So what should Obama have done?

[Immanuel]

Immie, your link was to an article dated May 19, 25 days old. The link I found was to an article 3 days old, and the report I saw in FNC, which as I said was a video showing the barest outline in the sand as each wave broke on the beach, probably from the "sheen" was one day old.

You are right. Thanks for catching that.

Then again, from your link:

Oil sheen, tar balls reported in south Florida Keys; officials laying protective booms

However, the director of emergency operations and a tourism spokesman in the Keys said they had been told that tests confirmed the oil and tar balls described in the news release did not drift from the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico. And the Coast Guard, which issued the news release, insisted that test results were pending.

And as I said, my search didn't produce any articles off the net that indicate oil from the leak has washed up on the beaches of the keys.

Immie

 

[Ravi]

So far the only stuff washing up is in the Panhandle. Not sure how long that will be true.

 

[boedicca]

Another thing Obama, and Congress, should have done: suspend or approve a waiver of the Jones Act so that foreign owned and staffed vessels and equipment could be used to mitigate the disaster:

The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (P.L. 66-261) is a United States Federal statute that regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports.

Section 27, also known as the Jones Act, deals with cabotage (i.e., coastal shipping) and requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents. The purpose of the law is to support the U.S. merchant marine industry, but agricultural interests generally oppose it because, they contend, it raises the cost of shipping their goods, making them less competitive with foreign sources.

In addition, amendments to the Jones Act, known as the Cargo Preference Act (P.L. 83-644), provide permanent legislation for the transportation of waterborne cargoes in U.S.-flag vessels.

The cabotage provisions restrict the carriage of goods or passengers between United States ports to U.S. built and flagged vessels. In addition, at least 75 percent of the crewmembers must be U.S. citizens. Moreover foreign repair work of U.S.-flagged vessels’ hull and superstructure is limited to 10 percent foreign-built steel weight. This restriction largely prevents American shipowners from refurbishing their ships at overseas shipyards.

...


The Coast Guard and the Administration are quick to point out that some foreign technology is being used in the current cleanup effort. Including:

- Canada’s offer of 3,000 meters of containment boom

- Three sets of COSEQ sweeping arms from the Dutch

- Mexico’s offer of two skimmers and 4200 meters of boom

- Norway’s offer of 8 skimming systems

But that is largely technology transferred to US vessels. Some of the best clean up ships – owned by Belgian, Dutch and the Norwegian firms are NOT being used.

Requests for waivers of certain provisions of the act are reviewed by the United States Maritime Administration on a case by case basis. Waivers have been granted for example, in cases of national emergencies or in cases of strategic interest. For instance, declining oil production prompted MARAD to grant a waiver to operators of the 512-foot Chinese vessel Tai An Kou to tow an oil rig from the Gulf of Mexico to Alaska. The jackup rig will be under a two-year contract to drill in the Alaska’s Cook Inlet Basin. The waiver to the Chinese vessel is said to be the first of its kind granted to an independent oil-and-gas company. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff temporarily waived the U.S. Shipping Act for foreign vessels carrying oil and Natural gas from September 1 to 19, 2005....


The Jones Act And Gulf Oil Spill Emptysuit

 

[antagon]

again with the jones act garbage.

this is effectively a litmus test for gullibility and partisan bias.

 

[Samson]

again with the jones act garbage.

this is effectively a litmus test for gullibility and partisan bias.

I guess so.

I'm totally out-of-the-loop regarding foriegn aid and how its been received or not.

Do you know if its been offered or rejected for any reason?

 

[American Horse]

And as I said, my search didn't produce any articles off the net that indicate oil from the leak has washed up on the beaches of the keys.

Immie

The purpose of my links in the first place was to point out that things could be done, and whether or not oil on the surface of the gulf has arrived, it is impending.

That means there is no better time to prevent it, than before it arrives; if not the barest of residue, then as a black mass.

C-Span Thursday June 10th
Mississippi Democrat Congressman Gene Taylor on the Unified Command on local solutions, and coordination:
(06:20)

C-Span Host: " Well congressman how receptive is the unified command to local solutions?

Congrssman Taylor: We’re gonna see. In the beginning the goals were set pretty low, a lot of local mayors wanted to put a boom across a harbor that still leaves the beaches exposed. In the beginning the goal was to keep the wetlands from getting covered and that has been achieved so now that we’ve got some short term goals, I think its’ realistic to ask that we keep it off our barrier islands that we keep it out of our sound and distance works, time and distance are working in our favor; we would have some warning that it’s coming, even a bad current we have some time ...

The other thing that I’ve really noticed, and I’ve flown the spill 4-times now is I’ve seen no co-ordination between overhead observers and what the skimmer boats are doing. You would see a patch, you know, of oil the size of a football field... “here..” and you’d see a skimmer boat over there that wasn’t headed towards it so you’ve got to have a lot better co-ordination between what’s going on the deck and what’s going on overhead.”
(07:50)

The state of Mississippi is fortunate that is has perhaps 5 rivers flowing into the Gulf. This outflow (according to Taylor at least in Ms) helps prevent flows of oil on the surface from reaching beaches. That’s why a coordinated effort of collecting the oil off shore is critical. Congressman Taylor was reporting on that failure of coordination on the 10th of June on C-Span.

 

[American Horse]

again with the jones act garbage.

this is effectively a litmus test for gullibility and partisan bias.

Antagon, better minds than ours still have questions on its applicability. This Sunday's news shows aren't informed and questions are still being asked. Why didn't Gibbs give more than a cursory answer to this question at the last WH briefing?

Isn't it possible that the "open question" has private parties who own applicable assets perturbed?
They may have trouble getting answers. This should've already been put to bed but it hasn't. The failure appears to be with the administration not with those who ask, some perhaps at risk of coming in conflict with US law.

 

[boedicca]

again with the jones act garbage.

this is effectively a litmus test for gullibility and partisan bias.

It is indeed. Your knee jerk response is a litmus test demonstrating your failure to properly analyze the oil disaster and the government's poor response.

 

[Immanuel]

And as I said, my search didn't produce any articles off the net that indicate oil from the leak has washed up on the beaches of the keys.

Immie

The purpose of my links in the first place was to point out that things could be done, and whether or not oil on the surface of the gulf has arrived, it is impending.

That means there is no better time to prevent it, than before it arrives; if not the barest of residue, then as a black mass.

C-Span Thursday June 10th
Mississippi Democrat Congressman Gene Taylor on the Unified Command on local solutions, and coordination:
(06:20)

" Well congressman how receptive is the unified command to local solutions?

We’re gonna see. In the beginning the goals were set pretty low, a lot of local mayors wanted to put a boom across a harbor that still leaves the beaches exposed. In the beginning the goal was to keep the wetlands from getting covered and that has been achieved so now that we’ve got some short term goals, I think its’ realistic to ask that we keep it off our barrier islands that we keep it out of our sound and distance works, time and distance are working in our favor; we would have some warning that it’s coming, even a bad current we have some time ...The other thing that I’ve really noticed, and I’ve flow the spill 4-times now is I’ve seen no co-ordination between overhead observers and what the skimmer boats are doing. You would see a patch, you know, of oil the size of a football field... “here..” and you’d see a skimmer boat over there that wasn’t headed towards it so you’ve got to have a lot better co-ordination between what’s going on the deck and what’s going on overhead.”
(07:50)

The state of Mississippi is fortunate that is has perhaps 5 rivers flowing into the Gulf. This outflow (according to Taylor at least in Ms) helps prevent flows of oil on the surface from reaching beaches. That’s why a coordinated effort of collecting the oil off shore is critical. Congressman Taylor was reporting on that failure of coordination on the 10th of June on C-Span.

I guess where my hang up here is with this:

I saw a reporter standing on at least one beach in the florida keys (FNC) remarking on how each time the surf came onshore a shadowy stain was left behind; not a lot but still detectable. Perhaps what would be deposited from an "oil sheen"

It seems that the reporter is attempting to insinuate that this oil washing up on the beaches of the keys is from the BP Oil slick and as far as I can tell that is not yet happening.

Something that may seem ironic here is that I watched a report the other night about this here in the Tampa Bay Area that said that eventually this could be picked up by the Gulf Stream travel South along Florida's West Coast (whether or not it would affect the West Coast beaches is unknown, travel through the Florida Straits (yes, destroying the beaches of the keys) back up the East Coast of Florida all the way to the Carolinas. At which point it would head out to sea... guess where it would end up? That is right, the shores of Great Britain itself!

Let's pray it doesn't get out of the generalized area it is now in and prayerfully stays off the Gulf Beaches as well.

Immie

Note: sorry, I don't have a link to prove the flow of the oil, that was simply what I saw on TV. Anyone that wants to prove or disprove that can look it up as easily as I can.

 

[Samson]

again with the jones act garbage.

this is effectively a litmus test for gullibility and partisan bias.

It is indeed. Your knee jerk response is a litmus test demonstrating your failure to properly analyze the oil disaster and the government's poor response.

The knee-jerk response is to litmus test as jumping through a hoop is to sticking your toe in the water.

 

[Liability]

Another thing Obama, and Congress, should have done: suspend or approve a waiver of the Jones Act so that foreign owned and staffed vessels and equipment could be used to mitigate the disaster:

The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (P.L. 66-261) is a United States Federal statute that regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports.

Section 27, also known as the Jones Act, deals with cabotage (i.e., coastal shipping) and requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents. The purpose of the law is to support the U.S. merchant marine industry, but agricultural interests generally oppose it because, they contend, it raises the cost of shipping their goods, making them less competitive with foreign sources.

In addition, amendments to the Jones Act, known as the Cargo Preference Act (P.L. 83-644), provide permanent legislation for the transportation of waterborne cargoes in U.S.-flag vessels.

The cabotage provisions restrict the carriage of goods or passengers between United States ports to U.S. built and flagged vessels. In addition, at least 75 percent of the crewmembers must be U.S. citizens. Moreover foreign repair work of U.S.-flagged vessels’ hull and superstructure is limited to 10 percent foreign-built steel weight. This restriction largely prevents American shipowners from refurbishing their ships at overseas shipyards.

...


The Coast Guard and the Administration are quick to point out that some foreign technology is being used in the current cleanup effort. Including:

- Canada’s offer of 3,000 meters of containment boom

- Three sets of COSEQ sweeping arms from the Dutch

- Mexico’s offer of two skimmers and 4200 meters of boom

- Norway’s offer of 8 skimming systems

But that is largely technology transferred to US vessels. Some of the best clean up ships – owned by Belgian, Dutch and the Norwegian firms are NOT being used.

Requests for waivers of certain provisions of the act are reviewed by the United States Maritime Administration on a case by case basis. Waivers have been granted for example, in cases of national emergencies or in cases of strategic interest. For instance, declining oil production prompted MARAD to grant a waiver to operators of the 512-foot Chinese vessel Tai An Kou to tow an oil rig from the Gulf of Mexico to Alaska. The jackup rig will be under a two-year contract to drill in the Alaska’s Cook Inlet Basin. The waiver to the Chinese vessel is said to be the first of its kind granted to an independent oil-and-gas company. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff temporarily waived the U.S. Shipping Act for foreign vessels carrying oil and Natural gas from September 1 to 19, 2005....


The Jones Act And Gulf Oil Spill Emptysuit

This is what drives me to drink.

The Administration already HAS the authority under law and regulation to waive the provisions of any laws that would arguably impede its ability to contain the spill and clean it up.

I posted the relevant law and related regulations just the other day after doing additional research when another member posted a link to the general law and some commentary about regulatory authority.

Clean Water Act
Section 311 - Oil and Hazardous Substances Liability

* * * *
(c) Federal removal authority.
(1) General removal requirement.
(A) The President shall, in accordance with the National Contingency Plan and any appropriate Area Contingency Plan, ensure effective and immediate removal of a discharge, and mitigation or prevention of a substantial threat of a discharge, of oil or a hazardous substance--
(i) into or on the navigable waters;
(ii) on the adjoining shorelines to the navigable waters;
(iii) into or on the waters of the exclusive economic zone; or
(iv) that may affect natural resources belonging to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive management authority of the United States.
(B) In carrying out this paragraph, the President may--
(i) remove or arrange for the removal of a discharge, and mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of a discharge, at any time;
(ii) direct or monitor all Federal, State, and private actions to remove a discharge; and
(iii) remove and, if necessary, destroy a vessel discharging, or threatening to discharge, by whatever means are available.
(2) Discharge posing substantial threat to public health or welfare.
(A) If a discharge, or a substantial threat of a discharge, of oil or a hazardous substance from a vessel, offshore facility, or onshore facility is of such a size or character as to be a substantial threat to the public health or welfare of the United States (including but not limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife, other natural resources, and the public and private beaches and shorelines of the United States), the President shall direct all Federal, State, and private actions to remove the discharge or to mitigate or prevent the threat of the discharge.
(B) In carrying out this paragraph, the President may, without regard to any other provision of law governing contracting procedures or employment of personnel by the Federal Government--
(i) remove or arrange for the removal of the discharge, or mitigate or prevent the substantial threat of the discharge; and
(ii) remove and, if necessary, destroy a vessel discharging, or threatening to discharge, by whatever means are available.
* * * *

Clean Water Act - Section 311 - Oil and hazardous substances liability | Region 7 | US EPA

So what the devil is this "I'm in charge" President waiting for?


Also, here's an interesting article on the matter addressing the corresponding Administrative REGULATIONS: The Coast Guard Is In Charge In The Gulf | David Pettit's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

 

[Ravi]

Apparently all this hysteria over the Jones Act is just more bullshit from the rightwingloons and FAUX news.

Fuck you assholes.

If it was true...
Well... a simple call and email correspondence yesterday afternoon with the Unified Command unequivocally disputes and refutes the Fox News story.
In an official statement by the Unified Command's Lt. Erik Halvorson, Chief, Joint Information Center of the Unified Area Command said:
All potential foreign technology solutions are being reviewed for their suitability to meet response requirements. As Admiral Allen said this morning, he will review waivers of the Jones Act if they are requested, but so far no requests have been made. I am not aware of any instance in which needed foreign ships or technology have not been accepted due to the Jones Act. The Jones Act is not preventing us from getting the technology that we need.
Simply put --- Labor unions and the Jones Act plays no role, zero, nada, zilch in the evaluation of clean-up vessels or technologies. To imply that labor unions and the Jones Act could be blocking the use of the world's best technologies is simply false and misleading. It is not true that Obama is colluding with labor unions to prevent the use of any vessel or technology, foreign or domestic.
There are no foreign vessels with advanced skimming and clean-up technologies just sitting around waiting for Jones Act waivers.
Fox News, the Heritage Foundation and Wilson's politicized story do nothing to contribute to any solution needed to help the gulf coast. At best, Wilson's story serves only to drive a political wedge amidst a national tragedy.

City Brights: Yobie Benjamin : True or false? FOX News: Obama & unions block oil spill clean up efforts

 

[Ravi]

Also from the link above:

DDENDUM: I followed up on readers' comments and again asked the US Coast Guard to elaborate. Their direct response is again through the Unified Command's Lt. Erik Halvorson, Chief, Joint Information Center of the Unified Area Command and is as follows: "...I tell you that we have reviewed all international offers of assistance. More specifically, that the Unified Area Command has received 21 offers of assistance from 17 countries and four international organizations. These offers came through the U.S. State Department.
All offers were reviewed by the Unified Area Command. All qualifying offers were accepted.
Those offers of international assistance that were not accepted did not meet the operational requirements of the Unified Area Command.
These offers have not been declined. They may be needed in the future as our response strategies change. We will reconsider them as necessary.
The Unified Area Command reviews all offers of assistance as the operational situation changes and if an offer meets an operational need, we will pursue acceptance."
Again, according to the USCG, the Jones Act was not a consideration. That said, I am still waiting for the USCG to clarify the story about declining the Dutch offer.





But total assholes like Liarbility will still continue top lie about this issue, mark my words.

 

[Liability]

Apparently all this hysteria over the Jones Act is just more bullshit from the rightwingloons and FAUX news.

Fuck you assholes.

If it was true...
Well... a simple call and email correspondence yesterday afternoon with the Unified Command unequivocally disputes and refutes the Fox News story.
In an official statement by the Unified Command's Lt. Erik Halvorson, Chief, Joint Information Center of the Unified Area Command said:
All potential foreign technology solutions are being reviewed for their suitability to meet response requirements. As Admiral Allen said this morning, he will review waivers of the Jones Act if they are requested, but so far no requests have been made. I am not aware of any instance in which needed foreign ships or technology have not been accepted due to the Jones Act. The Jones Act is not preventing us from getting the technology that we need.
Simply put --- Labor unions and the Jones Act plays no role, zero, nada, zilch in the evaluation of clean-up vessels or technologies. To imply that labor unions and the Jones Act could be blocking the use of the world's best technologies is simply false and misleading. It is not true that Obama is colluding with labor unions to prevent the use of any vessel or technology, foreign or domestic.
There are no foreign vessels with advanced skimming and clean-up technologies just sitting around waiting for Jones Act waivers.
Fox News, the Heritage Foundation and Wilson's politicized story do nothing to contribute to any solution needed to help the gulf coast. At best, Wilson's story serves only to drive a political wedge amidst a national tragedy.

City Brights: Yobie Benjamin : True or false? FOX News: Obama & unions block oil spill clean up efforts

Ravi:

I understand that you are retarded, but you are wrong. So despite your retardation, you need to learn to accept some of those pesky "fact" thingies.

June 10, 2010 - 5:41 PM | by: Brian Wilson

Foreign companies possessing some of the world’s most advanced oil skimming ships say they are being kept out of efforts to clean up the oil spill in the Gulf because of a 1920’s law known as the Jones Act -- a protectionist law that requires vessels working in US waters be built in the US and be crewed by US workers.

Joseph Carafano of the Heritage Foundation has been studying the matter and wonders, “Are we accepting all the international assistance in the maritime domain that we can, and is the Jones Act an impediment to that?”

The Coast Guard and the Administration are quick to point out that some foreign technology is being used in the current cleanup effort. Including:

- Canada’s offer of 3,000 meters of containment boom

- Three sets of COSEQ sweeping arms from the Dutch

- Mexico’s offer of two skimmers and 4200 meters of boom

- Norway’s offer of 8 skimming systems

But that is largely technology transferred to US vessels. Some of the best clean up ships – owned by Belgian, Dutch and the Norwegian firms are NOT being used. Coast Guard Lt. Commander, Chris O’Neil, says that is because they do not meet “the operational requirements of the Unified Area Command.” One of those operational requirements is that vessels comply with the Jones Act.
"Yes, it does apply,” said ONeil,“ I have heard no discussions of waivers.”


Waivers to the Jones Act were granted by the administration of George W. Bush in the days following hurricane Katrina. And today, the Obama White House said waivers might again be considered.
“If there is the need for any type of waiver, that would obviously be granted,” said White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs. “But, we've not had that problem thus far.”

* * * *

Jones Act Slowing Oil Spill Cleanup? Liveshots

 

[antagon]

furthermore, many foreign vessels are working on this situation, already. the deepwater horizon is a foreign vessel. the jones act has to do with the origin and crew of boats shipping goods from one american port to another. that has little or nothing to do with the spill.

 

[Ravi]

Yes, Ravi, I am a liar.http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/...cleanup/comment-page-4/?action=late-new&order

Editorialized bullshit from FAUX as my link shows.

 

[antagon]

Ravi:

I understand that you are retarded, but you are wrong. So despite your retardation, you need to learn to accept some of those pesky "fact" thingies.

do you accept the fact norwegian boats have been working on the spill since april? how does that reflect on your level of retardation?

 

[Ravi]

furthermore, many foreign vessels are working on this situation, already. the deepwater horizon is a foreign vessel. the jones act has to do with the origin and crew of boats shipping goods from one american port to another. that has little or nothing to do with the spill.

Exactly. Liarbility and his ilk would probably love to see the entire gulf coast destroyed so they could continue spreading lies. Bastards make me ill.

 

[Capitalist]

The Federal Aviation Administration banned flights over the GULF OF MEXICO OIL SPILL AND AFFECTED COASTLINE this week.

After all, we don't need any embarrassing photos of the oil slicks.

They banned flights? Really?

Evidently they did, but then there may be very good reasons why they did:

0/5100 NOTAM Details

All aircraft operations are prohibited except those flights authorized by ATC, routine flights supporting offshore oil operations; federal, state, local and military flight operations supporting oil spill recovery and reconstitution efforts; and air medical and law enforcement operations.

1. All pilots operating within and near this area including the shoreline should exercise extreme caution due to the numerous low level operations associated with the deepwater horizon/mc-252 incident 3000 feet and below.

2. Aircraft involved in these operations may make sudden changes in direction, speed, and altitude. For additional information, participating aircraft altitude assignments and awareness, all pilots are recommended to review the following web site dedicated to the aviation cleanup efforts at: https://1afnorth.Region1.Ang.Af.Mil/deepwater_spill/default.Aspx

Its easy to think that this is simply to keep the press and the rest of us from pointing out that the government is hiding something, but then if you think about the massive clean up effort that should be going on, and may or may not be going on at the moment, then safety issues might play a very strong reason in regards to why this airspace is currently restricted.

Immie

On the other hand, this smacks of Soviet-style censorship. In America we expect to receive real news.
Well we used to.
Hope and change.

 

[Liability]

Also from the link above:

DDENDUM: I followed up on readers' comments and again asked the US Coast Guard to elaborate. Their direct response is again through the Unified Command's Lt. Erik Halvorson, Chief, Joint Information Center of the Unified Area Command and is as follows: "...I tell you that we have reviewed all international offers of assistance. More specifically, that the Unified Area Command has received 21 offers of assistance from 17 countries and four international organizations. These offers came through the U.S. State Department.
All offers were reviewed by the Unified Area Command. All qualifying offers were accepted.
Those offers of international assistance that were not accepted did not meet the operational requirements of the Unified Area Command.
These offers have not been declined. They may be needed in the future as our response strategies change. We will reconsider them as necessary.
The Unified Area Command reviews all offers of assistance as the operational situation changes and if an offer meets an operational need, we will pursue acceptance."
Again, according to the USCG, the Jones Act was not a consideration. That said, I am still waiting for the USCG to clarify the story about declining the Dutch offer.





But total assholes like Liarbility will still continue top lie about this issue, mark my words.

First of all RavingFool, I didn't bring up the Jones Act. I merely responded to a comment about it by pointing out that to whatever extent it (the Jones Act) was deemed any kind of a bar to the cleanup effort, it was subject -- unilaterally -- to waiver by the Administration.

That much is plainly true, you lying bitch. It's right there in the law.

Secondly, you lying idiot, if the Jones Act has not been seen as some kind of impediment, then perhaps YOU have a rational coherent explanation for what Coast Guard Lt. Commander, Chris O’Neil was himself quoted as saying.

And if a waiver is not an issue, then why did the Administration's idiot mouthpiece, gibbs, say THIS: “If there is the need for any type of waiver, that would obviously be granted,” said White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs. “But, we've not had that problem thus far.”