Look people you need some perspective

[nadinbrzezinski]

as to how fast you can like plug these things... and it has nothing to do with defending BP as in my mind PB is beyond criminally negligent. But read on this small accident from PEMEX http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I, if you think this is going to take a month or two... I fear from THAT experience that will not start to be fixed until they drill a relief well.

This means a lot more damage, see criminal liability, but to expect this to just be solved like this... is unrealistic.

Oh and for those going, but if the government was in charge... guess what? PEMEX IS a government agency... and no accidents don't happen. In fact, the more I read about the Ixtoc I and this... all similarities are NOT coincidental. The first time, yes you can pass this as an accident... see Ixtoc I, the second time... not so much.

Now to those accusing me of defending them... well having some perspective based on the real world HELPS. I personally will be shocked if they manage to get this done BEFORE a relief well is drilled... suffice it to say it is DEEPER than teh Ixtoc, enough said... oh and the experts that used to be part of the Feds... are long gone to PRIVATE industry, you call all thank US Presidents starting with Ronnie, but Clinton did not stop the process.

[Jennicut]

1. Ixtoc I took 9 months to stop.

The relief well may be the only solution if the top kill method fails. No one has ever tried this at 5000 feet before. BP are criminals but no one has the answer for this, just guesses and hopes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. And that one was MUCH MORE shallower

I know.

[Jennicut]

10. Yup. And yet Obama can fix it if he only tried harder!

I want to bang my head against the keyboard. I think some people don't want to come to terms with the fact that no one really knows how to stop this because none of the technology attempted to stop it has been tried at this depth. The top kill method is next and it has never been tried before at 5000 feet.
BP sucks and I hate them. But they are not trying to not stop the leak. Experimental technology is not perfect.
Deep sea drilling is not without huge risks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. I suspect explosives are next in the list

and at this point, taking of experiments, I would not be surprised if somebody goes for the nuke option... which is hard as hell to deliver and to get the actual compression wave... all rumors to the ruskies having done this before.

And BP execs should be held accountable to all extent of the law.

[aquart]

18. Fine. Take them on your own damn ocean.

[Jennicut]

20. BP are criminals and should be held accountable for what happened.

That is not what I am saying. People are letting anger get in the way of common sense about oil spills at this depth. I find it scarier that this in not about incompetence for stopping the leak but just pure lack of knowledge of how to stop it in the deep of water. And we have deeper wells out there. Deep sea drilling is being exposed and that is the only good thing about all of this. The risks far out-weigh the reward. We as a country need to think about that. And yet a majority of people are still not against it, in polling anyway.

[tavalon]

35. The risk of something like this happening with deep sea drilling

is actually extremely small (ignoring for a moment that they didn't bother with all of the available failsafes) but what that says to me is deep sea drilling should be off limits, period. Yeah, that means we deal with peak oil earlier but we're going to deal with it anyway, so I'd rather we didn't destroy our oceans before we come to the realization that this is too risky to even do, ever.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. We are at peak oil actually

:-)

And we should have started going green when Carter wanted to do it.

[tavalon]

42. I know that and you know that

but the quickest way to pull a thread offtopic and get it locked is to posit that. Seen it. Know you have to.

[pitohui]

106. forgive me if i no longer believe in peak oil

sorry, but now that we're all seeing with our own eyes just how much oil is actually down there, i think peak oil is gonna be a REAL HARD SELL this time of century

we have an oil spill per jeff masters of weather underground the size of the entire state of delaware and no end in sight, they can't figure out how to stop it coming out, there's so much -- as you say, until a relief oil is drilled, this thing could be gushing for months

we have a BIG problem here and i truly appreciate your sane, reasoned posts...but peak oil is not gonna be a convincing argument to make

there's more oil than most of us ever knew how to imagine in this earth of ours

we need more safety, we need more redundancy, and we need more science/tech at these deep pressures

for sure we DON'T need more yelling at obama and we DO need more "green" energy

but at the end of the day, i'm done w. peak oil, it appears to me to be b.s. -- this planet seems to be a big ole ball of oil with a thin skin of water and land on it, or maybe that's just the way i'm feeling right now, i dunno

[nadinbrzezinski]

108. Peak oil is not just about how much oil is down there

but how easy or hard it is to get.

Think about it this way... when we started exploiting it in the good ol' days, La Brea was literally oozing with it.

These days it is getting increasingly more difficult and expensive. So you get into a curve of diminishing returns. We will realistically, never get all the oil out of the ground. That is the truth. But we will reach a point where it will not be worth it.

[pitohui]

110. agreed but that's a real hard sell right now

when the planet earth is literally spitting the oil in our face, perhaps not the most convincing time to make this particular argument

overall i agree w. your posts, i just think the "peak oil" stuff is an unhelpful digression

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. And those who think issues through

know what I am talking about. Now Inhofe and crew... still think this is the La Brea Field... no changing their mind. I mean we have no global weather change either. This is more about a lack of technical \ scientific training than the reality on the ground.

And truth be told, there are people in this country you cannot talk to about this... I mean God made the world 6,000 years ago, and he will restore all the Earth to it's glory at the Rapture...

No talking with those people.

[depakid]

113. "there are people in this country you cannot talk to about this..."

Yep- because when it comes right down to it- they're scientifically illiterate.

[nadinbrzezinski]

114. And it is not jsut them unfortunately

It is a problem in the country... at all levels and political persuasions.

There are days I want to cry... but they are the most obvious.

[William Z. Foster]

140. as if that were the worry

It is the politically illiterate that are the problem, not the scientifically illiterate.

Arguing for the current approach to this catastrophe is requiring people to undermine and contradict the very idea of having a government at all, other than as some advisory panel to corporations. That is a stunning case of political illiteracy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

143. Nobody is arguing for the privatization of the governemtn

Only in your imagination. IN FACT we are in this hole because of it, but you do not fix that problem in the middle of a disaster. You use the disaster to change that though.

Buy a clue, the USCG USED to have gear for this... more than the limited resources they have right now.

Try to find WHY they don't have right now and START to put pressure so this state of affairs CHANGES.

Now that is the political reality too, and you'll have to deal with those nuts too. I mean a few are like US Congressmen and US Senators, and if a few of them become US President, the trend will only accelerate.

[William Z. Foster]

146. strange

How is what happened in the past, or what may happen in the future relevant to the immediate emergency and the response to it?

Odd that people would talk about whom from the past to blame for this, and would talk about legislation and the like at some time in the future as an argument against a more robust federal intervention in the response effort right now - command and control intervention, not intervention as helpmates to a private party, a corporation.

Very strange.

[nadinbrzezinski]

149. You want a more robust Fed intervention

I will ask once again... where is the Equipment that is US Owned with US Personnel to respond to this?

When you point that gear and personnel, I will acknowledge your reality.

In the world I live, having been to a few disasters I know that in the middle of a disaster you work with the assets you got at that moment... not the ones you wished you had.

Now brass tacks to brass tacks, what is your disaster management experience?

Mine was that after one of those messes, we did an after action report, and realized what we needed for the NEXT ONE. That is the way it works in the real world... perhaps you are in a business where things are different... so we are bringing different life experiences to the table.

[William Z. Foster]

153. amazing

There are dozens of examples of the federal government doing exactly what you say cannot be done when the government did not have the "gear and personnel."

The government does not need to own equipment or have personnel to manage a project - of course.

If you are saying that the equipment and personnel needed are nowhere to be found, that is a different story and also not relevant to this debate.

Whatever equipment and personnel are available anywhere, only the federal government has the power and authority to organize, command, and direct that equipment and personnel to protect the public welfare.

[nadinbrzezinski]

156. Here you go once again

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/site/2931/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_Command_System

Facts are pesky I know

[Jennicut]

59. It should be off limits.

And we have a decline in all the major oil fields right now. Things get riskier because the oil still out there is tougher to get to.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Text book definition of peak oil

by the way

[Jennicut]

73. Yes, and the prices will go up as there is high demand with less oil and oil that is more expensive

to extract.

[pitohui]

107. oil future prices are dropping (as of friday)

do people not even check the facts at all before they opine?

"less and less oil" ??? the cat is out of the bag, there is so much oil that it's gushing out of the damn planet like a damn artery from a bleeding VAMPIRE that won't freaking die

[hunter]

137. This disaster is but a small fraction of total world oil extraction.

Oil prices are falling today because the economy is crashing -- you know, people without jobs and all that. They don't buy stuff, they don't drive around so much.

One of the symptoms of peak oil will be (and has been) extreme oscillations in prices.

[tavalon]

84. Yep, it's time to do an intervention for our world oil addicts

All of them. All of us.

[jeanpalmer]

91. The risk of any one drilling going bad

like this one may be extremely small, but the risk of this occurring as thousands of wells are drilled has to be much higher. In fact, I'm thinking it's almost inevitable. Even if the overall risk is low, as you say the damage is catastrophic. And that's the choice people face in being in favor of offshore drilling. They're willing to accept the small risk of a huge catastrophe. Obama is in that group. People who are opposed to offshore drilling are not willing to accept the small risk. IMO they've been proved right.

Another argument for me to oppose this kind of drilling is we should save some oil for future generations. We're on a course to drill the planet dry. Why not save some of it -- offshore, ANWAR etc. -- for our kids. Who knows what superior use it might be put to. It's really shortsighted and greedy to drill everything.

[amborin]

80. the well was 11,800 feet below sea floor

not that much deeper than bp

but in shallower water

[FSogol]

2. K & R n/t

[Mike 03]

3. I agree, and I pray that people think about what you are saying. Kick and Rec. NT

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. I hope too, but don't expect it

we live in an instant society... snap fingers and done...

And people have NO DAMN clue as to some of the problems. Just the pressures at those depths changes how things work.

[Mike 03]

13. It is always so good to talk to you. You are so sane. I wish everyone were like you. NT

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. I guess having worked a few disasters

means I can assess things not letting emotion run through... don't know.

[NYC_SKP]

5. The 1991 Gulf War Oil "Spill" is the only worse release of crude petroleum.

Three times worse than Ixtoc, but then that was a deliberate act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_spill#Largest_oil_spills

That's just for trivia.

Your point is well taken (no pun intended).

Back seat drivers, all of us.

Not an expert in the bunch, IMO.

:hi:

[malaise]

7. Good post

Government has been depleted of experts after eight years of Bush. What's more government has not been investing to stay ahead of these criminal corporations because Bushco wanted it that way.

Hopefully there will be real changes now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Would you like 25?

the process of privatization started with Ronnie, went faster under Bush Senior (DoD started to go on steroids under SecDef Chenney for example), continued under Clinton and went on steroids under Junior.

[malaise]

14. Closer to 30

:D

[TheKentuckian]

8. BP doesn't accept excuses when I'm too broke to buy gas.

They couldn't fix it then they had no right to profit or even be there.

They better call in favors from geologist, theoretical physicists, explosive experts, chemist, better get super computer time to run models on, or whatever the fuck they have to do.

Offer their leases and equipment to their "competition" to motivate them to pull an answer out of their collective asses and to demonstrate they can handle a similar problem or lose their shit too.

I'm not interested in excuses or even reasons. Spend every dime of company, executive, and share holder money until it gets done, no matter how holistic and wide the solution net has to be until it is figured out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. I am just laying to you the reality

Nobody, government or non-government, can do this by snapping fingers, period. And to expect otherwise is irational. As is I am willing to bet that they are calling on all those favors... and hiring people... or will soon. Piece of Trivia, took PEMEX two months to hire Reid Adair and his team. That is corporate drag your feet, we don't need help mentality. Ain't limited to the private sector. Again, being grounded in the real world and human behavior helps. And humans are REALLY stubborn during disasters, no matter what kind.

As to the depths of this... here is to scare you. This well is not the deepest either. Chew on that, and why we need to move AWAY from oil.

[Jennicut]

12. Try the Tiber Field. People have no idea.

[rhett o rick]

82. They dont have to do any of those things. There is no one that can make them. Their liability is

limited to $75 million dollars. They could just let it spew, pay their $75 million and continue drilling near by. Our guvment aint goina do shit. BP and the other big corporations FUCKIN OWN OUR GOVERNMENT. The only reason they might try to stop the spew, is because it may be more profitable to them.

[SidDithers]

98. Environmental fines are $1,000 per barrel...nt

Sid

[malaise]

94. I agree with you but

the plutocrats were allowed to get away with murder for three decades.
If Obama had begun his tenure be announcing that there would be no more deep water drilling until BO et al demonstrated that they could handle such disaster, he'd have been buried already.

This is his moment and I hope he's prepared to go much further than he did with the other robber barons from Wall Street.

[gateley]

17. You present a good argument but my impatience comes from the hubris of

BP (refusing to let NOAA take a look, not complying with the EPA's directive to use an alternative dispersant) and the SEEMING lack of balls from the administration in the face of this.

I'm under no illusion that this will be a quick fix, and I think we will be suffering the repercussions for decades if not longer.

I think I just want Obama to come out and SHOW us how angry he is. That may not be wise politically, but neither is putting forth a calm appearance and having the population wonder why they're not doing something more, or, worse, if he's in 'cahoots' w/BP.

He could come out and explain it to us much as you did in your OP - more than a brief statement here and there. It's so frustrating when we aren't told what's going on, and that leaves room for so much conjecture.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. I suspect they are a little busy for that

as to BP... realize this is a BRITISH OWNED Company, so there are these added problems of working with the BRITISH government. No, not many people realize this, but BP is not truly private... it is more like PEMEX.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP

Only difference, PEMEX has not expanded outside Mexican Waters.

So they are truly a strange hybrid... between private (they do have investors after all and are traded) and government owned.

That adds a dimension to this that would not exist if this was Shell.

[gateley]

24. I hate to be stubborn, but I think he should make the time to present the

facts - as you have - and the steps being taken. A half hour would do it. I think it would go a long way in helping more people understand and as a result be more realistic. We just want assurances a little more detailed than "we're doing all we can do".

I'm in agreement that they've undoubtedly called in experts from all over and are working furiously. But again, the appearance that they're being a little too laid back is damaging.

And about BP, didn't know that it's private/public/government. Regardless, it's our coastline and they should respect our requests. When they don't, it's adding more fuel to the "BP is running the whole show" fire.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. I agree with you

but I just don't expect it... not until all the smokey room deals are fixed. And given the nature of those involved, I will lay odds on them happening.

I am betting the conversations between London and DC, and under Secretaries of State are getting down right hysterical... and in my view... we should be asking the Swedes for some help as well as Brazil... which might be happening... behind closed doors. They have the expertise, we don't.

And yes BP is a weird entity... in that sense just like PEMEX, which you can buy stock in as well,

[TheKentuckian]

34. Not interested in that either. The Brits can play ball or lose an ally and even risk war

I have absolutely no concern for human niceties and who's turf is whose in relation to this matter. As far as I am concerned unless we are in danger of losing the atmosphere, have a crack in the crust, a super volcano eruption, or something of such scale this is issue #1.

Sound unreasonable? Sound crazed? Good.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. So you are willing to risk a war

with a nuclear power.

Okie dokie.

[TheKentuckian]

46. You think they are? You think the British people would allow a war with

the US over protecting BP? If they did then what could they possibly do but use nukes because we could have them embargoed and air capped without recourse. If they use nukes then whole cloth the game is over. I think they will give up BP and it's assets under the gun.

Certainly, way less than desirable or even tolerable but at the end of the line choices start to suck. I will use any possible means to stop this gusher and reverse or contain the affects, all the way to the fringe of human capability and with any concern for anybody's political or economic objections.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Like the people ever have a choice on war.

fortunately nobody is going to go to war over this... and if any nuke is used, it will be to stop this, maybe... rumors have it the ruskies used one in a similar situation.

As to reverse this... the earth will recover... I am not sure about humanity.

And I mean it, those in charge will not go to war. Now BP might not survive this, even if they are a British agency, they are semi private, and their government might decide to let them go bankrupt.

[TheKentuckian]

66. Those in charge are hard pressed to pen a strongly worded letter

I don't expect crap to be done. I'm saying there should be no stops on getting whatever can be possibly be done within every inch of human ability be done and double quick.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. You and I have no clue what is goin on behind closed doors

That will be something a graduate student will discover when a lot of this is declassed, oh 50 years from now.

[TheKentuckian]

85. Then I have to ask why you are asserting what you are confident is happening

and if what is happening is "behind closed doors" then it can't be much good going on at all.

No reason for cloak and dagger secrets. What is going on Nadin is he is covering and working in the interests of big carbon, BP specifically, and his own ass by ducking accountability and therefore the accountability of his subordinates and now the protected industry.

BP has too much incentive to hide the scope and causes of this debacle and has far too poor of a track record to be trusted at all and anyone stupid enough to trust them is nearly as bad or inept.

Turn it over to another oil company at minimum. At least then we reduce the incentive to bullshit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. Because the US GOVERNMENT is in charge

one Admiral of the USCG Thad Allen is the INCIDENT commander

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/559191/

Not that this matters either. At least to many here it don't

[William Z. Foster]

124. not according to Allen nor to Salazar

Allen is telling us why the government's hands are tied.

Salazar is saying that IF the privatized response fails that THEN the government will "push them out of the way" and take over.

The administration does not think the government is in charge. Otherwise why would they be threatening to take charge, and why would they be offering excuses as to why they are not in charge?

[nadinbrzezinski]

133. As you type this I listen to the IC... on the TV machine

Free clue, he is wearing a nice military uniform, with stars.

[William Z. Foster]

139. you cannot be serious

Because someone is on TV "wearing a nice military uniform, with stars" that resolves this debate?

[nadinbrzezinski]

144. Well since he was designated as the Incident Commander

he is in charge.

[William Z. Foster]

147. of what?

It is starting to look as though he is in charge of spinning this form political reasons. He is certainly not enjoying or exercising any meaningful authority here - he himself has said that. He claims that this is because the government's hand are tied. That is an opinion, and that opinion smells a lot more like a CYA political talking point then it does any expert opinion on the proper role of the federal government in times of dire emergency.

[nadinbrzezinski]

151. Well if the president went on sight and personally directed operations

that woudl not be enough for you

Mind you, I'd not want him there.

[William Z. Foster]

158. what?

The President going on site and holding pressers? Are you serious? Is that what you think is being said? I don't think you could possibly think that I said anything like that.

Again, here is what I am saying:

The federal government needs to be in absolute charge of all aspects of the response to this emergency.

Now, how on earth do you get to "you want the President to do photo ops and press conferences" from that?

[nadinbrzezinski]

160. They are

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/site/2931/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_Command_System

and that is the point

[scarletwoman]

22. Not to worry. He's appointed a Commission.

I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of everything when they release their report in a year or so.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Commisions are standard unfortunately

and they are looking at how to prevent this AGAIN.

In the disaster business this is the after action report, except half the after action has not been written, aka how you stop it.

By the way the Feds DO NOT have the experts to do this... after all the US does not have a national Oil concern, now do we?

[scarletwoman]

27. Yes, standard for whitewashing the actions of all involved parties.

As to being an "after action report", they're at it a bit early as you say.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Whitwashing or not, I participated in a few of them

that led to substantial reforms. So I have a far less jaded view I guess. One of those led directly to the creation of one HAZMAT team and one confined rescue team as well as disaster supply caches. As I said, I have a far less jaded view. Some white wash, others do not.

In this case I am almost betting, if this is like the ones I got to play with, are the... okay brass tacks who has the most experience with this world wide?

[emulatorloo]

32. Thanks for the info and your perspective. Much appreciated n/t

[scarletwoman]

51. Oh do go on. Don't let me stop you.

Yes, brass tacks...

You were saying?

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Are you privy to conversations at high levels of government

I am not... and this is NOT the bush administration

[scarletwoman]

74. Of course not. I'm not one for making claims of expertise on internet message boards. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. Nah you are the one sharing your cynicism

I am talking from personal experience with blue ribbon pannels. Some white wash, others don't.

[scarletwoman]

81. I claim no expertise in cynicism, either -- although I've had a bit of practice over the years...

[hobbit709]

170. "A committee is the only known lifeform with 3 or more bellies and no brain"

[Mike 03]

21. Thank you for your intelligence, balance, knowledge and wisdom. NT

[Kerrytravelers]

26. Thank you for this well thought out and well written post, and the following posts you wrote.

While we'd all like this disaster fixed immediately, that is simply irrational. And to think that Obama is somehow being glib and doesn't care is unfounded. Not only does he have the Bush clean up, major reforms and wars to deal with, now he has this. To think that he would drop everything for the spill just doesn't make sense. Obama sitting, listening to engineering suggestions all day just doesn't stand to reason. Let the engineers do their jobs while Obama continues with the other business of the people.

When I proudly voted for Obama, I knew I was voting for a President, not a Messiah. I have reasonable expectations given the reality in which we live. I continue to believe he will bring about changes as he can, but I have no preconceived notions that beginning on January 20, 2009 the world would suddenly be completely different than it was on January 19, 2009.

Again, thanks for the great post. :hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Oh trust me, if I could have it fixed

by snapping fingers I'd do that too

:-)

But I also don't expect the government, no matter who leads it, to learn one of the chief lessons here. Corporations are not infallible, and when given the choice, they will go for profit over safety.

[Kerrytravelers]

61. Exactly. Perhaps this will be one of the major upsets that begins to bring down the corporations.

Ok... a girl can dream, can't she?

[William Z. Foster]

70. no one has called for that

No one has suggested that anything could be fixed with a snap of the finger.

You are misrepresenting the people who are calling for a stronger government role.

[Swamp Rat]

33. I do not think you nor many DUers understand the gravity and magnitude of this disaster.

Obama MUST focus on this problem before it is too late for all of us.

The problem may not get fixed immediately, but Obama must TRY to fix it immediately.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. I am possitive the people with the expertise on this

are already on it.

What the President has to do is go... DO IT. He is a Constitutional Lawyer, not an extraction engineer.

Problem is that we have few in the government that have the actual expertise, and that is by design.

Ronald Reagan on <-----------

[William Z. Foster]

72. false and misleading

Obama's lack of expertise as an extraction engineer is a red herring - completely irrelevant.

We are calling for the government to supervise the experts, not be the experts. The alternative is to leave management and control over the response in private hands.

"People with the expertise on this are already on it." what does that even mean? Don't worry your little heads, children, this is all too complicated for you to comprehend?

What we are asking for is the people with the expertise on this to be under federal supervision and accountable thereby to the people and that they then be working for the public interest and welfare - clearly, completely, and unambiguously - rather than for a private entity with different goals and needs in this situation than the best interests of the public and the public welfare.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. So you are telling me

that Reagan on did not privatize the government... YOU ARE out there buddy.

[William Z. Foster]

118. didn't say anything like that

What did I say that could remotely be characterized as saying that "Reagan on did not privatize the government?"

I would say he had a lot of help, and that there are a lot of people here who subscribe to the same ideas.

[nadinbrzezinski]

123. And you are accusing those of us who WORKED in the PUBLIC Sector

and are all for having the resources to do this in the public sector of subscribing to these ideas.

Never mind that at this point in time I'd rather deal with the reality. RIGHT NOW we don't... so we are stuck to this Faustian choice, who do you hire?

In an ideal world the USCG would have the equipment and the expertise to do this, at depth. They don't. That is the reality.

Facts are stubborn I know.

[William Z. Foster]

128. repeating the same discredited idea

I am not "accusing you" of anything. I am successfully analyzing you argument and showing that you are promoting privatization and seriously misrepresenting the arguments of others and distracting and misleading people.

The argument that the government does not "have the equipment and the expertise" to manage this is a red herring, it is irrelevant. That has been more than adequately proven now. The government has often taken over or initiated projects without having the "the equipment and the expertise" ahead of time.

The role of government is to protect the public welfare - which cannot be left to corporations - and only the federal government has the authority and power to do this. It is authority and power used for the purpose of protecting the public welfare that is needed and missing, not "the equipment and the expertise."

By your logic "oh well the government does not have an army, so I guess we will let the South secede and slavery to remain in place" or "oh well, the government dies have the equipment and the expertise to explore space, so no NASA, I guess" or "oh well, the government does have the expertise about agriculture, so no USDA, no Land Grant colleges" or "the government knows nothing about railroads, and has no railroad equipment or expertise, so no USRA."

[nadinbrzezinski]

130. You have a very active imagination

and lack of readying comprehension skills.

I have not argued for privatization. I have pointed out the FACT that we do not have the gear. THAT IS THE REALITY. Deal with it or not.

Rather don't, you can't.

[William Z. Foster]

132. let's try one more time

I am calling for absolute control of the response to the catastrophe to be taken over by the federal government.

The argument that the government does "not have the gear" is irrelevant, and not a logical rebuttal to the first statement.

The government "having gear" is not a prerequisite to federal management of a project. The government not "having gear" is not a legitmate argument for privatization - leaving a project in private hands.

[nadinbrzezinski]

136. Let's try this again

who is the IC? Free clue, he is wearing a blue uniform, with four stars.

Why does he have to rely on a PRIVATE COMPANY to do this? We don't have, at this time, the equipment or expertise to do this. HE COULD hire somebody else...

Facts are pesky I know.

Should we have the gear and expertise? YES

But we don't RIGHT NOW

Deal with it.

[William Z. Foster]

138. right

Who said private companies should not be involved? Another straw man argument, since I said no such thing. Of course private companies - and everything and anything needed - should be included.

The question is this - who is in charge?

The person you keep citing has said the truth about this himself - the government's hands are tied. Salazar agrees with him that the federal government is not now in charge. I think you do, as well, and are saying that the government should not or can not be in charge for various reasons - "they don't have the gear" for example.

The federal government is not in charge. I say the federal government should be in charge. Either you agree with that, or you don't.

[nadinbrzezinski]

141. Who is in charge

Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen

That's been answered repeatedly.

You have a problem with all kinds of facts.

So who do you want on scene? WHO HAS THE GEAR AND THE EXPERTISE AT THIS TIME?

So instead of BP let's say we HIRED Shell...

You want the US Government to do this... what part of we do not have the capability at THIS TIME to do it are you having quite a bit of trouble comprehending?

This is not a fire fighting response...

Nobody is pulling hose, nor can I replace one firefighter with a thousand others.

As they say, buy a clue... you need it.

[William Z. Foster]

142. he does not think so

Salazar does not think so.

You do not think so.

I did not say that the "government (should) to do this" - I said the federal government should have absolute control over this.

[nadinbrzezinski]

152. Here is a hint

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/site/2931/

And here is a second

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_Command_System

Buy a clue. I am being serious.

[Kerrytravelers]

50. I understand it perfectly fine. I simply do not have expectations that are unreasonable.

And, yes, that picture of the dead fish is terribly emotional, yet it does nothing to demonstrate that Obama simply doesn't care. There is nothing to show that Obama isn't doing all that he can in his position. In fact, he is legally restricted from taking over the clean up. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/22/frustration-mounts-as-oil_n_585913.html As simple as it may seem, the law prevents the government from just taking over, Allen said. After the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, Congress dictated that oil companies be responsible for dealing with major accidents – including paying for all cleanup – with oversight by federal agencies.

I keep seeing he should try more. How, exactly? List a complete run-down of everything he must do to be "trying" and then prove that those things aren't being done. To just say he isn't trying doesn't really mean anything. :shrug: Sorry, SwampRat, I like you and this isn't personally directed to shut you down, but you responded to me in a rather calm manner, so I figure you're a likely one to ask exactly what you mean. :hi:

[William Z. Foster]

122. not true

Any law that prevents the government from intervening to protect public welfare is a law that violates and contradicts superior law - of course.

"Oil companies being responsible" does not mean that the government must be subordinate to them, and "with oversight by federal agencies" does not mean that is the only thing the government can do.

You are citing Allen's opinion about this - or perhaps a talking point coming down from on high? This could possibly be a hint at a huge scandal, we shall see. Is Allen promoting privatization and misleading the public here? I suspect that could well be the case. Is that at the direction of the White House?

If in fact the law passed by Congress was meant to tie the government's hands, place the public welfare at risk, rather than restrict corporations, that makes government response worse, not better. This raises a lot of issues, and is certainly not the last word about it.

At the very least, on the face of it, it is completely illogical that a law making corporations responsible for their spills and calling for government oversight does not in any way give corporations a free hand or prevent government intervention. Allen is either misleading us, or there is more to the story. But the part of that law he cited does not lead to the conclusion he claims it does.

[William Z. Foster]

28. who cares if we are "unrealistic?"

One would think that the great danger were alarmism and exaggeration and hyperbole, rather than complacency and apathy and understating of the crisis. How much more evidence do we need that it is the latter rather than the former.

Rather than telling people to be patient, be quiet blah blah I am going to advise people to...

Get angry and scream your heads off. Talk to everyone everywhere and don't ever back down. Start talking now and don't stop until we get this thing turned around. Be prepared to take mass action, to shut this thing down, to strike, to resist. We cannot afford to "wait" or "be patient" or "be realistic" or any of the rest of the intellectual Prozac people are trying to feed us day after day after day.

Why are people still telling us to be cautious, to go slow, to quiet down? We need to smash through that opposition - and opposition is what it is no matter how many times people say "I agree with you, don't get me wrong, BUT...."

It is wolf-in-sheep-clothing opposition we are up against everywhere we turn.

We don't have to be patient. We don't have to have it all perfectly figured out before we speak out. We don't have to go quietly. We don't have to submit. We do not have to "be realistic." Our opponents are not doing any of those things, and they are cleaning our clock. It is time to fight back.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. We need to move away from petroloeum

but that is a separate question... and we need to do it like 30 years ago... yes Carter was right.

That said, expecting this gusher to stop just because you throw a hissy fit will do not an iota of difference, beyond giving you an ulcer.

So yes, organize, do what you can to reduce your energy consumption and insist that BP be held LEGALLY accountable. Just don't expect miracles right now with the gusher. And that is exactly what you are asking.

[William Z. Foster]

41. I have not seen that

I am certainly not asking for miracles, nor have I seen anyone else do that. You are misrepresenting what people are saying in order to discredit them.

No one is "expecting this gusher to stop just because they throw a hissy fit."

That is a malicious and derogatory misrepresentation of the people you are fighting so hard to marginalize.

"Do what you can to reduce energy consumption????" We are so far beyond that now, and again I did not say that and you are implying that I did.

"Insist that BP be held LEGALLY accountable???" It is a corporation. There is nothing there to hold to account. BP is a symptom of a much bigger problem. Fail to see that and you fail to learn anything from this. Perhaps you do not want people to draw the logical and inescapable conclusions from this. And again, I did not say that BP should be held accountable, yet you imply that is what I must be saying. Nationalize BP, maybe. Certainly take control of the management of the catastrophe away from them. But I am not calling for some slap on the wrist.

I would request that you refrain from speaking in a condescending and paternalistic way to people here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Do me a favor, there is this thing called the IGNORE button

you do have a problem when facts are presented. Nor am I being paternalistic. Deal with the facts on the OP. IT TOOK PEMEX 9 MONTHS to stop the IXTOC 1 which was in SHALLOWER waters...

Those are the facts.

[William Z. Foster]

45. then use it

I am going to continue to speak out, and counter the pro-corporate propaganda that dominates the discussions here.

Feel free to ignore me, but I will not ignore you.

Favor denied.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. What pro corporate propaganda?

Pesky facts (took 9 months and a relief well) is facts...

Deal with it, or not, I don't give a damn.

[William Z. Foster]

52. privatization

You are defending and promoting a privatized response to the catastrophe, and arguing against government management of the response.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. I am not, just working on the reality of the situaiton

do kindly point to US assets to respond to this... I will be waiting here.

Should we have them? Yes...

Do we have them? NO

[William Z. Foster]

60. sure

Call it "realistic" - that is the usual cover for it. "Realistic" or not, you are arguing for privatization.

This is, again, not a question of what "assets" are currently owned by the government - clearly. Marshall the assets - that is what the government always does, it is the main purpose of having any government in the first place. The purpose of government involvement is primarily to protect the interests and welfare of the public rather than trusting that somehow some private entity with other concerns will magically do.

The argument you are using could - and routinely is - used to argue against all government action and in favor of privatization of everything.

How did any of the things listed below get accomplished, if it were not for the government taking the leading role and assembling and directing and managing the assets and talents and skills?

And the government manages the project for the public good, not for the needs and desires of a private entity. How can any Democrat fail to see this or argument against it?

By your logic we would not have -

- Public roads

- Public education

- Weights and measures

- Land Grant colleges

- the National Park system

- The space program

- Communications infrastructure

- Public water systems and other utilities

- Postal service

And on, and on, and on, and on.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. POINT TO THE CURRENT ASSETS THE US HAS TO DEAL WITH THIS

You can't.

By the way... I also mentioned contacting the Swedes, and the Brazilians in these series of posts. I guess those are not governments but private companies, by your logic.

If you want to accuse me of being a libertarian, which you are, you are doing a terrible job.

The reality is we do NOT have the assets right now, and you can thank for that the US Government, I don't care what party is or was in control. THOSE ARE THE FUCKING FACTS, deal with it. And that is because the US does not have a public oil company... deal with it.

[William Z. Foster]

76. ridiculous

The government has the power to assemble the assets. You have not responded to that, but rather start repeating your argument and shouting at people. That suggests that you do not have a response.

Let's analyze your argument -

"All assets and expertise are in private hands, thanks to de-regulation and privatization, so therefore the emergency response will have to be privatized, but don't worry we will get to regulating some things in the future - maybe."

Nationalize the resources, assets, talent, and skills needed to get the job done, and set the goals for the benefit of the public, for the public welfare, not BP's welfare. BP is worried about BP - obviously. No surprise there, and I don't even blame anyone at BP for that. The rest of us here are worried first and foremost about the people and about the environment. You mock and ridicule those people, talking to them as though they were little children.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. WHAT ASSETS?

WE DON'T HAVE THEM. And even if I got the very proprietary piece of gear, yes they are that specialized, who will run it? Oh wait, PRIVATE CONTRACTORS.

This is a rare thing. This is not a fire response when we have the gear, the personnel and the training.

That said, we have ONE piece of asset that nobody else does, (well not outside governments) and if they decide to do that, I will hear the howling too. TAC-NUKE, which the Russians were rumored to use in a similar situation.

By the way our next best deal is to ask two MORE GOVERNMENTS that actually have the expertise, the gear and the personnel. But I am sure you will keep ignoring that. After all I am a looney lib, that will vote for Rand Paul, you got me...

:sarcasm:

[William Z. Foster]

102. no idea what you are talking about

Sorry.

I answered the "assets" issue. The government had no railroad equipment or expertise or assets when the USRA was formed - that is but one example that crushes your thesis on this.

The nuke thing - WTF. No idea what you are on about.

I have promoted one simple idea - clearly and effectively - ending the privatization of the response to this disaster. What is so difficult to grasp about that?

You are weaving one colossal web of obfuscation, distraction, and confusion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. Again WHAT ASSETS does the US Government have

to do this?

POINT TO THE FUCKING ASSETS.

[William Z. Foster]

126. that has been answered

The same "assets" that the government had whenever any program was federalized - none. So what? The government is not a privatized entity, merely one among many - or is it in your mind, is it in fact merely an advisory board to corporations?

What "assets" did the government had to start NASA, to start the USRA, to start the WPB and on and on and on?

This is a bizarre and illogical argument to use to promote privatization, and nothing more.

[nadinbrzezinski]

134. Do we have time to engineer the equipment we need right now?

Strange argument indeed.

Logic is not your strong suit, is it?

[William Z. Foster]

145. we don't need to

I am calling for federal control over the response. Why would that make any equipment unavailable? It would make any and all equipment MORE available. That is the point of having the feds take it over, that is the whole point of even having a government in the first place.

"Do we have time to engineer the equipment we need right now?" is such an irrelevant and distracting response. Who called for having the government start over from scratch, or for not using existing equipment and expertise, wherever it may now be? No one did.

[nadinbrzezinski]

154. they are

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/site/2931/

Read on how

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_Command_System

[William Z. Foster]

164. spam

You have spammed the same response to all my posts.

Why? Your argument cannot be defended or supported, that is the only explanation.

[Jennicut]

68. This is different though. The govt. has LESS knowledge then

oil companies do. That is not Obama's fault, that goes back 30 years. This is a unique situation in that respect. The best scientists and engineers with knowledge about this sort of thing are already working with BP right now.
The privatized response vs govt response is a false issue because the govt has been so gutted in this area it makes no difference. I think many people don't realize that. There was a few scientists that Obama called on but we really don't do deep sea technology in the govt.
If the govt. took control the only thing that might be different is that we might be told that there is nothing else that can be done except wait for the relief well in 2 months, or rely on pure help. BP has set expectations too high that they could stop the oil spill. No one knows how, when, if to stop it. It is all guesses in the dark.

[Codeine]

55. "I would request that you refrain from speaking in a condescending and paternalistic way to people"

:rofl: Dude, that's how she talks to ANYONE with whom she disagrees. She's immune to modding and will not be held accountable for her attitude.

She's also, for the record, 100% right on this issue.

[Kerrytravelers]

58. " who cares if we are "unrealistic?" "

As nadinbrzezinski stated, you're going to give yourself an ulcer.

You're setting up unrealistic expectations for the reality of what is happening. Yes, getting off this dependency on oil is the right thing to do, but right now, there is an oil spill. And engineers, not a Constitutional lawyer, are working on solutions. I'd like to think that our current president, unlike the last one, can walk and chew gum at the same time. There is still other business of the people to tend to.

The other side is not cleaning our clocks. Rush wants to sue the Sierra Club. That isn't cleaning our clocks, it's making a lot of stupid noise to no avail.


Pssst. Did you re-read your opening line: who cares if we are "unrealistic?" Really? That's coming from an emotional standpoint, but I don't want Obama to be emotional. I want him to be logical. Which is exactly what he's doing. Instead of running in mad circle, hand-wringing and wetting his pants, like our last White House resident would have done, he is staying calm. I prefer calm to crazy.

Like I said to SwampRat, I'm not being personal. But misplaced emotion is serving you no purpose but to give yourself an ulcer.

[Dappleganger]

36. It is frustrating

I do feel like we need to shove BP aside and bring in the real engineers and scientists to fix this thing. People who aren't wrapped up in covering their asses and are willing to throw it all down for the win in fixing the problem.

There also does need to be better communication from the WH and not just expressing frustration towards BP or others. Once the gusher is closed up we can then shut them out of American waters and land for good.

These inventions which Costner has brought to the area, they also need to be mass-produced and used (let the Navy and Coast Guard do it). I also want to see immediate, emergency help given to people in the Gulf who can no longer make a living because of this epic disaster.

I'll leave the hand-wringing to someone else, I just want to see a timetable of solutions and some REAL problems being solved by those who are most qualified to do so.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. It is frustrating yes, but realism has to be exercised as well

as to CYA... I am sure a few in MMS are on full CYA as well.

As to expertise, on purpose, and by design the US Government don't have it. OTHER GOVERNMENTS do, and given the nature of these things... and time lines, I am almost betting that a few calls to Lula d'Silva have been placed, as well as Sweden.

It took PEMEX two months, so I would not be too shocked if it took two more weeks before we go public with any of those requests. Human nature is so damn predictable. As to them being on our waters... I doubt we will be kicking anybody off... or for that matter nationalizing anything. It is just not in our DNA. Or at least the DNA of those in charge of the system.

[William Z. Foster]

49. irrelevant

Your true argument emerges - you are supporting and promoting the ongoing privatization of the response to this catastrophe.

The reason for having the government involved is to coordinate, supervise and manage the expertise, and most importantly to protect the public interest and welfare.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. No I am not

but go on with your fantasy

[William Z. Foster]

129. I did not say that

I did not say that you were irrelevant, I said the point you keep trying to pound into people's heads is irrelevant.

Demonstrate its relevancy if you disagree with me. I suspect that you cannot, and that is why we keep heading off on these tangents and you merely keep repeating your assertion about this over and over again rather than defending or supporting it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

135. So you still cannot point to US Assets

and cannot deal with the CURRENT reality that we are stuck on hiring a contractor to do this.

I wish it was different... alas it is not. PRESENT facts are pesky, I know.

[William Z. Foster]

148. repeated yet again

You merely keep repeating this "the government does not have the assets" line.

As has been more than adequately pointed out, that has never been a barrier to the federal government taking authority over any project before.

Only the federal government has the power and authority to locate and commandeer whatever assets are needed. That is the very reason for calling for complete federalized control over the emergency response.

You argue the exact opposite, that only private industry has the assets, and so therefore the government cannot take over complete control of this project.

[nadinbrzezinski]

155. You have problems with them facts I know

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_Command_System


http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/site/2931/

[Ex Lurker]

44. we're all well aware of how long it takes to drill a relief well. That doesn't have anything to

do with boom material sitting on trailers at the dock with no one there to deploy it. Nor does it have anything to do with the COE dragging its feet on the permitting process so the state can go ahead with dredging sand berms. Nor does it have anything to do with BP defying the EPA's order to stop using toxic dispersant. Those are separate issues from the efforts to kill the well. THEY could be solved immediately if the Fed. gov. would get its head out of its collective ass.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. As you said, those are sepearate issues

and ones we have to start putting pressure, if not already done, on congress critters.

There is this about red tape that is maddening in these conditions... having been on the I want to do something but there is this shit load of red tape... I know what you are saying.

[William Z. Foster]

63. kick

Vital discussion on the defining issue in all areas of the current political situation - privatization versus public management.

Privatization of the management of a major catastrophe? This is being promoted by Democrats?

[amborin]

65. Pemex

is a huge and ineffective bureaucracy; with all due respect, its equipment is not state of the art

i'm against privatizing it, but it does need massive infusions of capital

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. That is another discussion and that goes

into government making sure the public sector does not work.

:-)

But point taken. I could write a damn thesis into what is wrong with PEMEX and a few others like the IMSS.

Wait a few round these parts will accuse you of being a Libertarian looney too. Oh and just helps to point out that when the Ixtoc happened PEMEX was less dysfunctional.

[The Magistrate]

71. Well Done, Ma'am!

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. Thanks I wish people realized

just how badly out of assets we are at the fed level for this... and that was done on purpose.

[ShamelessHussy]

83. not just stopping it, but protecting coast lines,sucking up the oil that is out there, as well AS

tacking CHARGE, leadership... this is a NATIONAL DISASTER on an EPIC scale, and only a nation state(s) have the resources, and/or authority to commandeer any it may be lacking to address this ONGOING disaster.

i am not accusing you of defending 'them', just not having the vision to appreciate the SCALE of this disaster to recognize the only appropriate entity with the resources to even try to match it.

in fact, why are we NOT asking for help from other nations to deal with this?!

WTF

[ljm2002]

86. You are conflating two things...

...you seem to be saying that those who are disappointed, nay, furious at the government's response so far, simply do not understand the issues.

That is not true.

We can fully recognize the magnitude of the problem and how difficult this will be to control, while finding the government's response to be less than stellar.

See this for example:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/ybenjamin/detail?entry_id=64175

It is entitled "Obama's 10 Failures" and it lays out things that weren't done and should have been. I did find item 2) to be unfair:

"2) The US has failed to build any deep sea exploration exploration subs or robotic systems."

because I don't see that he would have been able to do this in his time in office, not at all. On the other hand, the other 9 items are valid. Particularly galling are:

"4) Failure to ask the Japanese, French, Chinese and Russians for assistance. Only these four nations have deep sea submarine and robotic systems that can work in depth of one mile or greater."

I'm guessing that we can't ask any of them for help, because to do so would be to acknowledge that we really are not "Number One!", and of course the rabid right wing would say he was undermining our authority by doing so.

and

"9) Allowing BP to ignore US EPA orders and still using hundreds of thousands of gallons of their old stock of highly toxic dispersant, known to be deadly to marine life, when they had a far less toxic brand available. What's the point of an EPA that oil companies can ignore?"

Anyway, you and others seem to equate criticism of the administration's response to this disaster, with the proverbial "wanting a pony". Which is utter condescending BS. I appreciate your posts almost always, but in this case, no. It seems that the current talking point of the "Obama can do no wrong" crowd is that those of us who are complaining about his response do so because we are ignorant and expect that he could snap his fingers and solve it. It is simply not so, and it is beneath someone of your caliber to pick up that meme and run with it IMO.

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. My point is that we have a response

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/559191/

And that this is more complex than people think. And no this is not about Ponies... truly this is about Peak Oil. We are there, PERIOD.

And this may be that point in human history that we realize we need to move away from OIL.

There is a failure in the administration... like there was with health care, and other issues. They SUCK at public communications. Setting us a website is not enough.

I still do not expect any miracles... and that is based on PAST disasters, see the aforementioned Ixtoc I. When BP said it would take months, before their PR people got involved... that is what they were thinking about.

[ljm2002]

89. Nor do I expect miracles...

...and I don't see people posting here expecting miracles. That is what I am taking issue with, your statements like "this is more complex than people think."

A few weeks ago that would have been a true statement for most of us, that is for sure. I certainly had no idea that we were drilling from a mile down in the water and then another mile or more below that. Nor did I have any idea that we don't have submarines that can go down to that depth, nor did I have any concept of the pressures involved, the temperatures etc. that all contribute to making this a very intractable problem.

But by now, all of this is general knowledge, not only to news junkies like ourselves but really it has been covered in depth in the news media and I think people get that this is a really, really difficult situation.

I'm just a little touchy this evening, after seeing dozens and dozens of posts berating those of us who are unhappy with the administration's response, accusing us of being ignorant of the problem and essentially of wanting a pony. Now you are not going to that extreme but there was some of that I felt, maybe I am overreacting, it's been known to happen. :-)

[nadinbrzezinski]

95. This is not unlike the quake in Haiti, and how people blamed

people wanted things to be done instantly. I blame current culture, where things are done mostly instantly.

without really having a clue about it...

Now here is one for you... realize this is part of a field, not the only well.

to me the lessons in this are two fold. The US Government (like many others mind you) need to set up an environmental response team with the gear to deal with this... anywhere in the world, transportable by C-130... like what they do with the DSRV rescue subs... relying on the private sector is just damn stupid. And having the personnel to man this... well we do have a sub force... so there is where you tap people from, as well as elite engineering schools.

but that is for the future, the reality is that now we have to deal with what we've got... far from ideal but that is the way it is.

The second lesson is that we need to reassess our dependence on oil. We are at peak oil...

As to the pressures et al... I'll admit it. when I went to school and took that mandatory physics class I didn't get it, like I didn't get pulley systems. All that was drilled into me as a member of a rescue team... and mechanical advantage is my middle name, as well as some of the theoretical details. When I heard the depth this was at... my reaction was... this is going to take months, if not upwards of a year...

Now on the plus side, when the Ixtoc One went, it was feared the dead zones would remain for generations. The fisheries did recover after ten years. Not fast enough for those involved in the bidness, but at least there is some hope that this will not be near as bad as most people expect this to be. As to death zones, we already have a permanent one anyway. Thank all that agricultural run off coming down the Mississippi, not that most people know about that one.

[noise]

90. The problem goes beyond communication lapses

I would argue a key reason some posters on DU are skeptical is because they do not trust the Obama administration. And no amount of authoritarian scolding (how dare you question our great leader!) is going to change that.

The noted pattern is excessive deference to corrupt special interests who cut corners and then use their "too big to fail" leverage to get politicians to bail them out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

97. If you don't trust an entity, wehther that is your governemnt

or the left handed widget, there is no amount of information that could be presented by anybody that will change your views.


I am just pointing out that this is not as simple as people think, and that the US Government is in charge, and they do not have the gear.

Those are facts.... what you do with them is up to you.

[gleaner]

92. With all due respect ...

I do not need you to tell me what my perspective should be. I can manage that quite nicely. I have lived in the real world for 62 years and seen oil spills in California that were catastrophic at the time, but pale in comparison to this. This is a disaster. This may help destroy the oceans and it will almost certainly kill the gulf. We need someone other than the corporation who is responsible for this to help do some actual physical work to clean it up.

You left one name off your list of presidents responsible, and that is Obama. He has done nothing to alleviate the situation, he will do nothing to alleviate the situation because he is a do nothing president.

There is nothing wrong with my world view or my concern or my street smarts. They are working just fine. What is wrong here is a president who lets our nation be destroyed for profit and people who try to tell us not to trust what we think and feel because they have a distorted view of this administration's worth. Privatization sucks. It always has and it always will. It costs more and it does less because there is no accountability or transparency, and Obama is one of its leading champions.

You are entitled to think what you want and say what you want and so are the rest of us. Maybe you should enlarge your own perspective to recognize that. In closing, wikipedia is a user edited online reference. If you want to cite it as an authority you need to check it against an empiric reference written by experts who do not have special interests to push.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. Factts are pesky things aren;t they

If you want to think whatever you want to believe, facts or not, is immaterial. Fact is that I do not place as much blame on Obama since he has had little time to go buy the gear the USCG has wanted for decades.

Also fact remains, the USN and the USCG don't have the gear... so this is quite Faustian. You are damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

As to killing the oceans... I've heard this before (Ixtoc I)... it took the fisheries time to recover... but in the end they did.

Hell, last time I went down to Mexico City to visit parents I had some shrimp that came form those exact same fisheries. Yes, they are safe to eat.

[gleaner]

101. No one has ever seen anything of this magnitude ....

before. Neglect and indifference like yours facilitate the destruction. I blame Obama too. It doesn't matter to me whether you do or not. Not much of what you think does matter to me, so rest assured that you are welcome to eat all of the fish and shrimp from the "exact same fisheries" that you want. Good luck to you.

As to your information on the Navy, what do you base your assumptions on? Were you ever in the navy? Do you have access to a complete list of their equipment and materials? Are you advising them? No, I didn't think so. http://fas.org/irp/program/collect/jennifer.htm This is a link to information about a resource the government does have access to which could help clear the rubble from around the drilling platform, raise it and perhaps give robots access to the open pipe with the idea of plugging it somehow. One of the points the article makes is that this vessel was secret, built and operated in secret and is still somewhat closely held. I imagine there is other equipment that is also secret and closely held that could be used. The Navy does sometimes have to perform deep water work to salvage its submarines and try to rescue personnel. The scientific community, especially oceanographers have been studying deep water life with robots for a very long time. Get BP out, have the government photograph what is there instead of lying about it and it might be a start.

Obama is not the issue here. He is merely another obstacle that has to be overcome before something meaningful can be done. People who believe as you do enable him, but I don't think you are going to sell anything to those of us who don't. Facts cut both ways, and you don't have all the facts. Neither do I, and neither does anyone else. That is on Obama and BP who are working hand in hand to hide as much as they can and to let the drilling continue.

[inna]

103. +1000

And thank you very much for your perspective, it's much needed. :thumbsup:

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. What neglect, or what indiference

I just refuse to go into hysterics.

Yes it will be bad... worst disaster of this kind ever. But to say that it will lead to the death of the Ocean is down right hysterics not based on fact.

The Ixtoc took ten years to heal... and that was THE WORST BLOWOUT until that moment...

This one may very well take a generation... but I am sure nature is far more resilient than some people might want to believe

By the way, you want to talk about damage? THERE IS a death zone in the Gulf. It appears and goes away every year, with the agricultural season. It is caused by the agricultural effluvium. Nobody wants to talk about THAT ONE.

Here you go, in case you doubt it

http://www.fishingnj.org/artdedzn.htm

This will be as bad at DDT, which mind you has NOT left the environment completely... but to claim that this will kill the planet is a little into the hysterics department. I chose not to let my emotions rule my response to disasters when I did this for fun for ten years. I could not afford emotions to take over in the middle of a flood... or a major fire, or for that matter, a little sticky goo, now talk of a mess. Not like we could just wash it off.

So having a solid head, which you confuse with indifference, allows me to do this assessment that it seems most round cannot do.

By the way, after the oil is cleaned up, as long as we keep using the chemicals we do in our lands, that dead zone will continue... and I am willing to bet you did not know about it either. I mean it is not visible and it is not sexy. Alas it is a serious problem. And you know what it is related to? That black gold, those chemicals are made from black gold.

[gleaner]

117. You are really tempting me to make a remark about your

"solid head." If you mean that you have solid bone between your ears I would have to agree. Why would you think I don't know about your "dead zone?" Why would you think you know anything about me? From my perspective which you keep telling me about, without knowing what it is I think we are beginning to form a real mutual indifference society. At least I am.

You are very glib with your assessment of ecological disasters and their eventual impact. The planet did have resilience up to a point, but I think we have outstripped that resilience decades ago. As technology accelerated so did the ability to do irreparable damage which occurs in so many ways.

To describe the amount of oil that is blowing out of the BP well along with methane as "a little bit of goo," shows that you are either disingenuous or just plain ignorant. There is no excuse for either. You are spinning like a top making first one assertion then another. They are contradictory and make you look like you are desperately trying to cover up for a president with clay feet who will not lift a finger to do anything meaningful in any arena of this country's needs. I think that is the real hysteria here. I don't have any. Figure in the unnamed solvents that BP is dropping into the gulf that they are trying to keep us from knowing about and the fact that currents loop and drift and tell me again that you can isolate damage to one small area of a constantly moving body of water with tides and waves and currents.

If you still think people can't spoil the oceans I invite you to come to California and fish off of one of our piers and then eat those fish. Nothing wrong with them. They are still alive, but if you see people catching them and then throwing them back those are the Californians who know that the pollution, invisible though it is will make them sick if they eat the fish. They can't even be sold. But since you like the good eating from the Gulf you would love these. A bit of chemical, raw sewage from overtaxed sewage treatment plants and whatever else gets dumped or seeps in there every time there is a rain. It can't be cleaned up. There is too much crap in the water. Even the surfers wear wet suits because if they don't they have problems with their skin. But, hey, surf's up and you might like that too. I'm sure that you are solid headed enough not to wear a wet suit.

I cannot comprehend the determination of some people to deny the fact that chicken little was right after all. But if you love it embrace it. Just don't expect reasonable people to follow in your footsteps.

[nadinbrzezinski]

121. Silent spring is right

we are moving in that direction.

That said, to say that this will kill the oceans of the world is hysterics.

We have had FIVE mass extinction events. We are in the midst of number six. You believe that life on earth will disappear?

Thank you. And that is my point.

And you think I am glib or don't know about California? Where do you think I live?

But doing disaster relief for ten years taught me one thing... hysterics don't work. Now you are welcome to your hysterics... with all the way in the world.

And please do tell me why NOBODY speaks of that annual dead zone. I know why... YOU CAN'T SEE IT.

[gleaner]

165. I don't have the answers to your questions ..

I didn't say the oceans would die, you did. I don't know where you live? Is it a pop quiz, or just for extra credit if I guess? I don't know why no one speaks of the dead zone. Again, for extra credit, or does it count toward my final grade? I don't think you are glib. I think you try to be but mostly you come off as kind of pixilated.

Finally, I am pretty much useless to discuss this topic anymore. I think you are a bit hysterical over it and I don't want to upset you anymore.

Besides once given the image of your solid head it is hard for me to think of anything else. So I have to ask. Is it bigger than most heads? Is it useful during festive seasons when people need nuts cracked. You know, take solid head, grab a nut and swacka, face palm. One perfectly shelled walnut. So it must be very useful to you in a lot of ways. To me it is not useful at all. I think I have given you enough of my time here. I said what I wanted to say, people who read this read what I had to say, and you were my vehicle to say it. So thank you! Now you can resume your posting and condescending and your attempts to appear important at the expense of others. Me I am going to go and buy a nutcracker. You made me realize the I don't have one and I will need it for my filberts.

Buh bye. It has been real.

[Son Of Wendigo]

166. Try coconuts.

Better utilization of OP's large solid head. For walnuts, I'd use one of my cats, whose head is also quite solid. He doesn't learn, either.

The oil from this oil volcano (I refuse to use leak - my faucet leaks - or spill - I spill from clumsiness now and then) and the highly toxic dispersant that, last I heard, BP was still using in defiance of administration orders to switch to a nominally less toxic one, are in the gulf's loop current. No one is talking about that too much. The loop current is the starting point for the gulf stream which as I'm quite sure OP knows acts like a gigantic conveyor belt. It first goes north up the US Eastern Seaboard (goodbye Outer Banks, Chesapeake Bay, Delmarva Peninsula, and Martha's Vineyard), then past the Canadian Maritime Provinces, Iceland, and the British Isles. At that point the current diffuses into a generalized southerly flow. When this water reaches about 10 degrees north of the equator it turns to the west and ultimately returns to the gulf, where the cycle repeats.

I do not think that all the worlds oceans are in danger from this disaster, and I haven't run across anyone else who thinks so, either. OP has accused those he refers to as "hysterics" of saying that this one event will kill all the world's oceans, but that seems to be his idea alone. I think he is setting up a straw man, and a flimsy one at that; easier to knock down. I'll be honest, OP way of expressing himself leaves me somewhat unsure what his position is, other than that the rest of us need to "sit down and keep still" as Coolidge so condescendingly put it. What I do think is that the Gulf of Mexico will certainly be dead for many years, and that the Caribbean and the North Atlantic are in considerable danger.

Some scientists do believe that we are in the beginning stages of the sixth major extinction event, but they attribute that to global climate change. I am no scientist, but I don't think that is the case. The past great extinctions ranged from about 40% of life on earth to about 90%. We will lose many species as the planet warms, but the species that is in the greatest danger is us. People. Possessors of great brains. but who refuse to use them to do anything meaningful to try and slow down the gradual warming of the earth's biosphere. By meaningful, I mean things that cost money or reduce profits.

How many more billions of profit do BP and Exxon, and all the rest of them, need? And I am using the oil companies just as an example. All corporations exist for the same reason, to maximize immediate gain for the shareholders and satisfy Wall Street expectations, and to avoid costs. That includes paying taxes to the human society which makes their profitable existence possible. It also includes voluntary public spending to try and take some financial initiative to improve human society, and its home. We are all on the same planet together, and it is getting sicker and sicker, and very few seem committed to beginning to restore its health.

The OP took us all to task for being hysterical about some relatively minor catastrophe. It is just one of many. Is OP familiar with the expression "death by a thousand cuts?" I am afraid for our future and our children's and grandchildren's. But I am not hysterical. I am angry at the corporations, and the governments, particularly this one, but others too, which have been captured by the corporations. I am angry at President Obama, for his continuous refusal to defy his corporate masters, and ours. And I am angry at the people who defend what is happening all around us by minimizing its importance.

Let's all watch "American Idol" and NASCAR together, shall we?

[William Z. Foster]

150. we have been over this so many times

During WWI the government did not have the gear to run railroads, either, but that did not stop the USRA from being formed to marshal that gear, to command and direct the project for the benefit of the public rather than leaving it in private hands.

There are hundreds of examples of federal projects that were started and successfully managed without the government "having the gear."

[nadinbrzezinski]

157. Here you go, facts again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_Command_System

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/site/2931/

[JDPriestly]

93. The link does not work, nadinbrzezinski

[NYC_SKP]

100. Here you go, link had an unnecessary comma at end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I

:hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. It was there yesterday

now that is weird...

:tinfoilhat:

[Swamp Rat]

104. Maybe, but what we really need is help building barrier islands

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. That goes without saying and that goes BEFORE this latest

mess.

I do hope the Guv'ment finally accepts the help from the experts on this (Dutch)

[ShortnFiery]

120. We've - the USA- just turned away the Dutch request to provide assistance. eom

[Son Of Wendigo]

167. What we really, REALLY need is to start cutting fossil fuel use. N/T

[haele]

115. Kick

[Radical Activist]

116. The government needs BP's help for now.

Because not everyone has the knowledge and equipment to do this. I know people would feel good if Obama publicly flogged BP, but it wouldn't be very smart at the moment.

[ShortnFiery]

119. You were also for the bank bail outs. Sorry Nadin, you don't have a good track record.

No sale. :shrug:

[DevonRex]

125. Very well written, Nadin. Thank you for your informative post. nt

[blindpig]

127. Right.

One can hardly blame the corporate spokesman for the misdoings of his masters. They are interchangeable in any case.

He is only following orders.

[nadinbrzezinski]

159. This has nothing to do with criminal liabity

they are... at last 11 counts of manslaughter, and a slew of other charges.

But for the moment we need to work with what we have. Yep, they could fire BP... then what, hire SHELL? We don't have the gear, and we should, but right now we don't

[blindpig]

162. Expropriate without compensation.

Put the workers on the government payroll.

BP is handling this as though it is nothing more than a PR problem. That alone, given the magnitude of their 'oopsie' ought to put all those bastards in the hoosgow. Confiscate the personal assets of the officers.

[nadinbrzezinski]

163. The US does not have that tradition

so I chose to live in the real world.

In the real world this will not be over for a year (It will take a relief well, mark words, and history)

And in the real world this is going to the courts. Hell, we are still there with the Valdez.

Speaks volumes of perhaps what is wrong with the US System of government and increasingly fascism... (speaking of the poli sci definition not the jack boots in the streets)... but that is another story.

[blindpig]

168. Tradition?

What an euphemism? It is a power relationship, not a folkway.

This will not be over in our lifetimes. There is no justice to be had in the courts, the capitalists can game them just fine, just as they have with the Valdez.

[GumboYaYa]

131. That is all true, and most people in South Louisiana understand that.

But it is also true that the Coast Guard and BP Officials are keeping scientists from getting to the spill site to verify the amount of oil and the damage being done. The Coast Guard and BP also have been very slow in getting oil booms into place in some of the most sensitive ecosystems threatened by the spill. The federal government has not actively worked with state and local leaders who are developing pans to protect those same sensitive areas.

By no means has the Obama administration's response been good. Protecting the environment as best possible under the circumstances is within the President's power and authority. He is failing miserably at that right now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

161. Trust me I get that

but that is different than saying that they are not doing a thing.

As to the USCG keeping people out... I suspect a Lt JG is on his way to the Persian Gulf...

It is partly a very sucky PR effort on the part of the government, they suck at it.

It is also partly local vs outside forces.

And I wish every disaster was 100% good, alas they never are...

[William Z. Foster]

172. so many straw man arguments

No one is saying that the government is "not doing a thing," are they?

A "very sucky PR effort?" That is revealing.

If it is a problem of "local vs outside forces" then clearly the federal government is not taking charge.

[proudohioan]

169. Yes, it is going to take a long time....

And thank you for pointing out that all of this privatization shit started with 'St. Ronnie'.....man, that guys legacy is worse than syphilis! Sadder still is that these trends were continued even with the Democrats. We simply can't blame Obama for the tone that was set forth 30 years ago, however, I would like to see him put more of an emphasis on reversing that tone.

[Tailormyst]

171. I understand what you are saying but I would also like to point out:

Things rarely change unless there is public outcry. Nothing progresses when people sit back and behave like good little children. Perhaps with the public outcry both BP and the government will feel a greater sense of urgency.