
Why Is the Gulf Cleanup So Slow? - rglovejoy
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703426004575339650877298556.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion
======
anigbrowl
Why are politically-themed op-eds so inaccurate and poorly sourced?

[http://factcheck.org/2010/06/oil-spill-foreign-help-and-
the-...](http://factcheck.org/2010/06/oil-spill-foreign-help-and-the-jones-
act/)

~~~
hugh3
Hmm, now I want to get to the bottom of this.

This article from deepseanews contradicts sections of this:

[http://deepseanews.com/2010/06/the-jones-act-and-the-oil-
spi...](http://deepseanews.com/2010/06/the-jones-act-and-the-oil-spill-not-
what-you-think/)

As far as I can tell, foreign-flagged vessels _can_ operate, but only if
they're at least three miles offshore _and_ (more importantly) have their
crews replaced by Americans. I can see how this could cause problems, not only
because vessel owners might be reluctant to hand over their vessels to new
crews but because the new crews might not be experienced at operating them.

There are definitely fifteen foreign-flagged vessels participating in the
cleanup, but fifteen isn't very many. Is it not true that the Jones Act is
preventing more from showing up? It still seems like a completely insane set
of restrictions.

------
mkramlich
Read the whole thing. It's a well-written attack piece, paid for by somebody.

I really love 2 things about it, that are glaringly overlooked. In discussing
the oil disaster and the cleanup efforts so far, and why the latter hasn't
been as effective as one might have liked, he cites just about everything
_except_ these 2 points, rather suspiciously:

1\. new oil is STILL leaking into the Gulf -- cleaning now is a bit like
running just to stand still, there will be more flowing out and hitting the
beaches tomorrow, and the next day, and the next, etc.

2\. BP/Transocean/Halliburton are primarily at fault, both for the original
accident/leak, and for not stopping it quicker. I don't buy the argument that
somehow because a government oversight agency was not as aggressive as it
could have been, and/or was bribed BY these oil companies to back off and let
them ignore rules that THEREFORE the government is anywhere near as at fault
as the _oil companies_ in question. It's a bit like blaming the police for not
stopping a murderer -- rather than blaming the murderer. Hello?!

~~~
anon-e-moose
You're right, we shouldn't clean it up quickly and effectively because its
getting worse. We should wait until all of the oil is in the ocean and then
clean it up all at once! That's much more effective!

No, seriously, what is your point here. Also the oil companies can't tell the
more effective oil clean up ships to come operate because of the mentioned
government regulations and directions. Oops.

~~~
mkramlich
Of course there should be a cleanup effort ongoing. But if new stuff continues
to spill out every day afterward, there will be more to cleanup the next day,
and the next, and the next, forever, until we reach the point where the leak
is totally stopped and/or contained the source. It's weird/naive to criticize
a cleanup effort that's been going on for months if the leak has also been
leaking unstopped for those same number of months as well. It can never be
totally cleaned up or restored until, at a bare minimum, the leak is stopped.

~~~
anon-e-moose
As much as possible should be done about both problems. This article puts
forth the idea that we can and should be doing more to clean up what is
already there.

If the leak stopped tomorrow, should we deploy the largest possible oil
cleaning ship? If the leak cannot be fixed for 3 months should we do the same
thing?

------
greenlblue
When something obvious isn't happening all you have to do is go look for the
people that have a vested interest in preventing said thing from happening. In
the current oil spill fiasco there are way too many powerful groups with
opposing interests and politicians don't want to step on their toes because
all politicians need large sums of money from these opposing interests to
finance their campaigns. So it's no wonder the bureaucracy is moving at a
snail's pace.

------
mkramlich
You know you're reading a right/conservative/Repub/FoxNews-like source when
the very 1st suggestion discussed for improving the clean up effort is this:

"First, the Environmental Protection Agency can relax restrictions on the
amount of oil in discharged water, currently limited to 15 parts per million."

Welcome to Bizarro World. We do things backwards here.

EDIT: skushch's reply below made a good clarification. When I originally read
that portion of the article I didn't realize that was the argument made. I
just saw how the very 1st solution recommended was that the EPA should allow
more oil in the water, which was hilarious and consistent with many other
"pro-pollution/pro-greed" efforts I've seen from The Right in past years, and
I reacted to that. So on this single narrow point I think the article _does_
make sense: we _should_ temporarily drop any rule that commits the error of
letting the quest for perfection be the enemy of the good enough now. The
overall article I still think is an attack piece with highly cherry-picked
statements and convenient blinders on.

~~~
skushch
The point the author makes is that relaxing the filtering restrictions could
help remove more oil.

Sort of like saying "the filter isn't effective enough, so we won't filter at
all".

Bizarro World indeed.

~~~
mkramlich
I don't know enough about the chemisty and ecosystem impacts of this but from
what I do know I can think of one possible reason, at least, while the EPA's
position makes sense. If a certain volume of oiled water is processed by a
machine that has reduced filtering standards -- essentially, only removing the
bigger or easier to capture materials suspended in the water -- it may make it
harder for later cleanup operations to further address the remaining
pollutants that were released back into the water. Either because they become
much harder to detect (harder to see/smell/taste, or react to chemical
sensors) or become harder to "bind" with cleaning agents. In other words,
while at a logic-only level the EPA position may appear stupid, it's possible
that from a chemical & logistical standpoint it may not be.

Regardless, I think it's reasonable to expect BP to be moving heaven & earth
to clean this shit up as fast as they possibly can, since they made the mess
in the first place.

------
joubert
Opinion piece. Conspiracy theory.

~~~
anon-e-moose
Yes, its just one man's opinion against another that the world's largest oil
skimmer does not seem to be operating in the Gulf. Almost like those poor saps
who think we didn't land on the moon. Didn't they see Obama walking on the
beach! The man is trying!

~~~
joubert
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill/print>

~~~
anon-e-moose
Excellent, that ship should help a lot if the numbers I've seen are accurate.

