Slashdot Mirror
Oil Arrives In Louisiana; Defense Booms Inadequate
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."
BP should pay a very, very modest fine.
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.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
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.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
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.
Qxe4
"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.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
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
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...
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Wow, that's totally interesting, I was comparing Obama to Reagan just the other day. My rational was that both of them were easy to like, both of them were inspiring, and both of them had good ideas that were flawed in the implementation. It's like Obama is the Reagan of the left.
Qxe4
I'm British, BP is British and I think those short-cutting, profiteering fucks should be nailed to the wall over this.
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.
And if the money runs out, hell, sell the BP execs houses, cars, Learjets and everything else they own - the oil companies have been price-fixing for years, its time for the tide to turn (if you'll excuse the pun).
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Third parties.
Throw your vote away to not throw your vote away.
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.
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?
What's the downside to enlarging participation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythical_man_month
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
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.
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?
Ah but here were are now there is not enough boom to do "proper fucking booming" so what exactly should they do? Nothing?
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.
Learn to love Alaska