Gulf Oil Disaster.

[Nymeria Sand]

I'm not saying it is or isn't oil rain...only that it's physically possible.

[AndyP]

NY Times an interesting story involving life around oil seeps in the Gulf

In 1984, scientists found that the heat was not necessary. In exploring the depths of the Gulf of Mexico, they discovered sunless habitats powered by a new form of nourishment. The microbes that founded the food chain lived not on hot minerals but on cold petrochemicals seeping up from the icy seabed.

Today, scientists have identified roughly one hundred sites in the gulf where cold-seep communities of clams, mussels and tube worms flourish in the sunless depths. And they have accumulated evidence of many more — hundreds by some estimates, thousands by others — most especially in the gulf’s deep, unexplored waters.

“It wouldn’t surprise me if there were 2,000 communities, from suburbs to cities,” said Ian R. MacDonald, an oceanographer at Florida State University who studies the dark ecosystems.

The world’s richest known concentration of these remarkable communities is in the Gulf of Mexico. The life forms include tube worms up to eight feet long. Some of the creatures appear old enough, scientists say, to predate the arrival of Columbus in the New World.

There is concern that these life forms could be overwhelmed by the amounts of oil gushing into the Gulf.

[The Progressive]

On NPR this morning, there's a story about how some Gulf Coast fishermen are still fishing, and eating, fishes and shripm captured right by spill areas. Crazy! I hope they don't wash that up and then try to sell it off as normal seafoods. The fine against this is a joke.

[Shryke]

Is the oil spill not disastery enough for you yet?

As much as 1 million times the normal level of methane gas has been found in some regions near the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, enough to potentially deplete oxygen and create a dead zone, U.S. scientists said on Tuesday.

In some areas, the crew of 12 scientists found concentrations that were 100,000 times higher than normal.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65L6IA20100622

And more oil casualties:

Pelicans!

Crews cleaning up the oil in one Louisiana parish have trampled the nests and eggs of birds including the brown pelican, which came off the endangered species list last year, the head of the parish said Wednesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/16/louisiana.trampled.nests/index.html

Turtles!

A boat captain working to rescue sea turtles in the Gulf of Mexico says he has seen BP ships burning sea turtles and other wildlife alive.

Captain Mike Ellis said in an interview posted on You Tube that the boats are conducting controlled burns to get rid of the oil.

Ellis said most of the turtles he has seen are Kemps Ridley turtles, a critically endangered species. Harming or killing one would bring stiff civil and criminal penalties and fines of up to $50,000 against BP.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/oil_spill/is-bp-burning-sea-turtles-alive-06222010

[Shryke]

Also, BP: Is our Oil Companies learning?

The future of BP’s offshore oil operations in the Gulf of Mexico has been thrown into doubt by the recent drilling disaster and court wrangling over a moratorium.

The BP drilling station on the artificial island in the Beaufort Sea. Because of its location on the artificial island, it has been exempted from the moratorium on offshore drilling.

But about three miles off the coast of Alaska, BP is moving ahead with a controversial and potentially record-setting project to drill two miles under the sea and then six to eight miles horizontally to reach what is believed to be a 100-million-barrel reservoir of oil under federal waters.

All other new projects in the Arctic have been halted by the Obama administration’s moratorium on offshore drilling, including more traditional projects like Shell Oil’s plans to drill three wells in the Chukchi Sea and two in the Beaufort.

But BP’s project, called Liberty, has been exempted as regulators have granted it status as an “onshore” project even though it is about three miles off the coast in the Beaufort Sea. The reason: it sits on an artificial island — a 31-acre pile of gravel in about 22 feet of water — built by BP.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/us/24rig.html

[Swordfish]

Awesome......

In sharp contrast to Dutch preparedness before the fact and the Dutch instinct to dive into action once an emergency becomes apparent, witness the American reaction to the Dutch offer of help. The U.S. government responded with "Thanks but no thanks," remarked Visser, despite BP's desire to bring in the Dutch equipment and despite the no-lose nature of the Dutch offer --the Dutch government offered the use of its equipment at no charge. Even after the U.S. refused, the Dutch kept their vessels on standby, hoping the Americans would come round. By May 5, the U.S. had not come round. To the contrary, the U.S. had also turned down offers of help from 12 other governments, most of them with superior expertise and equipment --unlike the U.S., Europe has robust fleets of Oil Spill Response Vessels that sail circles around their make-shift U.S. counterparts.

The Americans, overwhelmed by the catastrophic consequences of the BP spill, finally relented and took the Dutch up on their offer -- but only partly. Because the U.S. didn't want Dutch ships working the Gulf, the U.S. airlifted the Dutch equipment to the Gulf and then retrofitted it to U.S. vessels. And rather than have experienced Dutch crews immediately operate the oil-skimming equipment, to appease labour unions the U.S. postponed the clean-up operation to allow U.S. crews to be trained.

[Guest Raidne]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

Okay, I got that out. So are we finally distracted away from the blame game and ready to talk about how we are utterly screwing up the recovery effort?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I saw an interesting billboard today. It appears BPUS is changing its name back to "Gulf". I wonder if this will work PR wise?

[Annelise]

So are we finally distracted away from the blame game and ready to talk about how we are utterly screwing up the recovery effort?

I just can't get my outrage on. I'll take your word for it though, I'm not following it closely. Hit my crisis threshold or something.

I did see A Whale has arrived on the scene - hopefully it gets in action soon and its refitting proves successful.

[Swordfish]

I just can't get my outrage on. I'll take your word for it though, I'm not following it closely. Hit my crisis threshold or something.

I did see A Whale has arrived on the scene - hopefully it gets in action soon and its refitting proves successful.

The badness of the issue crosses traditional party lines.

At least for rational people.

This crisis is more an indictment on the futlility of the federal government than on any particular party.

[zollo]

The badness of the issue crosses traditional party lines.

At least for rational people.

This crisis is more an indictment on the futlility of the federal government than on any particular party.

I was wondering when that "Dutch" bit of news was going to show up - was in the Dutch news a month ago. The project leader was just baffled - they got extensive experience, they are on site.... etc. Good to see this piece of news did make it across to the US - you sometimes have to wonder how much does.

[Guest Raidne]

The badness of the issue crosses traditional party lines.

At least for rational people.

I'm with you...

This crisis is more an indictment on the futlility of the federal government than on any particular party.

And then...but...wait? Didn't you just say this was a non-partisan issue? But then you say it proves that the federal government under any administration is futile? When the recovery effort is being led by a private company?

Sneaky. Rove would be proud.

Personally, I'm holding the Obama adminstration responsible, and I'm going to say again that we should stop worrying about liability and just worry about stopping and containing this thing, and that that effort should be led by the federal government because this a national disaster.

And...

I was wondering when that "Dutch" bit of news was going to show up - was in the Dutch news a month ago. The project leader was just baffled - they got extensive experience, they are on site.... etc. Good to see this piece of news did make it across to the US - you sometimes have to wonder how much does.

WTF where we thinking here? Is this the Bush Administration? I thought a desire to leave off with the "America! F*** Yeah!" approach to everything was one of the major reasons we elected this guy!

[The Iceman of the North]

I was wondering when that "Dutch" bit of news was going to show up - was in the Dutch news a month ago. The project leader was just baffled - they got extensive experience, they are on site.... etc. Good to see this piece of news did make it across to the US - you sometimes have to wonder how much does.

Why use the Dutch on site, when they can have Norwegian equipment on site within a few weeks?

[Swordfish]

I'm with you...

And then...but...wait? Didn't you just say this was a non-partisan issue? But then you say it proves that the federal government under any administration is futile? When the recovery effort is being led by a private company?

Sneaky. Rove would be proud.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Criticizing the federal governments role in this is in no way absolving BP for the way they have handled it.

Did you not read the article?

Personally, I'm holding the Obama adminstration responsible, and I'm going to say again that we should stop worrying about liability and just worry about stopping and containing this thing, and that that effort should be led by the federal government because this a national disaster.

If you believe the Feds are capable of handling this disaster, then we have a very different degree of faith in the federal government, particularly given their track record handling national disasters.

[Guest Raidne]

If you believe the Feds are capable of handling this disaster, then we have a very different degree of faith in the federal government, particularly given their track record handling national disasters.

Maybe that's because I took a history senior seminar on man-made and natural disasters in America and you haven't? ;)

Look, this is not an optional policy program like universal health care. This is a gushing oil spill. Doing nothing is not an option. So somebody has to do it.

Should it be BP? Why? If BP has to make a decision where the interest of the residents in the Gulf region are in conflict with the interests of BP shareholders, BP is legally bound to go with the interests of the shareholders. That is not what anyone would want here.

It's a good general principle - private corporations are great when we want the actor to do whatever is best for profit, and really, really bad when there are other overriding concerns.

[Swordfish]

Maybe that's because I took a history senior seminar on man-made and natural disasters in America and you haven't? ;)

That could certainly be one of the reasons.

i suspect there are others.

;)

Look, this is not an optional policy program like universal health care. This is a gushing oil spill. Doing nothing is not an option.

Did you attend a senior level seminar on dramatically stating the obvious as well? Because i certainly haven't advocated doing nothing.

So somebody has to do it.

Should it be BP? Why? If BP has to make a decision where the interest of the residents in the Gulf region are in conflict with the interests of BP shareholders, BP is legally bound to go with the interests of the shareholders. That is not what anyone would want here.

I don't think in this case the two things are that far out of line. And where they are I can certainly see the need to have the government intervening.

It IS in the interest of the shareholders that BP fix this. The longer it goes on, the more expensive it gets.

Second, it isn't just a choice between BP or the feds. We should have the companies most capable of handling these disasters working on it. I'm sure there are MANY companies contracted on this stuff right now, not just BP....

If the article is accurate, it appears that the federal government is actually IMPEDING progress.

That is not what anyone would want here.

It's a good general principle - private corporations are great when we want the actor to do whatever is best for profit, and really, really bad when there are other overriding concerns.

i don't think we are going to make much progress here, but

but i will put forth a few things.

We may be getting into the territory of descending into a mostly semantic argument.

if you are talking about oversight and enforcement when you say leading, then we don't really disagree.

But, as evidenced by the article, it's not like good intentions are going to clean up all that friggin oil. Mammoth bureaucracy is not going to help stop the bleeding.

Frankly, I don't really give a shit about intentions at this point, I give a shit about results. And BP and the federal government have both shit the bed in that department.

[Guest Raidne]

Did you attend a senior level seminar on dramatically stating the obvious as well? Because i certainly haven't advocated doing nothing.

I'm afraid not, but there was a survey course on that very subject, although it was titled Introduction to Philosophy.

But seriously, the point was that every action needs an actor, so put something on the line here and tell me who you think the actor should be. Are you saying it should be some private company? Like, we should bid a contract titled "fix the catastrophic oil spill thingy"?

It IS in the interest of the shareholders that BP fix this. The longer it goes on, the more expensive it gets.

Second, it isn't just a choice between BP or the feds. We should have the companies most capable of handling these disasters working on it. I'm sure there are MANY companies contracted on this stuff right now, not just BP....

Right - what's in BP's interest is to minimize liability. For sure. Stopping the spill and cleaning it up is one way to do that.

On the latter, I have no problem with the federal government contracting out parts of the recovery effort, although if the Dutch are willing to help for free, I'd hope we wouldn't just decide to pay Lockheed Martin instead?

if you are talking about oversight and enforcement when you say leading, then we don't really disagree.

I'm trying to think of a good example disaster to illustrate what I mean. Let's go with the Great Chicago Fire. The O'Leary cow thing is made up - apparently it was weather conditions and the drift of embers toward the city. But let's say those embers were negligently let loose by a coal plant.

So, the city's on fire. Should the coal plant be responsible for stopping it? Should the mayor get right on top of an agreement ensuring that the coal plant will pay for the damages to the city? Or, should we start taking bids from private contractors to put out the fire?

Or should the city send out the firefighters and put out the fire? The main problem in the actual fire was that they didn't do it soon enough.

We've been sold this line that BP has the experts, but that's bullshit. There's an entire Naval department devoted to this.

While the magnitude of this spill is unprecedented for this team, Keenan said SUPSALV personnel regularly operate their equipment at oil spill exercises around the world. He said in this type of an effort, safety standards are a key part of their operation. His team follows strict personal protection protocols and complete OSHA's Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response training as a standard part of their training requirements.

SUPSALV has been the Navy's oil pollution experts since the 1970s, as required by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. They provide technical, operational, and emergency support to the Navy, Department of Defense and other federal agencies in the ocean engineering disciplines of marine salvage, pollution abatement, diving, diving system certification, and underwater ship husbandry.

Let's put them in charge, no?

[Swordfish]

I'm afraid not, but there was a survey course on that very subject, although it was titled Introduction to Philosophy.

But seriously, the point was that every action needs an actor, so put something on the line here and tell me who you think the actor should be. Are you saying it should be some private company? Like, we should bid a contract titled "fix the catastrophic oil spill thingy"?

Whoever is most capable of fixing it.

I will freely admit that i don't know who that is.

Right - what's in BP's interest is to minimize liability. For sure. Stopping the spill and cleaning it up is one way to do that.

On the latter, I have no problem with the federal government contracting out parts of the recovery effort, although if the Dutch are willing to help for free, I'd hope we wouldn't just decide to pay Lockheed Martin instead?

it would depend if Lockheed Martin is better at it than the Dutch. Since BP is picking up the tab, i wouldn't be too worried about the cost.

I'm trying to think of a good example disaster to illustrate what I mean. Let's go with the Great Chicago Fire. The O'Leary cow thing is made up - apparently it was weather conditions and the drift of embers toward the city. But let's say those embers were negligently let loose by a coal plant.

So, the city's on fire. Should the coal plant be responsible for stopping it?

If they are the most well equipped to handle it, absolutely.

Should the mayor get right on top of an agreement ensuring that the coal plant will pay for the damages to the city?

That would be a secondary concern. If the resources were available to do both simultaneously, sure, why not?

Or, should we start taking bids from private contractors to put out the fire?

Certainly. if there are such contractors, and it increases the chances of keeping the city from burning down.

What we shouldn't do is turn away the help being offered from one of the best foreign firefighting companies in the world on the basis of protecting american jobs while the city burns, or turn them away at the city limits because they aren't wearing seatbelts. Which is what the federal government appears to be doing.

Or should the city send out the firefighters and put out the fire?

I think the problem here is that you are using and 'or', when you should be using an 'and'. Sending out the firefighters and seeking outside help are not mutually exclusive activities.

The main problem in the actual fire was that they didn't do it soon enough.

Which seems to be at least part of the problem here as well.

We've been sold this line that BP has the experts, but that's bullshit. There's an entire Naval department devoted to this.

Let's put them in charge, no?

If they are most qualified, sure. Otherwise, no.

Any thoughts on why they haven't been put in charge?

[Guest Raidne]

Okay, it's semantics. We both agree the federal government should oversee all efforts, that whoever is best equipped to fix the problem should be tasked with fixing it, and that the current administration is doing a terrible job.

We disagree on whether the fact that the current administration is doing a terrible job is evidence that government, in general, sucks at doing anything.

ETA: And my working theory for why BP is still the major presence on the ground is that having it any other way lessens their liability in paying for the damage.

[Swordfish]

Okay, it's semantics. We both agree the federal government should oversee all efforts, that whoever is best equipped to fix the problem should be tasked with fixing it, and that the current administration is doing a terrible job.

We disagree on whether the fact that the current administration is doing a terrible job is evidence that government, in general, sucks at doing anything.

Pretty much, yeah.

ETA: And my working theory for why BP is still the major presence on the ground is that having it any other way lessens their liability in paying for the damage.

Interesting, possible, and if so, deplorable.