[Psudo]

Teikiatsu wrote:

I don't think there is such a thing as 'everyday tools to clean 95% of oil spills' or this situation wouldn't be nearly as bad as it is

I'm pretty sure running oily water through a net made of coffee filters would filter out some strong majority of the oil, and that's a technology clearly available to anyone in the country. A half a million ordinary people with boats doing that and storing the sludge in garbage bags until it can be processed would be a better response than nothing (though not necessarily a better response than the actual response; I don't know what the actual response has been, other than some early use of chemical dispersants).

Perhaps this situation is as bad as it is because physical access to the disaster area has been limited, or (as has been suggested) some law punishes amateurish volunteer cleanup.

Crosshair wrote:

[to Zipperfish]I find it hard to believe that you are not just trolling. Please stop posting until you properly understand.

I rarely agree with Zipperfish, and I generally agree with the rest of your argument. But I assure you Zipperfish is smarter than you're giving him credit for.

[Zipperfish]

Psudo wrote:

I thought the argument was that everyday people could achieve 5% with tools lying around, if government would let them. Then, when government finally gets it's act together and gets the 0.05% equipment out there, the private do-gooders can go home.

Respectfully, I don't see why it would be the government's job to supply any equipment at all. This is a prvate company that spilled the oil, it should be their responsibility to clean it up. The government, to my mind, acts as an agent for the public resources (the water, the creatures in the water).

The original proposition involved taking the oil aboard a tanker, putting it through some rudimetnary separation procedures and discharge a solution of 5% oil back into the water.

Upon reflection,this strikes me as somewhat of an artificial argument anyway. Oil and water don't mix, they're insoluble for most practical purposes. So you don't need any fancy separation technique. In a calm solution, over time, the oil will settle to the top of the water. If you then discharged the water from the bottom of your tanker, you'd probably only have tens of parts per million of your toxic crude components. So no separaion process required at all (other than time) and you get orders of magnitude better than 5% separation.

Quote:

I rarely agree with Zipperfish, and I generally agree with the rest of your argument. But I assure you Zipperfish is smarter than you're giving him credit for.

That's very kind of you, thanks!

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish wrote:

I don't see why it would be the government's job to supply any equipment at all. This is a prvate company that spilled the oil, it should be their responsibility to clean it up.

Agreed. Then let them clean it up by any means possible, even if those means are imperfect. 95% cleaner beats the hell out of 100% polluted.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

I don't see why it would be the government's job to supply any equipment at all. This is a prvate company that spilled the oil, it should be their responsibility to clean it up.

Agreed. Then let them clean it up by any means possible, even if those means are imperfect. 95% cleaner beats the hell out of 100% polluted.

Again, I don't really understand the 5% thing anyway. I could discharge water with just a few parts per million oil and it would be cheaper than setting up any kind of filtration system.

Also, as a resource for the Gulf, and as a representative for people who eat and live off the seafood there, why should the government let a company discharge highly toxic water into the Gulf.

If there were no technically feasible way to deal with oily wastewater, then I might be more inclined to see your point. But separation of oil and water is realtively easy and cheap and readily available.

[Psudo]

Zipperfish wrote:

Respectfully, I don't see why it would be the government's job to supply any equipment at all. This is a prvate company that spilled the oil, it should be their responsibility to clean it up. The government, to my mind, acts as an agent for the public resources (the water, the creatures in the water).

No, you're right, it's not government's responsibility. But they are going to assume responsibility because that's what governments do. A perfect system would pit victims against perpetrator and result in justice without government acting as an agent, but we do not live in that world. So given that they are inevitably going to try it, they better do a good job. Or force BP to do a good job, as if that were different.

The MMS deserves a trickle of blame for failing to enforce government regulations. (An organization whose efficacy is in doubt for failing to enforce regulations of dubious value; neither prevented the disaster, so why do they exist?) The big screw up is BP's fault, and they are facing the public fury and numerous pending lawsuits they rightly deserve; may they pay through the nose. But I still see an injustice perpetrated by private citizens; why aren't there hundreds of thousands of private boats aiding cleanup however they can? Why are they just sitting back and waiting for tarballs to wash up on their shores? Why wait for someone else to fight your battles for you?

If some government regulation is preventing private cleanup attempts (as was claimed), government deserves criticism for that as well. If government is preventing volunteer cleanup efforts, it's especially vital that government either handle cleanup very effectively or ensure BP does.

Incidentally, it feels weird to say "It's BP's fault!" since BP are my initials, too.

Zipperfish wrote:

That's very kind of you, thanks!

No thanks necessary, for there's no kindness involved. I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

I don't see why it would be the government's job to supply any equipment at all. This is a prvate company that spilled the oil, it should be their responsibility to clean it up.

Agreed. Then let them clean it up by any means possible, even if those means are imperfect. 95% cleaner beats the hell out of 100% polluted.

Imagine if someone spilled oil on my lawn. That person would be responsible for cleaning it up. But do you think I would also grant that person the authority to decide "how clean is clean." Of course not. I mean, do you hate the left-wing so much you want to pollute the environment just to spite them? I find your position bizarre.

[EyeBrock]

I think BP are handling a lot better than Exxon did in Alaska. Obama is full on with the rhetoric as usual but it's not BP alone's fault. Slack regulation has some blame.

[Zipperfish]

Psudo wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

Respectfully, I don't see why it would be the government's job to supply any equipment at all. This is a prvate company that spilled the oil, it should be their responsibility to clean it up. The government, to my mind, acts as an agent for the public resources (the water, the creatures in the water).

No, you're right, it's not government's responsibility. But they are going to assume responsibility because that's what governments do. A perfect system would pit victims against perpetrator and result in justice without government acting as an agent, but we do not live in that world. So given that they are inevitably going to try it, they better do a good job. Or force BP to do a good job, as if that were different.

Agreed 100%.

Quote:

The MMS deserves a trickle of blame for failing to enforce government regulations. (An organization whose efficacy is in doubt for failing to enforce regulations of dubious value; neither prevented the disaster, so why do they exist?) The big screw up is BP's fault, and they are facing the public fury and numerous pending lawsuits they rightly deserve; may they pay through the nose. But I still see an injustice perpetrated by private citizens; why aren't there hundreds of thousands of private boats aiding cleanup however they can? Why are they just sitting back and waiting for tarballs to wash up on their shores? Why wait for someone else to fight your battles for you?

Agreed 100%. The MMS deserves a lot more than a trickle of blame.

In the recent spill in South Korea they had thousands of volunteers--maybe tens of thousands--cleaning up. I can't speak for the US, but in Canada we are prevented from doing this because of our litigious society. What if someone slips on the beach while picking up tarballs?

Too much focus on "rights" and not enough on "duty" in my humble opinion.

Quote:

If some government regulation is preventing private cleanup attempts (as was claimed), government deserves criticism for that as well. If government is preventing volunteer cleanup efforts, it's especially vital that government either handle cleanup very effectively or ensure BP does.

Incidentally, it feels weird to say "It's BP's fault!" since BP are my initials, too.

And MMS are mine! Just joking. Fault is a weird thing. My case study was the collapse of the Grand Banks cod fishery in Canada some years back. Most of the blame was assigned to offshore foreign "fish factory" vessels and politicians in Ottawa. The least blame was assigned ot the Canadian fishermen who physically pulled the fish out of the water. It seemed the blame assigned was proportional to distance from the event. The further away you were, physically, the more blame you got.

I don't think this will happen here as Tony Hayward makes such a convincing Dr. Evil/Mr. Bean villain.

[EyeBrock]

Zip, the cod fishery collapse was a bit more complicated than that. The lack of squid (which were themselves being over fished) for the cod and a massive seal population played their part as did over-fishing by all sides.

[Psudo]

Zipperfish wrote:

Psudo wrote:

The MMS deserves a trickle of blame for failing to enforce government regulations.

The MMS deserves a lot more than a trickle of blame.

At least a trickle, then. I don't mean to measure it, but to explicitly declare that blame lands on more folks than just BP.

Zipperfish wrote:

I can't speak for the US, but in Canada we are prevented from doing this because of our litigious society. What if someone slips on the beach while picking up tarballs?

Too much focus on "rights" and not enough on "duty"

AMEN!

And to answer your question: they get oily.

Zipperfish wrote:

It seemed the blame assigned was proportional to distance from the event. The further away you were, physically, the more blame you got.

The proximate cause is, in legal circles, distinguished from cause-in-fact or ultimate cause. If a guy throws a rock at another's head, he's liable for the medical costs and criminal assault as the proximate cause. But if this happened at a riot induced by a radical political speech, the speaker who incited the riot is the cause-in-fact and liable as well.

BP is proximate. MMS is cause-in-fact. Ultimately, though, the public is at fault. The public's idle can reasonably be blamed for the MMS' corruption (democracy, after all), the cleanup failure, their financial support of BP over decades (including buying their Green publicity campaign over the past few years), the litigious social atmosphere that (may have) prevented that cleanup (and louses things up generally), and the toleration of environmental regulations that (allegedly) prevent cleanup (which was clearly not in any environmentalist's intent).

But it's not an effective outlet for pent-up discontent to blame oneself, so the public ignores their share of the blame and duty in all this.

[Zipperfish]

EyeBrock wrote:

Zip, the cod fishery collapse was a bit more complicated than that. The lack of squid (which were themselves being over fished) for the cod and a massive seal population played their part as did over-fishing by all sides.

I'm not sure the seals had much to do with it myself. But that's another topic.

[Calbeck]

Obama's problem is that he has simultaneously claimed that his Administration is "in charge" and that BP is completely responsible for everything. It is, in fact, completely responsible for everything, making the Administration little more than BP's back-seat mother-in-law complaining about how he never does anything right and should have turned left at Albuquerque.

"Whose ass I need to kick" is actually more appropriate a concern: the feds' job here is enforcement and punishment, not actual direction --- because they are proving themselves absolutely lousy at directing anything involved with the spill, simply because they don't know what to do. Yet they insist on being the central approval clearinghouse for doing it.

It all smacks of a Mel Brooks movie:

President Mel: PLUG THAT HOLE!

BP Director Taggart: But sir, we're a-tryin'! We're a-tryin'! We just ain't never had a sinkhole this big before ---

President Mel: Not good enough! Miss Intern! Take a note! This government will not stand by idly and watch idly, when we can darn well get right in up to our elbows and DO THINGS IDLY! HARRUMPH!

Administration Extras: HARRUMPH!

President Mel: That was a pretty good harrumph there. Let's do it again!

Mel + Extras: HARRUMPH!

BP Director Taggart: Sir, that was all purty an' such, but I don' see how it's a-gettin' that hole plugged any faster.

President Mel: Are you still here?! Miss Intern, take a note of this slacker's intransigence!

Miss Intern: ...I'm sorry, Mister President, but federal regulations clearly state the use of the terms 'slacker' and 'intransigence' may not be used in the same descriptive sentence, per ADOT Code Title Fourteen ---

President Mel: I didn't hire you for your brains, honey. WOOF! (to the room) Boy, I feel empowered today!

[Quantum_Wizard]

Calbeck wrote:

Obama's problem is that he has simultaneously claimed that his Administration is "in charge" and that BP is completely responsible for everything. It is, in fact, completely responsible for everything

BP is certainly responsible in the sense that it is at fault and also in the sense that it is expected to work on stemming the flow and protecting the coast etc.. But I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the Administration to be responsible to at least some extent to protect its citizens from events like these so far as it is able. I'm under the impression that there has been cooperation between BP and some government organizations (e.g. Coast Guard).

If Obama's problem is that he mis-characterizes his Administration to be "in charge", it doesn't sound very serious.

Calbeck wrote:

making the Administration little more than BP's back-seat mother-in-law complaining about how he never does anything right and should have turned left at Albuquerque.

Is that how you think the situation is or how it should be? Like I said above there seems to be cooperation between BP and the Government.

Calbeck wrote:

"Whose ass I need to kick" is actually more appropriate a concern: the feds' job here is enforcement and punishment, not actual direction --- because they are proving themselves absolutely lousy at directing anything involved with the spill, simply because they don't know what to do. Yet they insist on being the central approval clearinghouse for doing it.

I'm just curious since I haven't followed the news very closely, what has the administration done wrong in your opinion?

[Zipperfish]

Calbeck wrote:

Obama's problem is that he has simultaneously claimed that his Administration is "in charge" and that BP is completely responsible for everything. It is, in fact, completely responsible for everything, making the Administration little more than BP's back-seat mother-in-law complaining about how he never does anything right and should have turned left at Albuquerque.

"Whose ass I need to kick" is actually more appropriate a concern: the feds' job here is enforcement and punishment, not actual direction --- because they are proving themselves absolutely lousy at directing anything involved with the spill, simply because they don't know what to do. Yet they insist on being the central approval clearinghouse for doing it.

It all smacks of a Mel Brooks movie:

President Mel: PLUG THAT HOLE!

BP Director Taggart: But sir, we're a-tryin'! We're a-tryin'! We just ain't never had a sinkhole this big before ---

President Mel: Not good enough! Miss Intern! Take a note! This government will not stand by idly and watch idly, when we can darn well get right in up to our elbows and DO THINGS IDLY! HARRUMPH!

Administration Extras: HARRUMPH!

President Mel: That was a pretty good harrumph there. Let's do it again!

Mel + Extras: HARRUMPH!

BP Director Taggart: Sir, that was all purty an' such, but I don' see how it's a-gettin' that hole plugged any faster.

President Mel: Are you still here?! Miss Intern, take a note of this slacker's intransigence!

Miss Intern: ...I'm sorry, Mister President, but federal regulations clearly state the use of the terms 'slacker' and 'intransigence' may not be used in the same descriptive sentence, per ADOT Code Title Fourteen ---

President Mel: I didn't hire you for your brains, honey. WOOF! (to the room) Boy, I feel empowered today!

Thanks for the giggle!

The decision that responsible parties should direct the response to an oil spill was a policy decision made some time ago (in Canada as well as the US). Probably Clinton era; maybe even George Bush Sr. The thinking was that oil companies know better, and are better equipped than government to respond to an oil spill. It;s never been a very clean-cut arrnagement and teh bigger the spill, the fuzzier the line between public and private gets.

Clearly government (i.e. the public) has a huge role in that it is public resources that are primarily being impacted. But you've hit the mail on the ehad with this bipolar "we're washing our hands of the whole thing" and "we're in charge of this thing" dichotomy.

The situation is actually worse in Canada. If we get a big spill up here, it will be way more of a going show.

[Calbeck]

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

If Obama's problem is that he mis-characterizes his Administration to be "in charge", it doesn't sound very serious.

Political grandstanding during a major disaster is only serious insofar as it serves to impede recovery efforts.

And since, in this case, the Administration's grandstanding centers around demanding oversight and ultimate control over a process that it admits it has no notion how to oversee or control...yeah.

Calbeck wrote:

making the Administration little more than BP's back-seat mother-in-law complaining about how he never does anything right and should have turned left at Albuquerque.

Quote:

Is that how you think the situation is or how it should be?

Is.

Quote:

I'm just curious since I haven't followed the news very closely, what has the administration done wrong in your opinion?

So far? Almost everything it's actually within their power to do. So far, what have we heard about that they've done right? In all fairness, it was smart to quickly put together a team of top experts, which was done almost immediately. But nothing from that team has produced anything concrete --- they seem to be almost wholly focused on esoterica, and are not actually plugged into the federal network, so they've neither come up with solutions nor had any means to implement them.

Useless "blue ribbon panels" are such an American institution, it's hard not to eyeroll.