Oil Arrives In Louisiana; Defense Booms Inadequate 359
eldavojohn writes "People in mainland Louisiana are seeing the beginnings of the oil's full effects on wildlife in the area. Sticky, rust-colored oil covers the reeds like a latex paint, indicating that the efforts to lay miles of floating booms to keep it away from the fragile marshes are useless. They are experiencing what the Plaquemines (mouth of Mississippi River) saw last week, and it now appears that their defenses were inadequate. Only time will tell how much worse it can get as BP still scrambles for a solution. NPR also ran a story critical of Obama's 'scientific approach' that he promised to use in office and how well it's being applied and holding up during this crisis."
Not very critical, actually. (Score:3, Insightful)
NPR also ran a story critical of Obama's 'scientific approach' [npr.org] that he promised to use in office and how well it's being applied and holding up during this crisis."
The story isn't actually very critical. At least the editors/journalists involved in the creation of the article don't seem to be critical at all to me. If you feel the need to comment on this sentence, please please read the article first. It's mostly about how a couple of scientists are critical of the fact that stopping the flow has been prioritized over providing an accurate measurement of how much oil is leaking per time unit. Obama said he would release a directive detailing what his science policy (FTA: "he promised a science-based, data-driven approach to solving problems") means, but hasn't done so, even though the deadline he'd promised was already almost a year ago, and at least one scientist says it could have provided guidance that could have made a difference in this situation. It appears that the aforementioned prioritization might be in conflict with solving problems in a "data-driven" way.
Definition of Criticism? (Score:0, Insightful)
It's mostly about how a couple of scientists are critical of the fact ...
Sounds like it's critical to me. And they knock him for being a year late on a promised report when he campaigned on opening the government to the people. And this report could have helped in this situation?
How is that "not very critical, actually"?!
Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp (Score:5, Insightful)
BP should pay a very, very modest fine.
Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp (Score:3, Insightful)
No duh.
What did you expect? That he goes and says something along the lines of "we expect this to be the worst oilspill in the history of mankind, poisoning the beach of southwest US and Mexico for decades, if not centuries"?
The crap any corporate PR goon spills isn't worth the airtime given to it. They will of course downplay anything and everything, every time. Either they're lucky and it is actually less dramatic than everyone thought, then everyone will be happy they were honest. Or everyone will have forgotten about it by the time it impacts (not bloody likely, this is the coast of the US, not the coast of some godforsaken African country). Or IF the shit really hits the fan, everyone will be too busy worrying what to do to remember that the corp shill spilled more garbage than there is oil.
Frankly, is anyone still listening to these greasebags?
Re:BP CEO Hayward Predicts 'very, very modest' Imp (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd consider twice or three time the company net worth quite "modest".
Maybe then oil compnaies will start taking security serious and not "the nuisance necessary to keep the insurance premium low".
Re:Not very critical, actually. (Score:3, Insightful)
Best reply so far. The biggest point you make should be the most obvious: We aren't doing what we have already have proven to work, boom and capture. This only reduces environmental damage, but it has to be captured one way or another, either before it hits land, or after. It is as if the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, and there is NO meaningful leadership going on.
Re:Not very critical, actually. (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't worry. The apologists for BP are in full swing. Everyone that is working to try to fix this mess only keeps yapping how BP is doing "a good job" and "trying their best", etc, etc. Too bad it was them that fucked it up in the first place.
There is also very little information about subsurface buildup of this goo. The "dispersants" only prevent most of the oil from reaching the surface. But I guess subsurface fish spawning areas, coral reefs, etc. are all fucked up now, or will be soon.
It's all PR while the oil keeps flowing.
Re:This is a joke. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you ask me, the entire system is designed to make the most profit for people that are already extremely well off. Its a joke.
Sounds like capitalism to me.
Re:Not very critical, actually. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not very critical, actually. (Score:3, Insightful)
Additional sources of revenue are only short-term solutions to government budget problems. Governments will always expand to consume any additional revenue they acquire, and invariably will commit to long-term spending obligations when faced with temporary windfalls.
Re:Not very critical, actually. (Score:4, Insightful)
Clinton managed to balance the budget by cutting the fat. It is possible to have a fiscally responsible government.
Crisis Situation (Score:5, Insightful)
If that's the NPR story I heard, the simple refutation was given by an administration official, something along the lines of "there isn't a different response to a 1,000 barrels per day vs. a 5,000 barrels per day leak - either way its a disaster that must be contained, and the priority is to contain it."
Decisions driven by good scientific data are extremely important, but if there is only one possible decision (big oil disaster and major huge oil disaster both require an all-out response) then the details can wait until AFTER the bugger has been capped.
Sounded like a non-issue to me.
It's not too intense... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's sort of tiring listening to it after a while though. It becomes profanity theater. Not really needed to get her point across.
Re:Not very critical, actually. (Score:5, Insightful)
As a liberal, I am very, very upset with the man I voted for right now.
And yet you'll still vote for him next election, when he runs against Romney or Gengrich.
Or maybe you won't, maybe you'll be one of the few who decides to vote for an independent instead. But most people of your opinion will still vote for Obama.
Re:This is a joke. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Additionally, we could easily use ultra-capacitors to power electric cars that would take us in a range of 500 + miles and have fast recharging."
Wake me when I can order a suitable cap from Mouser or Digikey.
The NPR article is HORRIBLE. Here's why. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm on the scene monitoring things in Louisiana, working for a government agency. Other than that I have no dog in this fight. I am neither a fan of nor do I hate Obama.
Now read the article carefully. Like this part:
"Francesca Grifo of the Union of Concerned Scientists says it could have been useful in the Gulf of Mexico.
"I'm just very frustrated with how long it has taken for us to have this order," she says, "particularly in light of these events, where this kind of guidance clearly could have made a difference in this situation.""
So what does the reader naturally expect? Obviously, an explanation of how the guidance would have made a difference -- oops, make that a CLEAR difference -- in this situation. Well, you can expect all you want, but you're not getting it from this article.
Then there's this:
"In a teleconference, Jane Lubchenco of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said a group of government scientists came together just this week to seek a scientifically defensible measurement.
"We've always said that it is extremely important to get a reliable flow rate," she said. "But we've known all along that doing so would be extraordinarily difficult.""
I hope you, as a reader, aren't expecting to find out why it would be important -- let alone EXTREMELY important -- to get a reliable flow rate figure. 'Cause you aren't getting it from this article.
I don't know why Lubchenco said this. Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen addressed this issue early on. He said it's NOT important whether it's 5K barrels or 200K barrels -- we'd be doing the same thing in either case, and so it would be a waste of time and resources trying to figure out a number that, in the end, would be at least 50 percent speculation anyway.
- AJ
Re:Not very critical, actually. (Score:4, Insightful)
BP doesn't have external insurance, they are self insured. Meaning, they have a fund. The damage cap is $75 million, how big do you think their fund is? They've said they will pay the whole amount, but how much do you think that will count for when this goes to court? They will blame it all on Transocean and tie this thing up in court for decades.
BP, you're horseshit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Are we to believe that a company with profits equal to a middle sized nation's GDP cannot afford to plug this hole? Sure, it may take hauling 500.000 tons of rocks from the coast, and would cost a few billions of $, but BP can very easily afford that.
Believe you me, the only reason why this crisis is lasting this long, is because BP is doing it piece-meal, so as to not affect the profits almost at all. The upper management at BP are nothing but goons of the worst kind, the most die-hard corporate psychopaths you can imagine. So what if the ecosystem is completely compromised, if it will never recover, if livelihoods of millions will be affected? They don't give a shit. They didn't give a shit when they lobbied (and continue to do so) the govt. to decrease safety regulations, when they cut costs and increased workloads for cost cutting and profit, and when they decided to overlook the reports of pieces of the blowout preventer valve breaking off - and in fact, forcing the oil rig workers to continue as if nothing happened.
Oh yeah, and these executives don't give a shit about the people who died on the platform, either.
Please someone tell me, why shouldn't these soulless suits be lined up and shot, and the event televised for the education of other similar corporate psychopaths?
Re:BP, you're horseshit. (Score:3, Insightful)
Because those same psychopaths fund the election campaigns of every important member of Congress as well as the President, and they are important providers of high-paying jobs for former bureaucrats and regulators.
Well, what you provided here, was a (or one of the) reason why they won't be lined up and shot, but not why they shouldn't.
Re:BP, you're horseshit. (Score:3, Insightful)
To everyone who modded this post up...
So. The top scientists and engineers in America and around the world are huddling their heads together in Houston, having pulled a month's worth of 20-hour days desperately trying to brainstorm every possible way to make the well stop.
And... you're modding up a guy who doesn't think they thought of DUMPING ROCKS ON IT????
Or wait ... they did think of dumping rocks on it but don't want to? Even though they're looking at BILLIONS in cleanup/restoration/litigation costs? Not to mention potential penalties like, you know, no more deepwater drilling?
If blocking it with rocks would work, why would it take 500,000 TONS of rocks? The pressure coming from the wellhead is less than 5,000 POUNDS. And why would simply hauling loads of rocks and dumping them on the wellhead cost "few billions"?
I understand you are upset. The question is, why do you let your emotions turn you into a complete blathering idiot?
- AJ
Re:The NPR article is HORRIBLE. Here's why. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a waste of time nor resources, if the time spent is that of a PR person who simply has to forward a (bunch of) video to scientists, and the resources spent are those of people who aren't otherwise occupied with this. Like, for instance, scientists who aren't useful for fieldwork.
As for what you'd get out of it? Well, what's the point in telling people if they're going to be hit by a category 4 or a category 5 hurricane? Their house is going to be blown away either way, and they'll die if they stay. Why bother? Because accurate and reliable information is a good thing. Having hostile claims that vary by a factor of 20 (5k vs 100k) does no one any good. Especially when the ones with the raw data are the ones with the financial stake in it.
Re:Not very critical, actually. (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless, no amount of dollars will undo the damage to the gulf and surrounding area.
Accidents happen, but responding quickly and appropriately does help mitigate the damage. Instead, it's as if we are witnessing a case study on runaway oil spills...
Re:Not very critical, actually. (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not very critical, actually. (Score:5, Insightful)
Third parties.
Throw your vote away to not throw your vote away.
Re:Not very critical, actually. (Score:3, Insightful)
Reagan was remarkably moderate, likely due to cosmopolitan life in Hollywood. He wasn't of the frothing "God Hate Fags" persuasion typical of recent Republicans, and his communication skill made him appealing.
The Republican Party has purged most of its moderates, so we'll not see his like for a very long time.
Re:Just so you all know. (Score:5, Insightful)
The key here is the quotes around "fix". This disaster can't be completely fixed, so paying the costs of cleanup is far from being held responsible. Meanwhile plenty of people and groups have incurred costs because of the oil spill: people will see their property depreciate, companies will lose business, and institutions like the government will have spent plenty of money studying the spill and helping with cleanup. And, as GP says, these groups won't be able to recover their costs from BP because the courts will protect them.
If businesses are not held fully responsible for their damages then these damages aren't correctly valued in the economy, and thus there are incentives to take the sort of risks that cause oil spills.
yes, a good joke indeed (Score:3, Insightful)
Additionally, we could easily use ultra-capacitors to power electric cars that would take us in a range of 500 + miles and have fast recharging
lol
Re:BP, you're horseshit. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm actually disgusted that the US government has passed legislation making BP only liable for the first $500,000,000 of the cleanup operation - as far as I'm concerned, BP should pay for all of the cleanup AND compensate those who have had their livelihoods affected by this.
When an industry is critical to national security and the outcome of a disaster is too big for any company to repay, most (all?) governments create limited liability and an industry funded compensation pool.
Oil drilling and nuclear power are two industries that come to mind.
Any other setup and no one would enter the business because insurers would never cover the unlimited risk.
Re:Not very critical, actually. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah but here were are now there is not enough boom to do "proper fucking booming" so what exactly should they do?
They are legally and ethically obligated to ensure that such a thing can never happen. If there's not enough fucking booming, they can fucking have more made ahead of time. It's not even prohibitively expensive given that the cost can realistically be split across all operations in the region (it's not like each platform, or even each company, needs its own full set of booming).
Use the boom they do have to cover as much area as possible and hopefully do a little bit of good? Should they do "proper fucking booming" over a small area, and leave the rest to chance?
As opposed to what? Improper booming does nothing. It is exactly as good as zero booming. Worse, even, since it wastes time and resources that could be put to better use than providing photo-ops for idiots with titles.
So yes. Yes they should have done as much proper fucking booming as possible and removed some oil from the water. That would be better than wasting time and boom and neither removing nor meaningfully slowing the progression of any oil whatsoever.
which area?
Some combination of which area most of the oil is heading for and which area would be the most catastrophic to lose.
She comes off like she is saying "look they screwed up again" when its more like the screwed up a long time ago and now don't have the means to fix it, not that it is any better but why can't we portray thing accurately?
They screwed up a long time ago, the screwed up a little while ago, they're screwing up right now, and they show no sign of changing that trend in the near future. Accurate enough for you?
Re:Not very critical, actually. (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the downside to enlarging participation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythical_man_month [wikipedia.org]
The entire PR effort could be replaced with a simple pro-capitalist capitulation: "We screwed up, big time, and unlike the banks, we're solvent enough to pay restitution."
Restitution? You mean paying fishermen, restaurants, hotels, etc. all the money they would have made if the oil spill hadn't hit? What are you going to do -- write off New Orleans and put everybody on the dole?
Unfortunately, if the oil hits the shore, all the money in the world can't clean it up. The best estimates I've seen are that they could clean up 10% of the oil. When the oil coats the plants and mixes with the mud in the wetlands, you can't unscramble the egg. You just destroy a lot of species.
I remember sitting by a lake in New Orleans, and having these big, beautiful fucking birds fly down right next to me. You can't clean up those birds when they're covered with oil. Expert Recommends Killing Oil-Soaked Birds [spiegel.de]
Capitalism is not such a bad system when the gears are allowed to mesh.
Even after decades of reading the Wall Street Journal editorial page, this blind faith in capitalism leaves me speechless.
As the WSJ reported, both Democrats and Republicans left the oil companies unregulated as they cut out well-established safety management procedures. (BP had higher accident and fatality rate than most.) If you have a well-managed government agency with competent, dedicated safety inspectors riding herd on offshore wells, then you can at least make drilling as safe as possible and maybe safe enough. Without competent government regulation, it's bye-bye birdie.
Good.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Not very critical, actually. (Score:5, Insightful)
At least Bush was just an idiot with Katrina.
I hate Bush as much as the next guy but I don't understand why so many harass him for Katrina. Why not place blame on the people who were supposed to be running the state? They live below sea level for fuck sake. Did they not anticipate that something bad may happen?
Re:Not very critical, actually. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not? What they are doing is no better than none at all, and it would have saved money and time to not waste resources. Best would have been to prioritize coastline and lay it right in the highest priority areas. But then, they'd cover less than 1/4 the currently covered area, and you'd have to tell all the people you didn't serve that they weren't worth saving. Would you want to run for reelection after telling Alabama that Texas was more important than them? Could you trust the politicians to save Louisiana when Florida has more electoral votes? No, you just lay what you have, claim "we are out, even though we lied when we said we could handle such a problem" and move on, with no one specifically prioritized over anyone else. It's no better than doing nothing, but it looks like you are doing something and doesn't piss off people as much as doing it right.
why can't we portray thing accurately?
My understanding is that they lied to congress in order to get some of the leases they have. They overstated their ability to respond, and as such, the company should have all leases in the Gulf canceled (without refund) and anyone that sat in front of Congress should be in jail. You want accuracy? Start with responsibility. Otherwise, there's no reason for accuracy. It doesn't matter whether you hit the middle of the dart board or miss and hit the wall if you are given the same score for trying.
Re:Not very critical, actually. (Score:3, Insightful)
The biggest debt producing thing Bush passed was Medicare part D. And that was less debt producing than the program that Democrats wanted to pass.
Re:Not very critical, actually. (Score:3, Insightful)
The biggest debt producing thing Bush passed was Medicare part D
His tax cuts had some deficit implications as well. Not that I disagree with the notion of lower taxes, but it's rather stupid to lower taxes without cutting spending. The Congress had no motivation to do that and Bush didn't press the issue because his party was running the place.
Re:BP, you're horseshit. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oil drilling and nuclear power are two industries that come to mind.
Any other setup and no one would enter the business because insurers would never cover the unlimited risk.
So what you're saying is that the current price of oil is not a "free market" one, and is, in effect, artificially kept at a level lower than it would have been if the risks were properly accounted for?
And driving that up to where it properly belongs is a bad thing why, again?..
Re:Why is oil so hard to separate from water? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not very critical, actually. (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you think it's possible to make Louisiana "whole" if the oil spill hits the wetlands?
I don't. Prince William Sound never recovered from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill#Cleanup_measures_and_environmental_consequences [wikipedia.org]
The oil companies pay "restitution" at a deep discount.
We don't know what all the damage is. The oil companies only pay for the damage we know about. So they get off free for all the damage we don't know about.
And you can't quantify some damages. When I go to New Orleans, I used to see the birds. Now I might not. What's the value of that? How much should BP compensate me? Do I get a voucher for $20 that I can use to watch wildlife documentaries instead?
These environmental catastrophes don't destroy the inefficient, incompetent companies. The last company I heard of that was destroyed because of its incompetence was Johns-Manville, the asbestos company that knew according to confidential company memos that its asbestos was killing people but didn't tell its customers. (In France, the executives would have gone to jail.) They were hit with a lot of product liability suits and went bankrupt. Now they're back in business. Suppose you get mesothelioma, which means you're going to die at age 45 rather than age 75. You sue the asbestos company and get $3 million. Does that make you whole? No, you're still dead. Maybe you would be happy to die if you got $30 million instead. But you can only get so much money out of the asbestos companies, because they're bankrupt.
Conclusion: You can't make people whole after they're harmed. In fact, the threat of massive damages doesn't even deter companies from taking risks that will harm the population. You can only prevent harm beforehand, by having the government regulate dangerous industries. If you cut government regulations, like Bush (and now Obama) did, you're going to have disasters, and the companies responsible can't make the victims whole.