current oil spill fiasco there are way too many powerful groups with opposing interests and politicians don't want to step on their toes because all politicians need large sums of money from these opposing interests to finance their campaigns. So it's no wonder the bureaucracy is moving at a snail's pace.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

12 points by rglovejoy 16y ago

Why are politically-themed op-eds so inaccurate and poorly sourced? http://factcheck.org/2010/06/oil-spill-foreign-help-and-the-jones-act/ http://factcheck.org/2010/06/oil-spill-foreign-help-and-the-...

hugh3 16y ago
Hmm, now I want to get to the bottom of this. This article from deepseanews contradicts sections of this: http://deepseanews.com/2010/06/the-jones-act-and-the-oil-spill-not-what-you-think/ http://deepseanews.com/2010/06/the-jones-act-and-the-oil-spi... As far as I can tell, foreign-flagged vessels can operate, but only if they're at least three miles offshore and (more importantly) have their crews replaced by Americans. I can see how this could cause problems, not only because vessel owners might be reluctant to hand over their vessels to new crews but because the new crews might not be experienced at operating them. There are definitely fifteen foreign-flagged vessels participating in the cleanup, but fifteen isn't very many. Is it not true that the Jones Act is preventing more from showing up? It still seems like a completely insane set of restrictions.
mkramlich 16y ago
Because they have an agenda. Ever since the man behind Fox News bought the Wall Street Journal I've had a rule of thumb that says be very wary of anything the WSJ writes anymore that touches on politics. Their OpEd section has never exactly been a left-wing/liberal haven by any means but now that there's a Fox News connection behind the scenes I expect things to slide more a certain way. Propaganda++.

joubert 16y ago

Opinion piece. Conspiracy theory.

anon-e-moose 16y ago
Yes, its just one man's opinion against another that the world's largest oil skimmer does not seem to be operating in the Gulf. Almost like those poor saps who think we didn't land on the moon. Didn't they see Obama walking on the beach! The man is trying!
- joubert 16y ago
  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill/print http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill/print
  - anon-e-moose 16y ago
    Excellent, that ship should help a lot if the numbers I've seen are accurate.

mkramlich 16y ago

You know you're reading a right/conservative/Repub/FoxNews-like source when the very 1st suggestion discussed for improving the clean up effort is this: "First, the Environmental Protection Agency can relax restrictions on the amount of oil in discharged water, currently limited to 15 parts per million." Welcome to Bizarro World. We do things backwards here. EDIT: skushch's reply below made a good clarification. When I originally read that portion of the article I didn't realize that was the argument made. I just saw how the very 1st solution recommended was that the EPA should allow more oil in the water, which was hilarious and consistent with many other "pro-pollution/pro-greed" efforts I've seen from The Right in past years, and I reacted to that. So on this single narrow point I think the article does make sense: we should temporarily drop any rule that commits the error of letting the quest for perfection be the enemy of the good enough now. The overall article I still think is an attack piece with highly cherry-picked statements and convenient blinders on.

skushch 16y ago
The point the author makes is that relaxing the filtering restrictions could help remove more oil. Sort of like saying "the filter isn't effective enough, so we won't filter at all". Bizarro World indeed.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  I don't know enough about the chemisty and ecosystem impacts of this but from what I do know I can think of one possible reason, at least, while the EPA's position makes sense. If a certain volume of oiled water is processed by a machine that has reduced filtering standards -- essentially, only removing the bigger or easier to capture materials suspended in the water -- it may make it harder for later cleanup operations to further address the remaining pollutants that were released back into the water. Either because they become much harder to detect (harder to see/smell/taste, or react to chemical sensors) or become harder to "bind" with cleaning agents. In other words, while at a logic-only level the EPA position may appear stupid, it's possible that from a chemical & logistical standpoint it may not be. Regardless, I think it's reasonable to expect BP to be moving heaven & earth to clean this shit up as fast as they possibly can, since they made the mess in the first place.

mkramlich 16y ago

Read the whole thing. It's a well-written attack piece, paid for by somebody. I really love 2 things about it, that are glaringly overlooked. In discussing the oil disaster and the cleanup efforts so far, and why the latter hasn't been as effective as one might have liked, he cites just about everything except these 2 points, rather suspiciously: 1. new oil is STILL leaking into the Gulf -- cleaning now is a bit like running just to stand still, there will be more flowing out and hitting the beaches tomorrow, and the next day, and the next, etc. 2. BP/Transocean/Halliburton are primarily at fault, both for the original accident/leak, and for not stopping it quicker. I don't buy the argument that somehow because a government oversight agency was not as aggressive as it could have been, and/or was bribed BY these oil companies to back off and let them ignore rules that THEREFORE the government is anywhere near as at fault as the oil companies in question. It's a bit like blaming the police for not stopping a murderer -- rather than blaming the murderer. Hello?!

anon-e-moose 16y ago
You're right, we shouldn't clean it up quickly and effectively because its getting worse. We should wait until all of the oil is in the ocean and then clean it up all at once! That's much more effective! No, seriously, what is your point here. Also the oil companies can't tell the more effective oil clean up ships to come operate because of the mentioned government regulations and directions. Oops.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  Of course there should be a cleanup effort ongoing. But if new stuff continues to spill out every day afterward, there will be more to cleanup the next day, and the next, and the next, forever, until we reach the point where the leak is totally stopped and/or contained the source. It's weird/naive to criticize a cleanup effort that's been going on for months if the leak has also been leaking unstopped for those same number of months as well. It can never be totally cleaned up or restored until, at a bare minimum, the leak is stopped.
  - anon-e-moose 16y ago

greenlblue 16y ago

When something obvious isn't happening all you have to do is go look for the people that have a vested interest in preventing said thing from happening. In the current oil spill fiasco there are way too many powerful groups with opposing interests and politicians don't want to step on their toes because all politicians need large sums of money from these opposing interests to finance their campaigns. So it's no wonder the bureaucracy is moving at a snail's pace.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]