Gulf Oil Rig Disaster
- Thread starter Keith1
- Start date
No Jim, I am not going to feel sorry for you, I just asked you to use "spell check", most of us do. Atleast spell your disorder right, "Dyslectic".
Jim,
Let's do a "what if".
I presume you have had responsible positions, and you are good at identifing problems that come along in your work.
I was very critical of Truman for dropping the bomb on Japan, but when I thought about his actions in light of the info he had at the time, I could not argue with his logic and why he dropped the bomb.
Being a product of a Jesuit Univeristy, I learned that there are three kinds of men:
- one who talks and does nothing
- one who does everything but the right thing
- one who does the best he can for his God
I am not asking you to identify BHO or Bush would have done. But what do you think would have been the right course of action had you been the president?
- Would you have been more like No. 1, 2 or 3?
I know what I would have done, I would have:
- immediately called BP and asked what they needed from the Federal Government
- called all my agencies on a conference call, and told them to give all the assistance possible to BP and the states
- called the governors and asked what they needed from the Federal Government
- asked BP to do the clean up
- accepted foreign help after suspending the Jones act - I don't care about the unions getting bent out of shape
What's wrong with my logic? I think I could have done a better job.
Let's do a "what if".
I presume you have had responsible positions, and you are good at identifing problems that come along in your work.
I was very critical of Truman for dropping the bomb on Japan, but when I thought about his actions in light of the info he had at the time, I could not argue with his logic and why he dropped the bomb.
Being a product of a Jesuit Univeristy, I learned that there are three kinds of men:
- one who talks and does nothing
- one who does everything but the right thing
- one who does the best he can for his God
I am not asking you to identify BHO or Bush would have done. But what do you think would have been the right course of action had you been the president?
- Would you have been more like No. 1, 2 or 3?
I know what I would have done, I would have:
- immediately called BP and asked what they needed from the Federal Government
- called all my agencies on a conference call, and told them to give all the assistance possible to BP and the states
- called the governors and asked what they needed from the Federal Government
- asked BP to do the clean up
- accepted foreign help after suspending the Jones act - I don't care about the unions getting bent out of shape
What's wrong with my logic? I think I could have done a better job.
I found these little nuggets this morning:
and:
The myth of the Jones Act and the BP gulf oil spill, part 1
Ian
and:
The myth of the Jones Act and the BP gulf oil spill, part 1
Ian
OK, here are some answers:
Domtoni, you believe this crap. Is it crap? Who says so
Explain how Dutch skimmers would have "immediately contained the out flow" and protected the coatline? - if the NL government offered them within the first few days after the oil rig exploded, and the US government accepted them, transit time to the Gulf coast (assuming they were immediately available to sail) from the NL is about no more than 10 days. So that makes day 12. These skimmers could have run a large circle around the area so as not to interfere with the other efforts. Running in a large circle would have contained most of the oil.
Were the skimmers there above the leak? - I don't think so because we didn't accept the NL offer. By the way, these skimmers are said to be the highest tech units in the world.
How do skimmers contain the outflow, do they plug it? More crap! - No they don't plug a hole, all they do is go over the surface and collect the oil into a large storage tank, which could have then be transported back to shore for processing.
Does immedtately mean weeks to you? - if the total transit time from accepting the offer to having the ships working is 12 days, that's less than two weeks.
Would the leak wait for the Dutch?
Domtoni, how long does this take: Prepairing to cross the Atlantic, then making that crossing, then sailing around Florida, than across the Gulf, than setting up and starting to skim? IMMEDIATELY????? you lie.
Domtoni, how fast are skimmers?
Domtoni, You really think this fairly slow process would "immediately contained the out flow and protect the coastline"? I'm afraid you bought more FOX crap!
Domtoni, here is a tip for you, just because you hear something on tv does not make it so. Please try thinking for youself! - My news sources are not Fox News. I watch Russia Today, Al Jazeera, BBC World Service, RAI, and Fox, CNN, Drudge, Huffington Post on the internet.
Domtoni, you believe this crap. Is it crap? Who says so
Explain how Dutch skimmers would have "immediately contained the out flow" and protected the coatline? - if the NL government offered them within the first few days after the oil rig exploded, and the US government accepted them, transit time to the Gulf coast (assuming they were immediately available to sail) from the NL is about no more than 10 days. So that makes day 12. These skimmers could have run a large circle around the area so as not to interfere with the other efforts. Running in a large circle would have contained most of the oil.
Were the skimmers there above the leak? - I don't think so because we didn't accept the NL offer. By the way, these skimmers are said to be the highest tech units in the world.
How do skimmers contain the outflow, do they plug it? More crap! - No they don't plug a hole, all they do is go over the surface and collect the oil into a large storage tank, which could have then be transported back to shore for processing.
Does immedtately mean weeks to you? - if the total transit time from accepting the offer to having the ships working is 12 days, that's less than two weeks.
Would the leak wait for the Dutch?
Domtoni, how long does this take: Prepairing to cross the Atlantic, then making that crossing, then sailing around Florida, than across the Gulf, than setting up and starting to skim? IMMEDIATELY????? you lie.
Domtoni, how fast are skimmers?
Domtoni, You really think this fairly slow process would "immediately contained the out flow and protect the coastline"? I'm afraid you bought more FOX crap!
Domtoni, here is a tip for you, just because you hear something on tv does not make it so. Please try thinking for youself! - My news sources are not Fox News. I watch Russia Today, Al Jazeera, BBC World Service, RAI, and Fox, CNN, Drudge, Huffington Post on the internet.
Ian, I just had a chance to read the examiner article. The thrust of what they are proposing is to present Djou who is from Hawaii in their own light.
I have taken this from Ian's link:
See this:
The facts don’t support Djou’s statements about the Jones Act
At the time Congressman Djou made that statement with full agreement from the Fox anchor, of course, there were already 15 foreign flagged vessels actively participating in the gulf oil spill clean up effort. None of them required a Jones Act waiver, because it applies mainly within 3 miles of the U.S. coastline and applies to the moving of cargo to and between U.S. ports. Its purpose was and is to ensure that U.S. vessels with U.S. crews are used in close U.S. territorial waters.
= The Djou interview was on day 65 of the spill. The NL offer came in the very early days of the spill. The NL ships are the most advanced in the world. then at day 70ish the largest skimmer in the world was deployed to the area. Why did it take so long?
I have taken this from Ian's link:
See this:
The facts don’t support Djou’s statements about the Jones Act
At the time Congressman Djou made that statement with full agreement from the Fox anchor, of course, there were already 15 foreign flagged vessels actively participating in the gulf oil spill clean up effort. None of them required a Jones Act waiver, because it applies mainly within 3 miles of the U.S. coastline and applies to the moving of cargo to and between U.S. ports. Its purpose was and is to ensure that U.S. vessels with U.S. crews are used in close U.S. territorial waters.
= The Djou interview was on day 65 of the spill. The NL offer came in the very early days of the spill. The NL ships are the most advanced in the world. then at day 70ish the largest skimmer in the world was deployed to the area. Why did it take so long?
Pat Buckley
GT40s Supporter
Jim,
I believe that we really don't know the real facts in a majority of the stories that get reported, so I feel that most of us choose the slant we like best.....which makes getting all vociferous about it is not only pointless, it makes for needless enemies.
Because of my pre-disposed views, I do prefer Fox news to the other channels....I filter what information I take from Fox knowing that they have a slant. But I prefer that slant.
I don't know why you feel that you have to be the guardian of "all that is just", but perhaps you should take some of your own earlier advice and calm down? Avoid the ulcer!
People want to believe what they believe - it happens on both sides of the political spectrum with equal frequency. If someone wants to post a joke or a thread that he feels strongly about on a subject you disagree with, what is wrong with just letting it be - instead of drawing attention to it with constant rebuttals?
+1 Pat.
Jim, I have enjoyed our exchange. It has forced me to think, and I am really thankful for your challenge. On some of your posts, you may wish to think about what you are writing a bit more before punching the reply button.
As Pat notes, we get very limited info from our news sources, I am sure that each news source has its own political bend, and they present the news they see fit to publish. What comes on Fox is different from CNN etc. We don't know how much is their perspective or fact.
For example the BBC's editorial bend is to support the UK government while being neutral. I think you could say: "fair and balanced?"
Jim, I have enjoyed our exchange. It has forced me to think, and I am really thankful for your challenge. On some of your posts, you may wish to think about what you are writing a bit more before punching the reply button.
As Pat notes, we get very limited info from our news sources, I am sure that each news source has its own political bend, and they present the news they see fit to publish. What comes on Fox is different from CNN etc. We don't know how much is their perspective or fact.
For example the BBC's editorial bend is to support the UK government while being neutral. I think you could say: "fair and balanced?"
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Thanks Pat, I like you comments.
I just cant help myself. The condisending attitude shown by most of the attack posts overcome my ability ot be nice.
I feel by commenting I draw attention to how rediculus their post are. Have you noticed that they rarly answer my questions but instead attack me or my spelling?
I just cant help myself. The condisending attitude shown by most of the attack posts overcome my ability ot be nice.
I feel by commenting I draw attention to how rediculus their post are. Have you noticed that they rarly answer my questions but instead attack me or my spelling?
That is the question - why did it take so long? The answer is not because of the lack of a Jones Act waiver, which a lot of people seem to be focusing on both on this forum and elsewhere.
The reason that the Jones Act waiver was used for both Katrina and Alex were:
1) To allow foreign flagged vessels to carry relief supplies into US ports
2) In the case of Katrina, significant disruption in the production and transportation of petroleum and/or refined petroleum products in the region during that emergency and the impact this had on national defense.
BTW, the concerns for "National Defense" are very important when waiving the Jones Act. National Defense is not an issue WRT to the BP spill, which makes it harder to suspend the Jones Act.
In actuality, according to the Deepwater Horizon response team, as of June 15th, 15 foreign flagged ships were assisting in the cleanup. Granted, that is still 57 days since the spill started (though it isn't clear when the first ships actually started helping out, as well as the fact that while the leak may have actually stared on April 20th when the rig exploded, until Coast Guard Rear Admiral Landry stated it was leaking on April 24th, BP denied it was).There is information that offers of help were received within the first two weeks of the spill, and foreign ships were already assisting at that point. Part of the delay may have been due to EPA regulations that the use skimmers that leave more than 15ppm of oil in the water are prohibited, so many large scale skimmers are, by this rule, not allowed to help. The EPA has been reluctant to ease this restriction, and I am not sure the President has the power to override it. Also, a large Japanese skimmer was held up due to bad weather.
Some more info from FactCheck:
Oil Spill, Foreign Help and the Jones Act | FactCheck.org
Ian
Pat Buckley
GT40s Supporter
Jim,
We can all ask questions until we are blue in the face but do you really think that any of us has the REAL answers? Do you?
I can sympathize with you regarding your attack mode - there was a time that I did that quite a bit - I think I have realized that when you climb in the mud with pigs you just get dirty and the pig doesn't care. Sometimes I do still throw a barb or two.....
Actually, I believe dyslexia is the disorder, or someone is dyslexic, but a person who has dyslexia is a dyslectic. According to the dictionary anyway.:thumbsup:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Domtoni,
I do want to get back to your question about Truman and the bomb.
I think that with the information Truman had he made what he thought was the right decigion. Looking back from today, obviously it as wrong, but from all I can tell Truman was a truly good person and tried his best.
That said I have never been one to belive that the bomb prevented an invasion of Japan! At that time the Japanese leaders had shown little concern for thousands of civilion deaths (ie the fire bombing of Tokyo).
I'm fairly sure that they were much more concerned about the Russians joining the fight than our bombing conventional or otherwise.
Just my thoughts.
I do want to get back to your question about Truman and the bomb.
I think that with the information Truman had he made what he thought was the right decigion. Looking back from today, obviously it as wrong, but from all I can tell Truman was a truly good person and tried his best.
That said I have never been one to belive that the bomb prevented an invasion of Japan! At that time the Japanese leaders had shown little concern for thousands of civilion deaths (ie the fire bombing of Tokyo).
I'm fairly sure that they were much more concerned about the Russians joining the fight than our bombing conventional or otherwise.
Just my thoughts.
Last edited:
