Free Markets, Free People


It took 70 days to accept foreign help on the oil spill?

Why?

Really – I want to know.  Why did the “we’ve been on the job since day one” crowd take 70 more days to decide they should accept some offers of help that began coming in within 3 days of the spill.

(Via Hot Air):

The National Incident Command and the Federal On Scene Coordinator have determined that there is a resource need for boom and skimmers that can be met by offers of assistance from foreign governments and international bodies.

The United States will accept 22 offers of assistance from 12 countries and international bodies, including two high speed skimmers and fire containment boom from Japan. We are currently working out the particular modalities of delivering the offered assistance. Further details will be forthcoming once these arrangements are complete…

The Department has released a chart of offers of assistance that the U.S. has received from other governments and international bodies. The chart is updated as necessary to include any additional offers of assistance and decisions on accepting the offers.

The chart shows a good number of more offers still under “consideration”.

Why?

Why isn’t that equipment and technology already here and deployed?

What is going on with the “day one” crowd?  Why are we still screwing around deciding what offers should or shouldn’t be accepted?

Meanwhile, the red tape continues to stymie efforts to clean up the spill.

Freakin’ amazing.

This vid sort of sums it all up.

Oil Spill Timeline from RightChange on Vimeo.

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

28 Responses to It took 70 days to accept foreign help on the oil spill?

  • The real problem here is that the EPA has it’s head up Obama’s ass so far they are giving him tongue.
    Seems that 99.9985% purity is the EPA standard for bilge water (water onboard a ship that may contain water, oil, urine, detergents, solvents, chemicals, pitch, particles, and so forth).
    What this means is in order to use a 99% (in relative terms) efficient skimmer, the water wound have to be 98.998515% pure to start.
    This is the ultimate “Catch 22″ … once you suck up any sea water that contains any pollutant (like say BP crude oil), EPA regulations say you can’t put it back .. because it is “bilge”.
    Any sane person would think that if it is purer than the water pulled from the ocean, it would be safe to go back … but not the EPA. It must be 99.9985% (in absolute terms) pure.
    It must take a special kind of stupid to work for the EPA.

    • Neo, read this…it fills in some blanks and takes the story a bit further on the research side.
      Obama could have waived the EPA regs, as I suggest, along with all others that posed any impediment.  Why did he not?
      There have been market players lined up since week one (if not day one) to address this.  All they lacked was permission.  Why has it not been granted?

      • “…there is only one place in the United States — a center in New Jersey operated by the Minerals Management Service — where cleanup technologies can be tested, at full scale, on spilled oil.”

        I just had to post this excerpt from your linked article. I am sure this center was one bit of pork that didn’t taste so good. I can imagine the sign; “New Jersey Oil Spill Center Exit 99. Caution, Slippery When Wet.”.

        • As if Gov. Christie didn’t have enough image problems.

        • Shoot, there are places in New Jersey where you could tuck that center, and it would look just like the rest of the shoreline.   Better…

      • Again, the technology does not…cannot…assure that ALL taint of ANY petroleum fraction will be removed…so NONE of it gets removed.

        My point exactly.

        • And, as I point out, the most volatile fractions would simply evaporate; waxes and tars have environmental organisms that exploit them, etc.
          But the clear issue is this; WHY NOT REMOVE THE 95% WE CAN???
          I am afraid the answer, in this case, transcends incompetence.  For the EPA-types, it is a matter of religious dogma.  The Dutch are hardly people who are renowned for being environmental rapists, and their technology is what we are discussing, by-in-large.  For Obama, the answer appear to be design…which is much darker…

          • It’s  5 year olds in kindergarten lessons about sharing writ large.
            Well Barney, if you didn’t bring enough for EVERYBODY, no one can have any.

            It is played out again, and again, and again whenever liberals are involved -
            Childhood athletics – If EVERYBODY can’t win, no one should.
            The border – we can’t stop ALL of the illegals with guards or walls or whatever, so…no point in stopping ANY (See that smarmy asshole Pete Stark’s youtube for an example)
            The Gulf – We can’t clean ALL the oil out of the water, so no point in cleaning ANY.

            I don’t know if it’s conscious on their part, I think it results in behavior that demonstrates they’re waiting for the adults to show up to tell them what’s okay.

          • “ WHY NOT REMOVE THE 95% WE CAN..”

            For the same reason we can’t secure our borders or deport illegal aliens.

  • Two reasons there’s been a change:

    1) Enough environmental horror and more importantly helplessness (regardless of it being imposed) has occurred to turn up the regulatory screws on all aspects of energy and oil as well as turn off domestic oil production.  Anything after this point is just more political cost.

    2) The Mega Skimmer from that Billionaire in Taiwan makes for an interesting story and the media can’t really contain it.  It draws people in too deep to the details that the Media can’t do a Jedi Mind Trick on it.  So it draws attention to Obama’s (possibly deliberate) uselessness. 

  • {chuckle} Your ODS is showing again. Yes, if you criticize Obama over anything at all, it’s ODS. I decree it. Because he has a Christlike visage and thinks like me, he has to be right. In a post-modern, multiple truths way, of course.

    I suspect you dense righties are going to be disappointed. In a few months, after this is all dealt with, no one will remember the meme you are trying to push about the incompetence of the magnificent, well-intentioned federal governmnet. Our comrades colleagues in the media will have properly cast the narrative by then, blaming oil companies and mean Republicans for the whole thing. Particularly Bush, who is some of both.

    You think otherwise? {eyes rolling} Just look at how they’ve apportioned blame responsibility for the downturn. Everyone knows it’s Bush’s fault, so don’t start up about how the unemployment really got ramped up after the stimulus and how we can’t afford the debt and how the markets are responding to the debt. Markets don’t adjust themselves, there’s no reason to believe they do. Except when a Republican is at fault, of course. Then they adjust themselves so well that they’re still doing it eighteen months after the Republican is gone.

    Really, all we need here is a multiple truth narrative that makes everyone feel better. The spill isn’t really that bad even though it’s an environmental catastrophe that says we need to stop drilling for oil. Whichever multiple truth is needed to bash Republicans and the private sector at any particular point in time. And that’s not a contradiction. I decree it. Everyone in the faculty lounge agrees with me on this.

    I suspect you guys are going to be disappointed in the fall. I suspect Obama will go down as a great president and is almost certain to be re-elected. I suspect I use weasel words like “I suspect” a lot so you can’t come back and say that I definitely predicted something. I predict all kinds of things over at my blog, which you should come and read though I don’t link to it any more because you mean guys make fun of me when I do. But don’t start up with how my varying predictions mean I’m talking out of all four sides of my mouth so I can come back and crow about my rich, creamy analysis later. Just don’t start. I’m telling you, it’s just my godlike powers of political science manufacturing multiple truths.

    And I like to pull out the right multiple truth when I’m commenting here to set you guys off. I’m having fun. That certainly doesn’t mean I’m mentally sick because I get pleasure from irritating people who wish I would go away and leave them alone. Nope. I’m completely sane, and much smarter than anyone here. In fact, my vast knowledge and advanced degrees give me the capability to study you like aborigines to gather material for my next book: “Totems of the Right: How the Full Lips and Ample Bosom of Sarah Palin have Sent Dense Righties Completely out of Touch with Reality.”

    Of course, you guys don’t understand the wonder and magnificence that is me. LOL. Why, you don’t even seem to respond when I give you little condescending head pats over some minor point you made that I can’t find a multiple truth to bash have partial agreement with. My students always respond to those, but you guys don’t. You must be socially retarded, which isn’t surprising seeing as how many of you are ex-military basket cases wigged out from the stress of serving in an imperialistic military. You don’t even understand how icky guns are. {chuckle} {giggle}

    Your social ineptness also shows up when you insult me instead of offering counter-arguments. See, if you don’t offer a long, detailed, link-rich counter argument that I can handwave aside, then it proves I’m right. The only way you can even stay in the game is go back and forth a thousand times with you offering your counter-arguments, and me magically handwaving them aside. It’s like I’m playing a video game in god-mode. You can’t touch me, but like the automated characters in the game, you ought to keep trying. Otherwise, you prove me right, as I said.

    But don’t start up with how I don’t provide links to support my own decrees assertions. I used to provide links to my blog, where I have long posts with word counts so high they require an Evelyn Wood course to get through, and they prove my position beyond a doubt. But you thick righties probably couldn’t understand them, and begged me to stop, so I mostly did.

    But that does not mean I’m supposed to provide the same kind of detailed links to external sources like you do. Because my godlike powers of political science have grown far beyond the need for “charts” and “graphs” and “evidence.” I can now directly intuit the truth of an issue. Well, the applicable multiple truth, I mean. With a little help from the New York Times and Newsweek.

    • I was wondering Ott if you could say something about the recent, and offensively unjust, arrest of 11 of your friends who were caught spying for the Russians. (I know it’s off-topic from the oil spill cleanup, but in the realm of multiple truths, isn’t everything related?)

      • I can’t comment on that area except to say that my Russian wife is definitely not a deep cover agent, and neither is her ex-Soviet dad. I decree it.

        And she absolutely did not pull any strings to get me a cushy but low-paid job at an obscure moose cow college that doesn’t even grant PhDs. I got that all on my own.

  • Unfortunately I agree with Ott about Obama’s potential re-election. 

    I thought Clinton couldn’t get re-elected, but the republicans found (sorry to be cruel) a dead dick old man to run against virile stud boy.  Imho, they threw the election. 

    We’re less than 2.5 years out from the 2012 election and even less than 1 year out from the campaign season.  There is no one notable running.  Huckabee is the front runner courtesy of FoxNews free publicity.  Palin is damaged goods because of the relentless smear campaign.  Both Huckabee and Palin are Bush Conservatives anyway which means they really aren’t.  

    Romney is damaged goods because of Romneycare, which he was legislativley required to execute but embraced as a campaign selling point instead of disavowing it.  

    There’s people the right or politically minded might be excited about.  But the majority of the so-called middle who decides elections don’t know those people.  If the Republicans wanted to win the Presidency in 2012 the so-called middle would know them already. 

    • Now you’re on the right track.

      See, didn’t that condescending heat pat feel good? Don’t you want another?

    • If only the Republicans could come up with an effectively unknown candidate who’s youth is shrouded in mystery, who’s accomplishments are effectively nil, who attended a white supremacist church and as a legislator consistently voted ‘Present’ on nearly every issue.   Such a candidate, given the right branding, like “Change” and “Hope” could surely win an election!

      /sarc

      All I can say is if you think we got tired of George W. Bush after 8 years, Imeme has strapped a rocketpack to his ineffective ass to make sure we’re extremely tired of his bumbling and arrogance after 4.   All the Republican has to learn to do is lie in as poised and intellectual a manner.

    •  The Republican’s real problem will be too many ‘open’ primaries, especially in a year that the Democrat primaries won’t matter, opening the door for a “moderate” candidate again instead of a conservative one.
      Then again, there is the the biggest factor in Clinton’s re-election -Ross Perot.  If a candidate willing to support the Constitution does emerge as the Republican nominee, it wouldn’t be shocking to see Bloomberg run as an ‘independant’ to split up reasonable voters.

      • If the republicans ran a worthwile candidate, it wouldn’t have been the republicans that ross perot stole votes from.  I’m tired of that excuse. 

      • Wrong . The biggest factor in Clinton’s reelection was Bob Dole. Even Pat Buchanan beat him in the New Hampshire primary where Perot was not a factor. But hey, he makes a good scapegoat.

      • A good camdidate could have blunted Perot’s impact, and a great one might have overcome it, but he wouldn’t have forced him to take away many votes from Clinton. Perot ran as anti statis quo and anti big government, so he took from both sides in 92 since a Republican was in office, but that wasn’t the case in 94. Dole certainly wasn’t a great candidate, but remove Perot from the equation and he was good enough to win.
          Mondale got about the same amount of votes in 84 as Carter did in 1980, the absence of a third party candidate helped boost Reagan’s numbers from 51% to 59%. The anti-Clinton feelings ceratinly weren’t on a par with how Carter was viewed, so Dole would have had to present himself as a stronger candidate than Reagan did in 1980 in order to beat both Clinton and Perot.

  • Generally the safe bet is to choose incompetence over intentional malice, but in the case of Obama and the  oil spill, his refusal to accept international help that was offered almost immediately is hard to understand in terms other than that Obama sees a greater advantage in letting the oil spill wreak its havoc.

    Sir Paul McCartney  said it well:  “Sadly, we need disasters like this to show people. Some people don’t believe in climate warming – like those who don’t believe there was a Holocaust.”

  • So, we were able to get a foreigner into the White House to entertain The Dear Golfer and Michelle, but getting foreigners in to help clean up the worst environmental disaster (I think) in our history took over two months???

    Well, I guess we know The Dear Golfer’s priorities.

  • he was trying to vote present.

  • (SF Gate)It turns out that San Francisco’s eco-conscious Mayor Gavin Newsom and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, own a piece of the deepwater rig at the center of the gulf oil disaster.
    According to the mayor’s most recently filed economic disclosure statement, last year the couple invested between $10,000 and $100,000 in Transocean Inc. – the company whose ruptured deepwater rig, which is leased to BP, is spewing millions of gallons of oil, endangering wildlife and beaches all along the Gulf Coast.
    Just last month, Newsom told the San Diego area East County Magazine that “the environmental catastrophe devastating the Gulf of Mexico is a tragic reminder of why we must take a stand against the oil companies and oppose all offshore drilling off California’s precious coast.”