How the EPA is hindering cleanup in the Gulf
online.wsj.com
online.wsj.com
"Q: Did Obama turn down foreign offers of assistance in cleaning up the Gulf oil spill? Did he refuse to waive Jones Act restrictions on foreign-flag vessels?
A: No to both questions. So far, offers from six foreign countries or entities have been accepted and only one offer has been rejected. Fifteen foreign-flag vessels are working on the cleanup, and none required a waiver."
WRT to the EPA being slow to waive regulations or allow state and local initiatives, they're doing their job to make sure the cure isn't worse than the disease. The sand berm idea for example has been panned by a lot of experts. I also have a friend at the EPS region 1 office who works in water quality and they are very skeptical that the berm idea will work but they're under political pressure to allow it. Ideas should be implemented because they're good ideas, not because under-educated politicians think it will make them look good.
(b) Might more offers have been made if the Jones act didn't exist?
(c) Isn't it true that the fifteen foreign-flagged vessels working have nonetheless had to have their experienced foreign crews replaced with Americans due to the demands of the Jones Act? Also, don't they have to stay at least three miles offshore at all times?
From the linked article: "In reality, the Jones Act has yet to be an issue in the response efforts. The Deepwater Horizon response team reported in a June 15 press release that there are 15 foreign flagged ships currently participating in the oil spill cleanup. None of them needed a waiver because the Jones Act does not apply. The Jones Act is a trade and commerce law that was enacted in 1920 as part of a larger Marine Merchant Act. It requires all trade delivered between U.S. ports to be carried in U.S. flagged vessels constructed in the United States and owned by American citizens. The law states its purpose is to develop a merchant marine for national defense and commerce."
and
"To date, 25 countries and four international organizations have offered support in the form of skimming vessels, containment and fire boom, technical assistance and response solutions, among others."
http://factcheck.org/2010/06/oil-spill-foreign-help-and-the-...
I'd appreciate it if you could substantiate your allegations in (c) with a reference. Thanks.
"The combination of these two regulations is delaying and may even prevent the world's largest skimmer, the Taiwanese owned "A Whale," from deploying. This 10-story high ship can remove almost as much oil in a day as has been removed in total—roughly 500,000 barrels of oily water per day. The tanker is steaming towards the Gulf, hoping it will receive Coast Guard and EPA approval before it arrives."
Help has been accepted, and the Jones Act isn't an issue. Help that's been refused has been refused for pretty rational reasons (unapproved chemical dispersant), and some of the "help" is the same help vultures offer - they come with extravagant price tags, clearly hoping to get rich off our misfortune.
This is flamebait bordering on libel.
It's clear that Obama is a huge proponent of offshore drilling and that he won't do anything to jeopardize it.
It's odd how a conservative essay tries to paint Obama as someone who would stop all drilling when it's so far from the truth.
I think that ending all offshore drilling should certainly be under serious consideration after a disaster of this magnitude... there is no economic justification at present for risking the environmental damage.
There is economic justification for risking environmental damage. More offshore drilling = cheaper oil; More offshore drilling = more jobs (to name a couple).
I don't think this is a simple issue. The debate is a valid one.
Nuclear energy is dangerous but we do it anyway and similarly, it's not like all of a sudden deep water oil rigs are going to start failing left and right; statistically that is highly improbable.
Deep water oil rigs will fail and when they do untold environmental damage will be wrought. We simply can't control the ocean's currents or seismic events.
There is absolutely no reason that a first world nation should settle for offshore drilling and the environmental impacts/risks it creates.
Instead we got Operation Boot on the Neck.
No president has ever stood up to an industry as powerful/influential as the modern oil industry (and none ever will).
The problem is that Obama is standing up to the oil industry. He could have gone to the industry execs and boards with no shame and asked "Who do I have to blow to plug this epic environmental disaster? Who do I have to pardon?" Instead he put His Boot on BP's Neck, and put together a relief fund with opaque management. And the well still leaks, and enormous numbers of people and machines sit idle.
If Obama were serious about the issue he'd be talking about stopping offshore drilling. Instead he's singling out BP as if there is some sort of gross negligence rather than just a low probability / high impact outcome happening.
"First, the Environmental Protection Agency can relax restrictions on the amount of oil in discharged water, currently limited to 15 parts per million. In normal times, this rule sensibly controls the amount of pollution that can be added to relatively clean ocean water. But this is not a normal time."
This just sounds straight like out of BP's badly bungled PR playbook.