Why Is the Gulf Cleanup So Slow?There are obvious actions to speed things up, but the government oddly resists taking them.
By PAUL H. RUBIN
Destin, Fla.
As the oil spill continues and the cleanup lags, we must begin to ask difficult and uncomfortable questions. There does not seem to be much that anyone can do to stop the spill except dig a relief well, not due until August. But the cleanup is a different story. The press and Internet are full of straightforward suggestions for easy ways of improving the cleanup, but the federal government is resisting these remedies.
First, the Environmental Protection Agency can relax restrictions on the amount of oil in discharged water, currently limited to 15 parts per million. In normal times, this rule sensibly controls the amount of pollution that can be added to relatively clean ocean water. But this is not a normal time.
Various skimmers and tankers (some of them very large) are available that could eliminate most of the oil from seawater, discharging the mostly clean water while storing the oil onboard. While this would clean vast amounts of water efficiently, the EPA is unwilling to grant a temporary waiver of its regulations.
Next, the Obama administration can waive the Jones Act, which restricts foreign ships from operating in U.S. coastal waters. Many foreign countries (such as the Netherlands and Belgium) have ships and technologies that would greatly advance the cleanup. So far, the U.S. has refused to waive the restrictions of this law and allow these ships to participate in the effort.
The combination of these two regulations is delaying and may even prevent the world's largest skimmer, the Taiwanese owned "A Whale," from deploying. This 10-story high ship can remove almost as much oil in a day as has been removed in total—roughly 500,000 barrels of oily water per day. The tanker is steaming towards the Gulf, hoping it will receive Coast Guard and EPA approval before it arrives.
In addition, the federal government can free American-based skimmers. Of the 2,000 skimmers in the U.S. (not subject to the Jones Act or other restrictions), only 400 have been sent to the Gulf. Federal barriers have kept the others on stations elsewhere in case of other oil spills, despite the magnitude of the current crisis. The Coast Guard and the EPA issued a joint temporary rule suspending the regulation on June 29—more than 70 days after the spill.
The Obama administration can also permit more state and local initiatives. The media endlessly report stories of county and state officials applying federal permits to perform various actions, such as building sand berms around the Louisiana coast. In some cases, they were forbidden from acting. In others there have been extensive delays in obtaining permission.
As the government fails to implement such simple and straightforward remedies, one must ask why.
One possibility is sheer incompetence. Many critics of the president are fond of pointing out that he had no administrative or executive experience before taking office. But the government is full of competent people, and the military and Coast Guard can accomplish an assigned mission. In any case, several remedies require nothing more than getting out of the way.
Another possibility is that the administration places a higher priority on interests other than the fate of the Gulf, such as placating organized labor, which vigorously defends the Jones Act.
Finally there is the most pessimistic explanation—that the oil spill may be viewed as an opportunity, the way White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said back in February 2009, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." Many administration supporters are opposed to offshore oil drilling and are already employing the spill as a tool for achieving other goals. The websites of the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, for example, all feature the oil spill as an argument for forbidding any further offshore drilling or for any use of fossil fuels at all. None mention the Jones Act.
To these organizations and perhaps to some in the administration, the oil spill may be a strategic justification in a larger battle. President Obama has already tried to severely limit drilling in the Gulf, using his Oval Office address on June 16 to demand that we "embrace a clean energy future." In the meantime, how about a cleaner Gulf?
Mr. Rubin, a professor of economics at Emory University, held several senior positions in the federal government in the 1980s. Since 1991 he has spent his summers on the Gulf.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703426004575339650877...
Destin, Fla.
As the oil spill continues and the cleanup lags, we must begin to ask difficult and uncomfortable questions. There does not seem to be much that anyone can do to stop the spill except dig a relief well, not due until August. But the cleanup is a different story. The press and Internet are full of straightforward suggestions for easy ways of improving the cleanup, but the federal government is resisting these remedies.
First, the Environmental Protection Agency can relax restrictions on the amount of oil in discharged water, currently limited to 15 parts per million. In normal times, this rule sensibly controls the amount of pollution that can be added to relatively clean ocean water. But this is not a normal time.
Various skimmers and tankers (some of them very large) are available that could eliminate most of the oil from seawater, discharging the mostly clean water while storing the oil onboard. While this would clean vast amounts of water efficiently, the EPA is unwilling to grant a temporary waiver of its regulations.
Next, the Obama administration can waive the Jones Act, which restricts foreign ships from operating in U.S. coastal waters. Many foreign countries (such as the Netherlands and Belgium) have ships and technologies that would greatly advance the cleanup. So far, the U.S. has refused to waive the restrictions of this law and allow these ships to participate in the effort.
The combination of these two regulations is delaying and may even prevent the world's largest skimmer, the Taiwanese owned "A Whale," from deploying. This 10-story high ship can remove almost as much oil in a day as has been removed in total—roughly 500,000 barrels of oily water per day. The tanker is steaming towards the Gulf, hoping it will receive Coast Guard and EPA approval before it arrives.
In addition, the federal government can free American-based skimmers. Of the 2,000 skimmers in the U.S. (not subject to the Jones Act or other restrictions), only 400 have been sent to the Gulf. Federal barriers have kept the others on stations elsewhere in case of other oil spills, despite the magnitude of the current crisis. The Coast Guard and the EPA issued a joint temporary rule suspending the regulation on June 29—more than 70 days after the spill.
The Obama administration can also permit more state and local initiatives. The media endlessly report stories of county and state officials applying federal permits to perform various actions, such as building sand berms around the Louisiana coast. In some cases, they were forbidden from acting. In others there have been extensive delays in obtaining permission.
As the government fails to implement such simple and straightforward remedies, one must ask why.
One possibility is sheer incompetence. Many critics of the president are fond of pointing out that he had no administrative or executive experience before taking office. But the government is full of competent people, and the military and Coast Guard can accomplish an assigned mission. In any case, several remedies require nothing more than getting out of the way.
Another possibility is that the administration places a higher priority on interests other than the fate of the Gulf, such as placating organized labor, which vigorously defends the Jones Act.
Finally there is the most pessimistic explanation—that the oil spill may be viewed as an opportunity, the way White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said back in February 2009, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." Many administration supporters are opposed to offshore oil drilling and are already employing the spill as a tool for achieving other goals. The websites of the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, for example, all feature the oil spill as an argument for forbidding any further offshore drilling or for any use of fossil fuels at all. None mention the Jones Act.
To these organizations and perhaps to some in the administration, the oil spill may be a strategic justification in a larger battle. President Obama has already tried to severely limit drilling in the Gulf, using his Oval Office address on June 16 to demand that we "embrace a clean energy future." In the meantime, how about a cleaner Gulf?
Mr. Rubin, a professor of economics at Emory University, held several senior positions in the federal government in the 1980s. Since 1991 he has spent his summers on the Gulf.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703426004575339650877...
Views: 40
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by sesport on -
Mac - I didn't put words in your mouth. Your comments included ...
"...Obama IS deliberately making things worse in order to help him shut down US O&G production permanently"
How is it possible for anyone to shut down US O&G permanently when so much depends on that particular resource, including US jobs & products?
IMO, this "push forward" is all about providing Americans with the energy they require (which happens to be the highest need on the planet). We can't continue to rely solely on fossil fuels and there's no reason why renewables can't figure into the picture, creating new jobs and adding to an ailing economy.
One could view it as necessary precautions, much like the FDA does for food & drugs, or as government does to ensure we drive safe vehicles ( and drive them safely), or that we build safe homes with safe materials, with safe electrical wiring, with safe/healthy plumbing, or that we fly in airplanes safely. Americans seem to want utmost safety in their daily living.
And, yes, it does appear that the "A Whale" is underway, that there are plans being made for a "B" and "C" Whale. At this point, regardless of how well it operates, I'd be surprised if it was decided that the "A" not be permitted. At this point, something is better than nothing.
80) -
-
Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on
-
Now you're deliberately misquoting via deleting part of the sentence.
The correct quote was "I'm beginning to believe that Obama IS deliberately making things worse in order to help him shut down US O&G production permanently."
Let me misquote you. You said "to shut down US O&G permanently."
The point was that lots of people are claiming that Obama is deliberately screwing the cleanup efforts in order to further his agenda of shutting down US fossil fuel production.
Apparently, the "A whale" tests were inconclusive due to high seas. I sure hope it does end up working well enough to do some good and does end up operating and scooping up lots of oil. -
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Blake on
-
Jack Blake's brother Billy Bob Blake (same Daddy-different Mamas) thinks Barac Husain (sp?) Obama is a spy for the arab muslims. He says Husein Obama wants to cripple the USA.
Husein Obama does not care about shutting down fossil fuels for the environment. He wants to make the USA weak so we will be under arab muslim rule.
That is what Billy Bob Blake says.................................. -
-
Permalink Reply by sesport on
-
Oh, okay, I'll remember to call it "intentionally miquoting by deleting part of the [text]." Yes, that does seem to be a common error in argument around here. lol
Perhaps I misunderstood because you said "I believe," but meant "Lots of people?"
And I hope A Whale keeps on keepin' on out in the gulf regardless of the conditions. Something, anything is better than nothing.
I'll let you deal with Jack here, and his brother Billy Bob. Jack, BTW, is that your older or younger brother? My momma's momma's brother's cousin's daughter may, MAY, have dated him once.
80) -
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Blake on
-
Billy Bob is older than Jack. He may have dated her because Billy Bob really got around before he married our Daddies brothers first cousin twice removed.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on
-
A TOAST TO BILLY BOB BLAKE FOR KEEPING IT ALL IN THE FAMILY!
-
-
Permalink Reply by Brownie on
-
Sesport, This has nothing to do with the post, but. I once crossed paths with a fellow. After a while I found out we were halfway related to each other. He was my wife's sister's husband's stepmother's cousin's son. Brownie
-
-
Permalink Reply by sesport on
-
JB - When you say Billy Bob "got around," he didn't by any chance ride a bicycle, did he? Because I swear, I SWEAR, that profile pic that jffree1 once had was a guy I dated a looonnnggg time ago.
Two Dogs - By keeping it all in the family, at least Jack Blake KNOWS with 100% certainty that the apples won't fall far from the tree. Don't know if that's a good thing, though.
Brownie - Would that make that guy a half-cousin twice removed from your wife's sister's husband?
We're going to get ourselves thrown off this topic, guys. LOL!!!
80) -
-
Permalink Reply by essay on
-
hey mac you're wasting your time buddy. i found this new mouse pad so i can get the same experience without having to read any further spurious twaddle:
-
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on
-
Yes, getting back on topic would be a good idea.
-
-
Permalink Reply by sesport on
-
I suppose the guys could go play back in "Off Topic?"
http://www.gohaynesvilleshale.com/group/offtopic/forum/topics/obey-...
Since you jumped in here, Skip, would you say the seemingly slow response(s) would be the fault of the government, the company or both? And I say "seemingly" for various reasons, such as red tape, time to get the A Whale to Hyundai for retrofit, etc., etc. Need as much input as we can get.
Otherwise, I'm more than willing to call this a moot point for now and let the topic drop.
80) -
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on
-
Your last suggestion would appear to be the best course.
-
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Blog Posts
The Lithium Connection to Shale Drilling
Shale drilling and lithium extraction are seemingly distinct activities, but there is a growing connection between the two as the world moves towards cleaner energy solutions. While shale drilling primarily targets…
ContinuePosted by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 20, 2024 at 12:40
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Miller County, Arkansas
27 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
South Caddo Parish Group
440 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
400 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
244 members
-
Fayetteville Shale
149 members
-
North Caddo Parish
358 members
-
Central Texas Gas
63 members
-
Cass County, TX
119 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
