Print Page | Close Window

USAF Dons *Flame Suit*, Flame Defense +12!

Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=185941
Printed Date: 18 December 2025 at 1:47pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: USAF Dons *Flame Suit*, Flame Defense +12!
Posted By: usafpilot07
Subject: USAF Dons *Flame Suit*, Flame Defense +12!
Date Posted: 15 June 2010 at 8:40pm
*













*Flame suit solely for my protection from the unavoidable flame war sure to happen between members of this forum.







http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/15/obama-to-detail-oil-spill-response-in-speech-tonight/?hpt=C1 - http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/15/obama-to-detail-oil-spill-response-in-speech-tonight/?hpt=C1


Originally posted by him him wrote:

Already I've issued a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling. I know this creates difficulty for the people who work on these rigs, but for the sake of their safety and for the sake of the entire region, we need to know the facts before we allow deepwater drilling to continue.






I for one, think this is stupid.


-------------
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo



Replies:
Posted By: ammolord
Date Posted: 15 June 2010 at 8:47pm

/Waits for the fun to begin.



-------------
PSN Tag: AmmoLord
XBL: xXAmmoLordXx


~Minister of Tinkering With Things That Go "BOOM!"(AKA Minister of Munitions)~


Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 15 June 2010 at 8:58pm

From what I am understanding, the issue arose during the actual drilling process. If he is calling for a temporary halt on all deep well DRILLING activities, I kind of agree. Seems until they can inspect and insure that everything is being done correctly and the same shortcuts that caused the current catastrophe aren't being taken at other drilling operations, this would be logical.. It isn't calling for a stop to currently drilled and functioning wells to stop producing, just stopping current drilling. Or am I misunderstaning the process? if I am understanding it correctly, what the bid deal? It doesn't affect current supply/demand as it hasn't been tapped yet and doesn't account for production figures. Right?



-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.


Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 15 June 2010 at 10:31pm
heh, drilled


Posted By: Brian Fellows
Date Posted: 15 June 2010 at 11:57pm
This is why we need the scientific community to stop suppressing free energy ron paul 2012 nibiru evil reptilian space jews.


Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 12:57am
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

From what I am understanding, the issue arose during the actual drilling process. If he is calling for a temporary halt on all deep well DRILLING activities, I kind of agree. Seems until they can inspect and insure that everything is being done correctly and the same shortcuts that caused the current catastrophe aren't being taken at other drilling operations, this would be logical.. It isn't calling for a stop to currently drilled and functioning wells to stop producing, just stopping current drilling. Or am I misunderstaning the process? if I am understanding it correctly, what the bid deal? It doesn't affect current supply/demand as it hasn't been tapped yet and doesn't account for production figures. Right?



The Senate hearings have pretty much nailed down the fact that BP broke multiple rules with this well. Exxon's CEO went on record saying that the way BP conducted this operation was so screwed up, that you wouldn't have seen some wildcatter back in the 1800's doing anything nearly as stupid as they did. This all comes down to someone getting yelled at for a project taking too long/costing too much due to the extreme circumstances in which the well was being drilled, and decided to cut all the corners to get the job done faster and cheaper. It has nothing to do with drilling and everything to do with the corporate culture of the US.

-------------
<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>


Posted By: mod98commando
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 1:52am
Originally posted by tallen702 tallen702 wrote:

...
It has nothing to do with drilling and everything to do with the corporate culture of the US.


I despise the "to hell with doing it right, get it done ASAP" mentality that nearly all people in management have. My current boss is a nice guy but he runs these sites that were bought off of other people, had code generated by other programs, or the work done was outsourced to india. In all cases, the code is horrendous, the sites barely work (with plenty of bugs), and most parts look very unprofessional. Because of that, maintaining this stuff is a nightmare and simple modifications can take forever, making him impatient. It's to the point where I can (and have) completely redone certain pages rather than simply adding to them because it would take about just as much time and would produce a better result.

The reason I bring this up is because I worry that this stuff, though it may be invisible to the general public, is all over the place in all industries. I've seen it everywhere I have worked so far and hear about it from plenty of other people in different industries. It's scary that all people in management seem to be retarded. It's like it's part of the job description or something.


-------------
oreomann33: Everybody invades Poland

Rofl_Mao: And everyone eats turkey

Me: But only if they're hungary

Mack: Yeah but hungary people go russian through their food and end up with greece on everyth


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 7:44am
What candidate received the most money from BP during the elections?
 
Oilbama
 
What rig got a safety award in 2009, during the Oilbama administration?
 
Deepwater horizon leased by BP
 
What rig passed safety inspections 3 times last year?
 
Deepwater horizon leased by BP
 
Who is responsible for having 10 fire booms on the gulf according to law, but didn't?
 
Oilbama
 
Who is not going to let this crisis go to waste, and now will impose new taxes, and more restricitons, regardless of what it does to our economy?
 
Oilbama
 
Who says he was there since day 1, and yet wasn't?
 
Oilbama
 
This Oilbamageddon is what happens when you elect a community organizer, and academic. His only ability is to have meetings and get people to say what he wants, while he manipulates facts, and forces through laws that fit his agenda. While getting cozy with special interests, to get what he wanted (elected) then throwing those same "greedy" business owners to the curb when an accident occurs.
 
 
And 40% of BP is owned by Americans in their 401k plans...
 
What is Oilbama's agenda?
 
Taking money from those greedy business owners and giving it to government, regardless of the long term or short term impacts.
 
This is change alright.
 
 
 
And all of this because we are drilling at depths never drilled before... Because of the leftist enviromentalists who forced them away from the shallow water where it is easy to fix a well if this happens. The same enviromentalists who won't let us drill on the ground... again, another easy place to fix if they were allowed to drill there.
 
So typical of the left, force change, change makes things work worse, or more dangerous... Then blame the guy you forced to go into a dangerous situation to make his living...


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 7:51am
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

 
Who is responsible for having 10 fire booms on the gulf according to law, but didn't?
I'll ask again where you are getting this info? I have asked before, to please cite the "law" that you have referenced. Back it up or stop throwing it around. All I ever found was a "report" with a "recommendation", I have yet to see a "law" as you have stated over and over again.
 
Citation or shens.
 
Oh, also provide proof that Bush or any other president was adhering to this law you speak of.


-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.


Posted By: Tical3.0
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 7:54am
And so it starts...

-------------
I ♣ hippies.


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 8:35am
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

 
Who is responsible for having 10 fire booms on the gulf according to law, but didn't?
I'll ask again where you are getting this info? I have asked before, to please cite the "law" that you have referenced. Back it up or stop throwing it around. All I ever found was a "report" with a "recommendation", I have yet to see a "law" as you have stated over and over again.
 
Citation or shens.
 
Oh, also provide proof that Bush or any other president was adhering to this law you speak of.
 
 
http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/fss/fss09/dehaven.pdf - http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/fss/fss09/dehaven.pdf
 
see page three GWB executive order... And executive orders are law. This executive order required a plan in case of a disaster of this sort. The plan is above, the law requiring it is below.
 
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12777 - http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12777
 
 

(3) The functions vested in the President by Section 311(j)(5) of FWPCA and Section 4202(b)(4) of OPA, respecting the issuance of regulations requiring the owners or operators of offshore facilities, including associated pipelines, other than deepwater ports subject to the DPA, to prepare and submit response plans, the approval of means to ensure the availability of private personnel and equipment, the review and approval of such response plans, and the authorization of offshore facilities, including associated pipelines, other than deepwater ports subject to the DPA, to operate without approved response plans, are delegated to the Secretary of the Interior.

(e)(1) The functions vested in the President by Section 311(j)(6)(B) of FWPCA, respecting the requirements for periodic inspections of containment booms and equipment used to remove discharges at non-transportation-related onshore facilities, are delegated to the Administrator.

(2) The functions vested in the President by Section 311(j)(6)(A) of FWPCA, respecting the requirements for periodic inspections of containment booms and equipment used to remove discharges on vessels, and at transportation-related onshore facilities and deepwater ports subject to the DPA, are delegated to the Secretary of Transportation.

Here are the EPA Guidelines (or regulations) referenced in the above law
 
http://www.epa.gov/Region7/toxics/factsht.htm - http://www.epa.gov/Region7/toxics/factsht.htm
 
 
 
 
 
aaaaand here are the regulations required by the above law...
 
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfr300_main_02.tpl - http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfr300_main_02.tpl
 
 
 
 
And then you have this The clean water act EPA section 309
 
(d) National Contingency Plan.
   (1) Preparation by President. The President shall prepare and publish a National Contingency Plan for removal of oil and hazardous substances pursuant to this section.
   (2) Contents. The National Contingency Plan shall provide for efficient, coordinated, and effective action to minimize damage from oil and hazardous substance discharges, including containment, dispersal, and removal of oil and hazardous substances, and shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
      (A) Assignment of duties and responsibilities among Federal departments and agencies in coordination with State and local agencies and port authorities including, but not limited to, water pollution control and conservation and trusteeship of natural resources (including conservation of fish and wildlife).
      (B) Identification, procurement, maintenance, and storage of equipment and supplies.
      (C) Establishment or designation of Coast Guard strike teams, consisting of--
         (i) personnel who shall be trained, prepared, and available to provide necessary services to carry out the National Contingency Plan;
         (ii) adequate oil and hazardous substance pollution control equipment and material; and
         (iii) a detailed oil and hazardous substance pollution and prevention plan, including measures to protect fisheries and wildlife.
      (D) A system of surveillance and notice designed to safeguard against as well as ensure earliest possible notice of discharges of oil and hazardous substances and imminent threats of such discharges to the appropriate State and Federal agencies.
      (E) Establishment of a national center to provide coordination and direction for operations in carrying out the Plan.
      (F) Procedures and techniques to be employed in identifying, containing, dispersing, and removing oil and hazardous substances.
      (G) A schedule, prepared in cooperation with the States, identifying--
         (i) dispersants, other chemicals, and other spill mitigating devices and substances, if any, that may be used in carrying out the Plan,
         (ii) the waters in which such dispersants, other chemicals, and other spill mitigating devices and substances may be used, and
         (iii) the quantities of such dispersant, other chemicals, or other spill mitigating device or substance which can be used safely in such waters, which schedule shall provide in the case of any dispersant, chemical, spill mitigating device or substance, or waters not specifically identified in such schedule that the President, or his delegate, may, on a case-by-case basis, identify the dispersants, other chemicals, and other spill mitigating devices and substances which may be used, the waters in which they may be used, and the quantities which can be used safely in such waters.
      (H) A system whereby the State or States affected by a discharge of oil or hazardous substance may act where necessary to remove such discharge and such State or States may be reimbursed in accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, in the case of any discharge of oil from a vessel or facility, for the reasonable costs incurred for that removal, from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
      (I) Establishment of criteria and procedures to ensure immediate and effective Federal identification of, and response to, a discharge, or the threat of a discharge, that results in a substantial threat to the public health or welfare of the United States, as required under subsection (c)(2).
      (J) Establishment of procedures and standards for removing a worst case discharge of oil, and for mitigating or preventing a substantial threat of such a discharge.
 
 
 
 
Clearly they were to burn the spill without even having to notify the federal government... But, there were no fire booms, hence they couldn't start until they got one... And by then the winds had changed, and the spill got progressively worse. This was an administration failure in FEDERAL waters, and the finger pointing all goes back to Oilbama...
 
Good thing he didn't let the other countries who offered their help in the first week to come... Because that would have meant not letting the unions do it...
 
And we all know the unions support is more important than our beaches or fishing, or oil business.
 
 
 
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/fire_boom_oil_spill_raines.html - http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/fire_boom_oil_spill_raines.html
 
 


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 9:01am
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/gulf-oil-spill-impact-felt-country/story?id=10547590 - http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/gulf-oil-spill-impact-felt-country/story?id=10547590
 
" http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/fire_boom_oil_spill_raines.html%20 - The Mobile Press Register reported that the federal government did not have any fire booms in the Gulf region, despite a 1994 response plan that called for them. Instead, booms had to be ordered from http://topics.abcnews.go.com/topic/Illinois - Illinois . "
 
http://www.taylormarsh.com/2010/05/04/feds-ignored-1994-federal-plan-no-fire-boom-in-sight/ - http://www.taylormarsh.com/2010/05/04/feds-ignored-1994-federal-plan-no-fire-boom-in-sight/
 
"Someone needs to ask and have answered why it took government officials a full week to do a test burn, something that was clearly a first step scenario.
 
Some will call this the blame game similar to Robert Gibbs saying the Obama administration would keep the “boot on the throat” of BP, this time turning to the Obama administration. However, this is what government is put in place to do and why we pay taxes. Yet once again it appears like federal officials may have failed on a serious level by simply not following a 1994 response plan already set in place.

What we’re seeing is that whatever political party is in power, nobody is prepared for massive federal disasters when they occur. It’s the old saying, you have to have been there before."



-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 9:13am
I'll ask again. Please show me EXACTLY where it states that there is a law requiriing 10 oil booms to be on standby at all times.
 
Also, show me any proof that such booms were on the standby during either Bush administration and/or any other administration.


-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 9:36am
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

I'll ask again. Please show me EXACTLY where it states that there is a law requiriing 10 oil booms to be on standby at all times.
 
Also, show me any proof that such booms were on the standby during either Bush administration and/or any other administration.
 
 
I think I have done enough work for you.
 
http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/fr/59fr47384.pdf - http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/fr/59fr47384.pdf
 
Here, show me where it doesn't say they need 10 booms, and proof Bush didn't have them.
 
seriously...


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 9:36am
I also didn't see a reference to 10 fire booms in either link.  Either way, the difference between an executive order and Congressionally approved law in this case is huge.

How about you quote something, FE? Instead of being the huge tool you're being now.


-------------
BU Engineering 2012


Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 10:00am
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

I'll ask again. Please show me EXACTLY where it states that there is a law requiriing 10 oil booms to be on standby at all times.
 
Also, show me any proof that such booms were on the standby during either Bush administration and/or any other administration.
 
 
I think I have done enough work for you.
 
http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/fr/59fr47384.pdf - http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/fr/59fr47384.pdf
 
Here, show me where it doesn't say they need 10 booms, and proof Bush didn't have them.
 
seriously...
Seriously, it's not that hard. I'll again ask where EXACTLY does it say that there has to be 10 BOOMS ON HAND AT ALL TIMES.  I see where it says there has to be access to them, but no where does it state a spedific number of any type of apparatus in any of the links you have posted. 
 
While I do not agree with Pres. Obamas response on this crisis, making it out like it his administrations shortcoming only is ludicrous. Show me that any other president since your so called "law" was put in effect that had said booms on the ready. Show me any official document stating that there were booms in place and "Oilbama" issued and executive order to remove them. Not asking you to "do my work", just suggesting that you might want to support some of your crazy with actual facts.
 
Should they have been there? Seems like it would have been a good idea. Was there a law outlining specifically 10 booms had to be at the ready? Doesn't look like it. Just because you think it's true, doesnt make it a fact.
 
Originally posted by Crazy Troll Crazy Troll wrote:

Here, show me where it doesn't say they need 10 booms, and proof Bush didn't have them.
Oh, and I did search the entire document you referenced for either "10" or "ten' and found neither in support of your claim. It's pretty easy to do, use CNTRL F, and the phrase, and it'll do the search.
 
Batter up.


-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 10:41am
try that search for anything on that document... and you will see it isn't a "text" document but an image document, so no text is searchable. (I tried already).
 
"crazy troll". nice, really makes me want to waste more time on you.
 
anyway.
 
http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/fr/59fr47384.pdf - http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/fr/59fr47384.pdf
 
page 104 section 4.4
 
read it. I can't copy it (not text but an image)
 
Clearly it states that the government is responsible for burning a oil spill like this, and the materials to do so are in one of the departments shown on page 96...
 
If you look at that page, you will see why they can't find the booms...
 
They should be on this list.
 
http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/ncp/schedule.pdf - http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/ncp/schedule.pdf
 
But, I don't see them. course that list changes often, as products are discontinued or company supplier changes.
 
I would bet that the original manufacturer changes, they didn't find another, and just let the part of the law requiring burning and having equipment on hand to just be forgotten.
 
Until they needed it, and didn't have it.
 
Here is florida's version from 2008
 
http://ocean.floridamarine.org/acp/kwacp/Documents/PDF/Appendices/NCP_Product_Schedule_October_2008.pdf - http://ocean.floridamarine.org/acp/kwacp/Documents/PDF/Appendices/NCP_Product_Schedule_October_2008.pdf
 
it could be there, but I don't know the proper name for the hydro fire boom.
 
Looking through all of this, I can see how regulation is such a wonderful thing... It really  makes things clear.


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 10:56am
another interesting tidbit I found.
 
http://wwwdb.glo.state.tx.us/oilspill/Atlas/atlas/ics/incmanhandbk/imh_aug2006.pdf - http://wwwdb.glo.state.tx.us/oilspill/Atlas/atlas/ics/incmanhandbk/imh_aug2006.pdf
 
pg 238...
 
clearly states in-situ burning.
 
kind of hard to do that if you dont have the fire booms, huh?
 
also, that graph shows what a "best response" would be... This one is clearly not.
 
 

Human Health

�� No public injuries

�� No worker injuries

Natural Environment

�� Source of discharge

minimized

�� Source contained

�� Sensitive areas protected

�� Resource damage minimized

Economy

�� Economic impact minimized

Public Communication

�� Positive media coverage

�� Positive public perception

Stakeholders Support

�� Minimize stakeholder impact

�� Stakeholders well informed

�� Positive meetings

�� Prompt Handling of claims

Organization

�� Standard Response Mgmt

Syst

�� Sufficient/Efficient resources

 
 
 
Obviously this is all BP's fault... And the government has nothing to do with the response.
 
oh wait.


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 11:00am
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

[
 
Here, show me where it doesn't say they need 10 booms, and proof Bush didn't have them.
 


Aaaaand that's called proving a negative. It's a logical fallacy. "Sir, prove in court that you DIDN'T commit the crime!"

Anyways, I like "Oilbama." I'm going to start using that one. I like it.

I'm a little surprised you've not started parroting the Washington Examiner's opinion piece from yesterday about how, even though the MMC was corrupt, sleeping with and accepting bribes from oil lobbyists and forging reports, the main reason that they failed to catch the clear signs of problems at Deepwater Horizon was...

...Mean ol' Oilbama was making them too focused on wind energy projects. That monster. 


Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 11:02am
Page 104. Section 4.4.. Read through it several times. No mention of having to have 10 booms on hand at all times. Still waiting for this document with the magical number you have pulled from your butt.
 


-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.


Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 11:05am
By the way, I'm not saying BIGOIL HUSSIEN OILFARTBAMA could have actually done anything, but come on, if you learned anything from George W. Bush's backlash about the Hurricane Katrina situation, it's that people want to either:

1) See you there, at the cause of the problem
2) See you in a state near the problem
3) Hear you give a speech about the problem

It was a serious gaff on his behalf not to react at warp speed. The rapidity of the news cycle now requires you do something to be seen after a disaster.

I know that the president can't actually do anything, and Lord knows if he'd try to do anything involving commanding BP it would have been spun into "OMG SOCIALIST OLOGARH TAKEOVER," but you have to learn from the mistakes of those behind you.

Obama didn't on this one.


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 11:06am
and more...
 
http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/fr/59fr47384.pdf - http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/fr/59fr47384.pdf
 
page 109 section 5.8 read that... as it is the "Governments national response to an oil spill"
 
especially (c) and (d)...
 
so telling bp to stop using chemicals was against this as well... And I don't think "timely" means 8 days.
 
unless your talking about government time...
 
 
This cleanup and response was up to the government, that is why we have government to do stuff like this, the huge amount of work they put into all the reports, laws, and regulation show that they were prepared on paper... But, as usual, fell down when they put a community organizer in charge of following the procedure laid out prior to the disaster.


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 11:12am
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

and more...
 
http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/fr/59fr47384.pdf - http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/fr/59fr47384.pdf
 
page 109 section 5.8 read that... as it is the "Governments national response to an oil spill"
 
especially (c) and (d)...
 
Nope, not there either. I'm looking for "10 Booms required".... anyone? Bueller? Beuller?

-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.


Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 11:14am
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

and more...
 
http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/fr/59fr47384.pdf - http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/fr/59fr47384.pdf
 
page 109 section 5.8 read that... as it is the "Governments national response to an oil spill"
 
especially (c) and (d)...
 
Nope, not there either. I'm looking for "10 Booms required".... anyone? Bueller? Beuller?

You're just a lefty looney moonbat liberal, oldpbnoob. 

Also, you read it in this thread first: FE supports government takeover of private industry and socialistic intervention. 

The free hand of the market is weeping tiny little tears, FE. Tiny little tears. 


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 11:18am
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Page 104. Section 4.4.. Read through it several times. No mention of having to have 10 booms on hand at all times. Still waiting for this document with the magical number you have pulled from your butt.
 
 
 
Ok, this will take a little bit of Oilbama logic for you to see.
 
But, this happened in the gulf... right?
 
yes.
 
How many different area's are in the gulf that have their own disaster teams set up by the government?
 
This will help.
 
http://wwwdb.glo.state.tx.us/oilspill/Atlas/atlas/acp/onegulfplan.pdf - http://wwwdb.glo.state.tx.us/oilspill/Atlas/atlas/acp/onegulfplan.pdf
 
go to section 1000 (or page 12 for poopie pants)
 
count them.
 
hmm. 10...
 
And each one is responsible for having in-situ capability at their location...
 
in-situ is a fire boom...
 
so, wait for it...
 
that would be 10 fire booms should have been in the gulf if they followed the law.
 
 
 
Inb4
 
nuh, huh...
 
read 1310 of the same document
 
1300 Area Committee

1310 Purpose The Area Committee is a spill preparedness and planning body made up of federal, state, and local agency representatives. Each area committee, under the direction of the FOSC for the area, is responsible for developing an ACP which, when implemented in conjunction with the NCP, will be adequate to remove a worst case discharge of oil or a hazardous substance and to mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of such a discharge from a vessel, offshore facility, or onshore facility operating in or near the geographic area.

Each area committee is also responsible for working with state and local officials to pre-plan for joint response efforts, including appropriate procedures for mechanical recovery, dispersant use, shoreline cleanup, protection of sensitive environmental areas, and protection, rescue, and rehabilitation of fisheries and wildlife. The area committee is also required to work with state and local officials to expedite decisions for the use of dispersants and other mitigating substances and devices. "

"crazy troll" is awaiting apology.


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 11:19am
First and foremost, FE: this thread shows that just because you can read, it does not make you an expert.  Not only are you skimming and missing key parts of that document, but you don't know how these regulations are actually applied in real life.

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

But, as usual, fell down when they put a community organizer in charge of following the procedure laid out prior to the disaster.


Yes, clearly Obama, in his 17 months in office, turned around this extremely efficacious system and made it a useful pile of trash.

You should seriously shut your pie hole, because you're just making yourself look dumber.


-------------
BU Engineering 2012


Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 11:20am
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:


You're just a lefty looney moonbat liberal, oldpbnoob. 

Also, you read it in this thread first: FE supports government takeover of private industry and socialistic intervention. 

The free hand of the market is weeping tiny little tears, FE. Tiny little tears. 
 lol.
 
Heck, I'll take any number at this point, 6, 8, 12. Any document stating a specific number of oil burning booms that are required to be on hand as part of a regulation or law.  Of course any number besides 10 will prove FE wrong and shut him up right?  
 
FE, let's run with your lunacy for a minute. Even if someone reads this as having to have an oil boom in place in every area, it still doesn't mean having 10 ready in the gulf. It means having one in each of the 10 zones, most of which are inland. And define "available". So if one boom sits at the corner of 4 zones, wouldn't that suffice? theoretically, you could probably get away with 2-3 booms depending on how the zones are layed out. There is still NOWHERE where it implicitly states that X number of booms have to be on hand in a specific location at all times. It definitely does not say that 10 booms have to be on the ready in the Gulf alone.
 
And even IF there were such standards in place, why weren't they there when the new administration took over? Are you insinuating that they were disposed of? Dismantled? Or were they never in place, which means that the Republicans were the ones responsible for not carrying out such a directive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasnt the first Bush in office in 91?


-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 11:28am
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Oilbamageddon
 
 
Brilliance1


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 11:29am
Look at this U.S. Coast Guard boat in the Gulf of Mexico DOING NOTHING AT ALL!! 


WHYYY OILSTINKFARTBAMA WHYYYYYY? 


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 11:32am
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Page 104. Section 4.4.. Read through it several times. No mention of having to have 10 booms on hand at all times. Still waiting for this document with the magical number you have pulled from your butt.
 
 
 
Ok, this will take a little bit of Oilbama logic for you to see.
 
But, this happened in the gulf... right?
 
yes.
 
How many different area's are in the gulf that have their own disaster teams set up by the government?
 
This will help.
 
http://wwwdb.glo.state.tx.us/oilspill/Atlas/atlas/acp/onegulfplan.pdf - http://wwwdb.glo.state.tx.us/oilspill/Atlas/atlas/acp/onegulfplan.pdf
 
go to section 1000 (or page 12 for poopie pants)
 
count them.
 
hmm. 10...
 
And each one is responsible for having in-situ capability at their location...
 
in-situ is a fire boom...
 
so, wait for it...
 
that would be 10 fire booms should have been in the gulf if they followed the law.
 
 
 
Inb4
 
nuh, huh...
 
read 1310 of the same document
 
1300 Area Committee

1310 Purpose The Area Committee is a spill preparedness and planning body made up of federal, state, and local agency representatives. Each area committee, under the direction of the FOSC for the area, is responsible for developing an ACP which, when implemented in conjunction with the NCP, will be adequate to remove a worst case discharge of oil or a hazardous substance and to mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of such a discharge from a vessel, offshore facility, or onshore facility operating in or near the geographic area.

Each area committee is also responsible for working with state and local officials to pre-plan for joint response efforts, including appropriate procedures for mechanical recovery, dispersant use, shoreline cleanup, protection of sensitive environmental areas, and protection, rescue, and rehabilitation of fisheries and wildlife. The area committee is also required to work with state and local officials to expedite decisions for the use of dispersants and other mitigating substances and devices. "

"crazy troil" is awaiting apology.
"crazy troil" is awaiting apology.

-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 11:33am
Here's a report from April 30 talking about the first eight government agencies to respond: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/04/oil_spill_the_governments_resp.html - Link.

OILBAMAMA YOU MONSTER!!!!! 


Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 11:36am
MY GOD. 

There is even a Web site available to track both the private sector's and the government's response! 

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/site/2931/ - Obama truly is a national monster.


Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 11:38am
EPA region Map:
 


-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 11:41am
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:


You're just a lefty looney moonbat liberal, oldpbnoob. 

Also, you read it in this thread first: FE supports government takeover of private industry and socialistic intervention. 

The free hand of the market is weeping tiny little tears, FE. Tiny little tears. 
 lol.
 
Heck, I'll take any number at this point, 6, 8, 12. Any document stating a specific number of oil burning booms that are required to be on hand as part of a regulation or law.  Of course any number besides 10 will prove FE wrong and shut him up right?  
 
FE, let's run with your lunacy for a minute. Even if someone reads this as having to have an oil boom in place in every area, it still doesn't mean having 10 ready in the gulf. It means having one in each of the 10 zones, most of which are inland. And define "available". So if one boom sits at the corner of 4 zones, wouldn't that suffice? theoretically, you could probably get away with 2-3 booms depending on how the zones are layed out. There is still NOWHERE where it implicitly states that X number of booms have to be on hand in a specific location at all times. It definitely does not say that 10 booms have to be on the ready in the Gulf alone.
 
And even IF there were such standards in place, why weren't they there when the new administration took over? Are you insinuating that they were disposed of? Dismantled? Or were they never in place, which means that the Republicans were the ones responsible for not carrying out such a directive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasnt the first Bush in office in 91?
 
 
edited... really...
 
according to the ACP response report that I cited earlier. Each member HAD to have a way to do a fire boom burn.
 
Not borrow from their neighbor, had to have it in inventory somewhere, where they could access it within hours. (they even talked about having them near airfields to expedite).
 
I can't believe you are dropping the tired "bush's" fault line.
 
come on, really...
 
 
apologize. you were wrong.


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 11:46am
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:


I can't believe you are dropping the tired "bush's" fault line.

It's in the constitution: 

"Henceforth, when a new president takes over, the time machine shall be utilized and all policy done whilst in the fortnights of a previous president are now off-limites for criticism, as it has been done by thee current president." 

I'm pretty sure it's in there somewhere. 


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 11:48am


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 11:56am
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

apologize. you were wrong.
Oh contraire my crazy nutjob troll:
 
Originally posted by CNJT CNJT wrote:

Who is responsible for having 10 fire booms on the gulf according to law, but didn't?
Even taking your interpretation of things..... it would be 1 per region, not all 10 in one region. I'll post the map again, so as not to confuse you. :
 
 
Note that only 2 of the 10 regions even borders the Gulf, so even with YOUR interpretation of the requirements, at most that could be required would be..... drum roll...........
 
2
 
Not 10.
 
I believe it would be about now, where you stammer and change the subject.


-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 12:08pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

apologize. you were wrong.
Oh contraire my crazy nutjob troll:
 
Originally posted by CNJT CNJT wrote:

Who is responsible for having 10 fire booms on the gulf according to law, but didn't?
Even taking your interpretation of things..... it would be 1 per region, not all 10 in one region. I'll post the map again, so as not to confuse you. :
 
 
Note that only 2 of the 10 regions even borders the Gulf, so even with YOUR interpretation of the requirements, at most that could be required would be..... drum roll...........
 
2
 
Not 10.
 
I believe it would be about now, where you stammer and change the subject.
yes, because your logic is so stellar.  if it was located somewhere else, they could never get it to the gulf...
 
Everyone knows that fire booms only work in salt water like the gulf... They don't work in the atlantic, or pacific oceans...
 
Oh wait.
 
Man, are you thick. Can't admit, that I was right... Oh, well, lets look at your map. since you didn't believe mine.
 
zone 1, it doesn't touch water... oh wait. there is ocean on one side. fire boom there...
zone 2 yup ocean there too. fire boom there.
zone 3 aww man, who put that ocean there... fire boom 3
zone 4 yup fire boom 4
zone 5... Naa they don't drill for oil in the great lakes... oh wait... yeah they do. fire boom 5
zone 6 yup fire boom 6
zone 7 and 8... no lakes or rivers there...
 
zone 9 fire boom
zone 10 fire boom
 
not shown alaska fire boom
Hawaii fire boom.
 
apologize


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 12:10pm


Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 12:20pm
I'm impressed with the right's (As in OS and FE types) response to the spill so far: 

1) It's the fault of extreme environmentalists who forced drilling to happen far off-shore! 
2) It's the fault of harsh regulations from the government, BP couldn't afford to put those remote shutoff controls on the rig! 
3) It's Oilbama's fault for forcing the MMC to focus on wind energy and other clean energy sources! 
4) It's the fault of the EPA for having too-complicated of response guidelines! 
5) It's Obama's fault for not snapping the corrupt MMC into shape! 
6) It's Obama's fault for not letting them drill in ANWR. 

Literally, it's everybody's fault but the corporations who owned and ran the rig: BP and TransOcean. 

I wonder, is it just deflection because of the cries to "Drill Baby Drill" during the elections? 

And, of course, the left's spineless-as-normal response is to shuffle their feet and look at the ground like they did when Obama proposed more off-shore drilling instead of growing a pair and actually objecting to it. 




Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 12:30pm

Firstly. No they don't drill for oil in the Great Lakes:

http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/wi/080805_great_lakes.htm - http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/wi/080805_great_lakes.htm
 
Secondly, So you really think they have oil booms sitting in the middle of a lake in Montana? Really? So again. I still don't see anything specifically mandating " a fire boom in every EPA region". I see wording that indicates "available to" What would be the difference between having one sitting smack dab on the state line where AR,MO and TN meet. Its called efficiency. Regardless, taking into account your numbers, I think we could logically take out zones 7 and 8, It would leave 8. Still, only 2 of which are 'ON THE GULF". Even if we included the others it would be 8, and that's a stretch. I have still yet to find where any previous president, including Bill Clinton, had your fantasy number of oil booms on hand.
 
Of course, I am sure that as soon as Obama stepped into the Whitehouse, his Oil Boom Warning light went off indicating he didn't have enough oil booms on hand and he just pressed the ignore button.
 
And you have yet to show any relative document that clearly states that "oil booms must be in every zone". There is terminology that says essentially emergency clean up tools need to be avialable, but nothing as clear cut as what you are claiming.
 
Admit it, you're wrong.
 
*edited for last paragraph and further taunting last line.
 
 


-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 12:45pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

 lol.
 
Heck, I'll take any number at this point, 6, 8, 12. Any document stating a specific number of oil burning booms that are required to be on hand as part of a regulation or law.  Of course any number besides 10 will prove FE wrong and shut him up right?  
 
 


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 12:50pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

 lol.
 
Heck, I'll take any number at this point, 6, 8, 12. Any document stating a specific number of oil burning booms that are required to be on hand as part of a regulation or law.  Of course any number besides 10 will prove FE wrong and shut him up right?  
 
 


-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.


Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 12:51pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

 
apologize
I'm sorry you're a crazy nutjob troll?

-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.


Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 1:17pm
FE wants OldPBNoob to apologize for being wrong? When has FE ever apologized for being wrong? Seems really hypocritical for FE to expect that of him when FE never admits to anything bad. 

-------------


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 1:33pm
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

I'm impressed with the right's (As in OS and FE types) response to the spill so far: 

1) It's the fault of extreme environmentalists who forced drilling to happen far off-shore! 
2) It's the fault of harsh regulations from the government, BP couldn't afford to put those remote shutoff controls on the rig! 
3) It's Oilbama's fault for forcing the MMC to focus on wind energy and other clean energy sources! 
4) It's the fault of the EPA for having too-complicated of response guidelines! 
5) It's Obama's fault for not snapping the corrupt MMC into shape! 
6) It's Obama's fault for not letting them drill in ANWR. 

Literally, it's everybody's fault but the corporations who owned and ran the rig: BP and TransOcean. 

I wonder, is it just deflection because of the cries to "Drill Baby Drill" during the elections? 

And, of course, the left's spineless-as-normal response is to shuffle their feet and look at the ground like they did when Obama proposed more off-shore drilling instead of growing a pair and actually objecting to it. 


really?...
 
Is the liberal response then to ban all drilling...  (how many jobs will be lost when those rigs leave?)
 
And to force BP to pay for all those people now unemployed?
 
Oh, and pass cap and tax, because that will fix our need for energy.
 
Increased costs will really help fix the economy.
 
And more regulations, because all the links to massive regulations that I posted on this thread could have fixed this... And when Oilbama makes new regulations THOSE will be followed...
 
(forget the past... it didn't happen, government fixes everything, go back to sleep, tea party's are racist)


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 1:42pm
Originally posted by Gatyr Gatyr wrote:

FE wants OldPBNoob to apologize for being wrong? When has FE ever apologized for being wrong? Seems really hypocritical for FE to expect that of him when FE never admits to anything bad. 
And where exactly was I wrong? I have no problem admitting I am wrong, but pulling abstracts from 5 different documents and cobbling together some BS isn't proving me wrong.

-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.


Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 1:49pm
FE is charging full speed at windmills.

Ironic given the topic of the thread. =)


Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 2:02pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

And where exactly was I wrong?

I have no idea. I had a hard enough time figuring out what it was FE wanted an apology for, much less what it was that FE thought you were wrong about (unless he thinks it is everything).

But I was just remarking on FE's hypocrisy, not how wrong or right you were.


-------------


Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 2:20pm
Originally posted by Gatyr Gatyr wrote:

I have no idea. I had a hard enough time figuring out what it was FE wanted an apology for, much less what it was that FE thought you were wrong about (unless he thinks it is everything).
FE keeps referencing some magical "law" that states Obama was required to have 10 Oil Booms sitting in the Gulf of Mexico in case of an oil spill. I pointed out that this "law" was a figment of his imagination that he pulled out of his rearend and inferred that he was a crazy nutjob troll. He feels he has proven me wrong by citing blurbs from various sources, but has yet to present any reasonable fascimile of such a document or "law" that would require my apology or rescinding of my statement or assertation that he's full of crap.

-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 2:27pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Originally posted by Gatyr Gatyr wrote:

FE wants OldPBNoob to apologize for being wrong? When has FE ever apologized for being wrong? Seems really hypocritical for FE to expect that of him when FE never admits to anything bad. 
And where exactly was I wrong? I have no problem admitting I am wrong, but pulling abstracts from 5 different documents and cobbling together some BS isn't proving me wrong.
 
 
Was the federal government responsible for cleaning up a oil spill? yes.
 
Did they have a plan to do this?
 
Yes. developed in 1994, and I cited it earlier.
 
included in that plan are procedures to use fire booms. Which they did not have, according to many media reports. Based on the size of the gulf,and the 10 zones there, they should have had one fire boom per zone...
 
Maybe you can't make the connection because you're old?... i don't know, but it is clear that the government had no fire booms. When the regulations, (made into law by executive order) were clear that they were responsible for fixing problems like this... by BURNING the oil!
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36912754/ - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36912754/
 
It took them weeks to get the fire booms... Weeks that caused the disaster to be much worse than it would have been if they had followed the law and had the booms in place, or even around the country.
But, they had ZERO fire booms.
 
But, they had time to book another tent concert at the white house, for the important people... at the taxpayers expense.
 
And can point every finger at BP over the spill... While Americans hold the stock that is being decimated by the rhetoric of the left and media...
 
 


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 2:35pm
Originally posted by FE is Wrong FE is Wrong wrote:

included in that plan are procedures to use fire booms. Which they did not have, according to many media reports. Based on the size of the gulf,and the 10 zones there, they should have had one fire boom per zone...
The 10 zones referred to and even pictured in the pretty graphic that I posted refer to the 10 EPA zones which you admitted to above, or are you backpedaling on this too and pulling another statistic out of your cavernous arse?
 
 


-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 2:49pm
either these 10 zones carved out in this document about oil spills...
 
http://wwwdb.glo.state.tx.us/oilspill/Atlas/atlas/acp/2009_epa_uscg_response_moa.pdf - http://wwwdb.glo.state.tx.us/oilspill/Atlas/atlas/acp/2009_epa_uscg_response_moa.pdf
 
or the 10 epa zones you posted...
 
does it matter?
 
We have two examples of 10 zones, each zone is suppost to have the ability to fire boom an oil spill...
 
Which if there are zero fire booms in the United States Governments warehouses... Then exactly how much fire booming can they do?
 
yeah.
 
NONE.
 
you are wrong, I was right... deal with it.


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 2:51pm

*eats popcorn*



-------------
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President

RIP T&O Forum


Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 3:06pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

either these 10 zones carved out in this document about oil spills...
 
http://wwwdb.glo.state.tx.us/oilspill/Atlas/atlas/acp/2009_epa_uscg_response_moa.pdf - http://wwwdb.glo.state.tx.us/oilspill/Atlas/atlas/acp/2009_epa_uscg_response_moa.pdf
 
or the 10 epa zones you posted...
 
does it matter?
 
We have two examples of 10 zones, each zone is suppost to have the ability to fire boom an oil spill...
 
Which if there are zero fire booms in the United States Governments warehouses... Then exactly how much fire booming can they do?
 
yeah.
 
NONE.
 
you are wrong, I was right... deal with it.
Except that again the document you posted refers again, to the same EPA zones. In fact, it only refers to 2 zones, 4 and 6 which are the same as the EPA zones. I realze your reading comprehension sucks, but serously. There is no document or law anywhere that specifically supports your statement citing and imaginary law requiring 10 oil booms to be at the ready in the Gulf of Mexico at any given time.
 
Obviously, you cannot prove it, or you would have by now.
 
Deal with it, you're pulling imaginary laws out of your butt.


-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.


Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 3:16pm

Ahem:

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/despite_admirals_claims_fire_b.html - http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/despite_admirals_claims_fire_b.html
 
Originally posted by Article/blog Article/blog wrote:

But there appears to be nothing in federal law that requires BP or any other oil company to have such booms on hand during drilling or production activities in U.S. waters, despite fire booms being labeled as a primary first-response option in federal documents.

The strongest language in federal documents says "those in the marine industry with responsibility for response to a pollution incident are encouraged to prepare for the use of in-situ burning," which would require the use of fire booms.
 
Cough cough:
Originally posted by Article/blog Article/blog wrote:

Several other fire booms were then shipped from other countries, and two were subsequently provided by the state of Texas.
So, they get one ordered within 8 days and two more from Texas...
 
yawn:
 
Originally posted by same article same article wrote:

Under the federal code, the company responsible for a spill also manages its cleanup.

If that responsible party is unable or unwilling to implement all appropriate techniques to contain the discharge, the Coast Guard's Area Contingency Plan is implemented.
Hmmm.




-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 3:19pm
(beats old dead horse some more)
 
 
zones does not equal EPA zones.
 
for example, the 10 zones I have cited over and over and over and over and over.
 
here once more, copied and pasted
 
 

Coastal Zone Boundary Designations

The cognizant USCG COTP is the pre-designated OSC for pollution response in the Coastal Zone. All discharges or releases, or a substantial threat of such discharges or releases of oil or hazardous substances originating within the Coastal Zone are the responsibility of the USCG OSC. Included are discharges and releases from unknown sources or those classified as "mystery spills."

The Coastal Zone description for the USCG OSCs located within Federal Region 6 includes everything coastal of a line:

Section 1000 Page 1-1

1Commencing at the intersection of U.S. 90 and the Mississippi state line, westerly along U.S. 90. Continuing along U.S. 90 southwesterly to the intersection with I-510. Then south on I-510 and primary State Road 47 to the levee on the Left Descending Bank (LDB) of the Mississippi River. Then continuing upriver on the LDB to the U.S. 90 Highway Bridge (Crescent City Connection). Then across the U.S. 90 bridge to the levee on the Right Descending Bank (RDB) of the Mississippi River. Then upriver on the RDB to the Harvey Locks on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW).

2• Then south and westerly along the GIWW to Morgan City, Louisiana including the Atchafalaya River Basin from the East Atchafalaya Basin Protection Levee north to its intersection Highway 190. Then west to Krotz Springs, Louisiana. Then south following the levee along the right descending bank of the main channel of the Atchafalaya until it ends at Lake La Rose. Then south westerly until the West Atchafalaya Basin Protection Levee at Catahoula, Louisiana, then south to Morgan City.

3• Continuing westerly from the junction of the GIWW and the Atchafalya River at Morgan City to the Calcasieu River, into and including Sabine Lake, and the Neches River to its intersection with I-10 in Beaumont, Texas. Then along the GIWW towards Port Arthur, Texas including Taylors Bayou south of Highway 73. From Port Arthur, Texas, along the GIWW to, and including, East Bay, Galveston Bay, Trinity Bay, Double Bayou to Eagle Ferry Road, Clear Lake including its tributaries North to Highway 528, West to Highway 270, South to Highway 518, Dickinson Bay to Highway 3, Moses Lake, Swan Lake, Jones Lake, and the Houston Ship Channel, to the turning basin in Houston, Texas. The Houston Ship Channel includes: Buffalo Bayou to Highway 59, Brays Bayou to the Broadway Street Bridge, Sims Bayou to Highway 225, Vince Bayou to North Ritchie Street, Cotton Patch Bayou to the first county outfall, Hunting Bayou to I-10, Greens Bayou to I-10, Boggy Bayou to Highway 225, Tucker Bayou to Old Battleground Road, Carpenter’s Bayou to Sheldon Road, San Jacinto River to I-10, Spring Bayou, Goose Creek to Highway 146, and Cedar Bayou to Spur 55. Continuing at the junction of West Bay and the GIWW in Galveston, Texas, westerly along the GIWW to the Port of Freeport, Texas, including: Chocolate Bay, the Old Brazos River, and the New Brazos River up to the Missouri-Pacific Railroad Bridge in Brazoria, Texas.

4• Then southerly along the GIWW through and including: the Colorado River to 28-52N Latitude, Lavaca River to 28-50N Latitude, Chocolate Bay to 96-40W Longitude, Cox Bay, Keller Bay, Lavaca Bay to 96-40W Longitude, Turtle Bay, Culver Cut (West Branch Colorado River to 28-42N Latitude and entire Middle Branch), Robinsons Lake, Crab Lake, Mad Island Lake, Salt Lake, Carancahua Bay, Tres Palacios Bay to 28-47N Latitude, Oyster Lake, Blind Bayou, Powderhorn Lake, La Salle Bayou, Broad Bayou, Boggy Bayou, and Matagorda Bay.

5• Continuing southerly through San Antonio Bay including: Corey Bay, Victoria Barge Canal, Guadalupe River to 28-30N Latitude, Goff Bayou, Hog Bayou, Green Lake, Buffalo Lake, Alligator Slide Lake, Mission Lake, Guadalupe Bay, Hynes Bay, Twin Lake, Mustang Lake, and Jones Lake.

6• Then, continuing through Mesquite Bay including: Dunham Bay, Long Lake, and Sundown Bay.

Section 1000 Page 1-2

7• Continuing southerly through St. Charles Bay including: Burgentine Creek to 28-17N Latitude, Salt Creek to 28-16N Latitude, and Cavaso Creek to 97-01W Longitude.

8• Then, through Copano Bay including: Mission River, Mission Bay, Chiltipin Creek to 97-18W Longitude, Aransas River to 97-18W Longitude, Swan Lake, Copano Creek, Port Bay, and Salt Lake. Then southerly including: Little Bay, Aransas Bay, Conn Brown Harbor, Redfish Cove, Redfish Bay, LaQuinta Channel, Nueces River to U.S. 77, Rincon Industrial Channel, Rincon Bayou, Nueces Bay, Tule Lake, Corpus Christi Inner Harbor, Oso Creek, Oso Bay, and Corpus Christi Bay.

9• Continuing southerly, through and including: Packery Channel, Cayo Del Grullo, Cayo Del Infiernillo, Laguna De Los Olmos, Laguna Salada, Petrolina Creek, Comitas Lake, Alazan Bay, Baffin Bay, Port Mansfield Harbor, Four Mile Slough, Arroyo Colorado River to 26-12N Latitude, Callo Atascosa, Arroyo Colorado Cutoff, Laguna Vista Cove, South Bay, Vadia Ancha, Bahia Grande, San Martin Lake, and the Brownsville Ship Channel.

10• Where the Coastal Area is defined by a body of water such as a bay or lake, it includes small bays or lakes encompassed therein, but does not include waters tributary thereto unless specifically named.

The Coastal Zone also includes the Lower Mississippi River, commencing from mile marker (MM) 303 south to the Coastal boundary at New Orleans (down-river of which will be considered USCG jurisdiction entirely), encompassing the area riverward between the levee on the RDB and the LDB, and including Lake Pontchartrain.

1210 Memorandum of Agreements

1210.1 EPA Region 6 and USCG District 8 Memorandum of Agreement

The signed version of the "Memorandum of Agreement Between U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 and U. S. Coast Guard Eighth Coast Guard District, New Orleans, La Regarding Response Boundaries For Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Incidents and Federal on Scene Coordinator Responsibilities" can be accessed here.

1210.2 Director of Military Support and USCG Memorandum of Agreement

The signed version of the "Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Between The Director of Military Support (DOMS) and The United States Coast Guard for Aerial Application of Dispersants During Oil Spill Cleanup and Recovery Operations" can be accessed here.

Section 1000

from page 12-13
 
http://wwwdb.glo.state.tx.us/oilspill/Atlas/atlas/acp/onegulfplan.pdf - http://wwwdb.glo.state.tx.us/oilspill/Atlas/atlas/acp/onegulfplan.pdf
 
each zone listed above are required to have a preparation team in place to handle spills like this...
 
Which means they would need a fire boom...
 
Maybe 10?... if they followed the law...
 
your claim that the "EPA" zones are the zones I am talking about ignores the many, many times I have posted the actual zones I was referring too... Each of which is responsible for preparing for an oil disaster.


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 3:27pm

Sucks being wrong doesn't it? So essentially your quoted document lays out a bunch of inland water area that are part of zone 6 and the OSCog or whatever is responsible for spills within those areas. Still doesnt mention that every one of those areas has to have an oil boom on hand to be able to burn off oil. And this would be once the oil hits land. Doesnt say anything about an oil rig several miles out at sea.

Good try, but ... not quite.


-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 3:27pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Ahem:

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/despite_admirals_claims_fire_b.html - http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/despite_admirals_claims_fire_b.html
 
Originally posted by Article/blog Article/blog wrote:

But there appears to be nothing in federal law that requires BP or any other oil company to have such booms on hand during drilling or production activities in U.S. waters, despite fire booms being labeled as a primary first-response option in federal documents.

The strongest language in federal documents says "those in the marine industry with responsibility for response to a pollution incident are encouraged to prepare for the use of in-situ burning," which would require the use of fire booms.
 
Cough cough:
Originally posted by Article/blog Article/blog wrote:

Several other fire booms were then shipped from other countries, and two were subsequently provided by the state of Texas.
So, they get one ordered within 8 days and two more from Texas...
 
yawn:
 
Originally posted by same article same article wrote:

Under the federal code, the company responsible for a spill also manages its cleanup.

If that responsible party is unable or unwilling to implement all appropriate techniques to contain the discharge, the Coast Guard's Area Contingency Plan is implemented.
Hmmm.


and now that you made me research all that stuff today... I now know that this spill exceeded the level at which the federal government would allow the company responsible to continue containment and cleanup... That is for a level one type incident. This incident was a level three incident before day 8... meaning the coast guard was responsible since that time... about 3 days in...
 
 
and they still had zero fire booms.
 
 
I'm sure that is bp's fault.
 
 
 
also, in my reading, I found out that the government takes a portion of every oil drill lease and puts it into a fund in case of a disaster like this...
 
Interesting that that little tidbit has never been mentioned that I have seen...


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 4:00pm
http://biggovernment.com/jhoft/2010/06/16/change-53-days-later-obama-administration-decides-to-accept-dutch-offer-to-help-with-spill/ - http://biggovernment.com/jhoft/2010/06/16/change-53-days-later-obama-administration-decides-to-accept-dutch-offer-to-help-with-spill/
 
 
http://www.examiner.com/x-325-Global-Warming-Examiner~y2010m6d12-US-reconsiders-Dutch-offer-to-supply-oil-skimmers - http://www.examiner.com/x-325-Global-Warming-Examiner~y2010m6d12-US-reconsiders-Dutch-offer-to-supply-oil-skimmers
 
 
"The Dutch offered to fly their skimmer arm systems to the Gulf 3 days after the oil spill started. The offer was apparently turned down because EPA regulations do not allow water with oil to be pumped back into the ocean. If all the oily water was retained in the tanker, the capacity of the system would be greatly diminished because most of what is pumped into the tanker is sea water.

As of June 8th, BP reported that they have collected 64,650 barrels of oil in the Gulf. That is only a fraction of the amount of oil spilled from the well. That is less than one day’s rated capacity of the Dutch oil skimmers.

Turning down the Dutch skimmers just shows a total lack of leadership in the oil spill. To just leave the oil in the water because regulations do not allow you to pump slightly polluted oil back into the ocean is just plain stupid. The small amount of oil pumped back into the ocean with the Dutch system is tiny droplets of suspended oil that will be quickly broken down by naturally occurring bacteria.

Using the Dutch skimmers should have prevented most of the oil from ever getting even close to shore. The Dutch skimmers work best close to the source of the spill where the oil is more concentrated. Outside of that circle, dispersants could be used. Additional smaller skimmers could be used closer to shore to pick up patches that might get through the first 2 rings. The less oil that reaches shore, the less there is to clean up. The less oil that reaches shore, the faster the environment will restored by natural cleaning processes.

Having technology like the Dutch skimmers should also allow us to feel more comfortable about allowing deepwater drilling. If the skimmers work then it greatly lowers the environmental risks from future oil leaks in deep water. One advantage to deepwater wells is they are typically very far from shore, giving a long response time to clean up the problem. There would be no need to have a moratorium on deepwater drilling and having 50,000 people loose their jobs.

This incident with the skimmers just shows the lack of leadership by the President and other government officials. Most people, certainly the local residents, recognized that the government systems to deal with the oil spill were inadequate. It took over 6 weeks for the government to allow the state of Louisiana to build sand berms to protect the marshes, after oil has already entered the marshes. Decisions need to be made, often without full information and sometimes conflicting rules and regulations. The oil well did not stop spilling oil as the government tried to study the problems and make recommendations. There was no one with the authority to make the fast decisions necessary to combat the spill."


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 4:02pm
Quote EPA regulations do not allow for residue water to contain any oil.


Hmmm...funny that they should attempt to follow the law and get in trouble.


-------------
BU Engineering 2012


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 4:05pm
Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

Quote EPA regulations do not allow for residue water to contain any oil.


Hmmm...funny that they should attempt to follow the law and get in trouble.
 
 
yeah, it is so much better to have it wash up on beaches and into marshes...
 
gotta get good footage of the disaster so that it doesn't go to waste... Hey, maybe now they can ban all drilling...
 
oh wait.


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: mod98commando
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 10:57pm
Not to sound like one of those crazy conspiracy theorist types but I found it interesting, after hearing Obama speak on tv about the spill, that he started trying to sell the idea of alternative energy sources. Obviously we should be moving away from oil anyway but he should be focused on cleaning this crap up right now, not selling us alternative energy. After hearing people talk about his delayed response to things and then hearing him try to push that stuff, it sounds almost convenient that this turned into such a disaster. I don't necessarily believe that he allowed this to get worse to help him get people moving away from oil and I certainly can't prove that but it's an interesting thought.

-------------
oreomann33: Everybody invades Poland

Rofl_Mao: And everyone eats turkey

Me: But only if they're hungary

Mack: Yeah but hungary people go russian through their food and end up with greece on everyth


Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 11:12pm
Not really an interesting thought at all, unless you're a conspiracy theorist.

-------------
Que pasa?




Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 11:26pm
A photographer friend of mine was trying to do a photoshoot on a beach along the gulf a week or two ago, the model made to look like she was covered in oil through various means, apparently she wasn't big on the idea of having raw crude poured all over her but anyways, a few workers noticed them, a short while later local PD showed up and kicked them both off the beach. They weren't amused.
 
Not sure why any of you would really care, but I figured I'd share anyways.


-------------
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President

RIP T&O Forum


Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 17 June 2010 at 12:51am
Originally posted by __sneaky__ __sneaky__ wrote:

A photographer friend of mine was trying to do a photoshoot on a beach along the gulf a week or two ago, the model made to look like she was covered in oil through various means, apparently she wasn't big on the idea of having raw crude poured all over her but anyways, a few workers noticed them, a short while later local PD showed up and kicked them both off the beach. They weren't amused.
 
Not sure why any of you would really care, but I figured I'd share anyways.

Thanks?

Also, I equate the blowhards blaming the spill and slow cleanup on Obama with the tools on the left who blamed Bush for FEMA's crappy management of Katrina. The only difference between the two groups is which side of the aisle they sit on.


-------------


Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 17 June 2010 at 1:58am
LOL @ THIS THREAD.


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 17 June 2010 at 7:45am
Originally posted by mod98commando mod98commando wrote:

Not to sound like one of those crazy conspiracy theorist types but I found it interesting, after hearing Obama speak on tv about the spill, that he started trying to sell the idea of alternative energy sources. Obviously we should be moving away from oil anyway but he should be focused on cleaning this crap up right now, not selling us alternative energy. After hearing people talk about his delayed response to things and then hearing him try to push that stuff, it sounds almost convenient that this turned into such a disaster. I don't necessarily believe that he allowed this to get worse to help him get people moving away from oil and I certainly can't prove that but it's an interesting thought.
 
 
conspiracy theory is just that theory...
 
This administration doesn't make you "theorize" they just do it plainly and most people don't notice.
 
Like the drilling ban. They said that a report done by experts in the field recommended a temporary drilling ban.
 
 
That is a complete LIE.
 
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/11/1675960/engineers-say-interior-department.html - http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/11/1675960/engineers-say-interior-department.html
 
No theory there, Obama had his people change the report after the engineers had signed off.
 
That my friends is corruption at its finest... and a good way to advance your job killing "envirowacko" agenda!
 
Proof?
 
"WASHINGTON -- A group of engineers and oil experts said Friday that the Interior Department changed the language of a high-profile oil spill report after they'd signed it, falsely signaling their support for a drilling moratorium that they thought went too far.

The new language called for a stronger and wider moratorium on some oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico than the experts thought necessary. In fact, one said Friday, the stronger moratorium might instead increase the risks slightly.

"The reason we don't agree is that we think it makes the system less safe. It increases risk, it doesn't reduce risk," Texas oil consultant Ken Allen said in an interview.

Allen was among a group of experts who read and signed a May 27 statement by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announcing new safety measures for offshore drilling, as well as a six-month moratorium on some drilling.

"The recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering," Salazar said in the report.

However, as Allen and the others said in a statement, Salazar changed two key recommendations after they'd signed it."

 
 
 
more?
 
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/537030/201006110000/A-Ban-On-Truth.aspx - http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/537030/201006110000/A-Ban-On-Truth.aspx
 
"Energy Policy: The advisory board on offshore drilling says it never endorsed a moratorium, which was added later by the interior secretary. The only thing transparent about this administration is its lies.

Experts brought together by the Obama administration to review offshore drilling safety were asked to review recommendations in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. They did not give their blessing to the six-month drilling moratorium announced by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and have accused him of deliberately appending their report to make it seem like they did.

According to the New Orleans Times Picayune, Salazar's May 27 report to the president said the seven experts "peer reviewed" his recommendations, including a six-month ban on drilling in waters deeper than 500 feet. The experts say the report they reviewed suggested stopping only new drilling in waters deeper than 1,000 feet.

The reviewers for Salazar's report were provided by the National Academy of Engineering. Their joint letter says that while they agreed with the report's various safety recommendations, "we do not agree with the six-month blanket moratorium on floating drilling. A moratorium was added after the final review and was never agreed to by the contributors."

One panelist, Bob Bea of the University of California, Berkeley, said in an e-mail: "Moratorium was not a part of the ... report we consulted-advised-reviewed." The academy's Ken Arnold was less subtle, saying: "The secretary should be free to recommend whatever he thinks is correct, but he should not be free to use our names to justify his political decisions."

The panelists simply oppose the announced moratorium. "A blanket moratorium is not the answer," the letter says. "It will not measurably reduce risk further, and it will have a lasting impact on the nation's economy, which may be greater than that of the oil spill. We do not believe punishing the innocent is the right thing to do."

Neither do we, and frankly we're tired of the deliberate manipulation of facts and truth in the name of protecting the environment, whether it's the U.N. con artists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the charlatans at Britain's Climate Research Unit who tried to "hide the decline" in global temperatures or our own political hacks at Interior.

We're as concerned as anybody about oil-soaked pelicans, just as we're concerned about the birds, including endangered species, who are daily hacked to oblivion by twirling wind turbines. And while tourism is a concern, so too are the tens of thousands of jobs in the oil and supporting industries that will be lost due to this ill-conceived moratorium. Homo sapiens is a species too."

 
 
 
 
 
 
Salazar should be fired if the administration were moral and decent... But, they  aren't.
 
 
Also, look at who the President leaned on to make the original "drilling" permission for the east coast... Same people in charge of "fixing" this issue...
 
Hmm, so then they said drilling was safe, and this couldn't happen, and now the exact same people say it isn't safe and drilling should be stopped everywhere...
 
Incompetence isn't a conspiracy theory.


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 17 June 2010 at 9:15am
Originally posted by High Voltage High Voltage wrote:

. . . I equate the blowhards blaming the spill and slow cleanup on Obama with the tools on the left who blamed Bush for FEMA's crappy management of Katrina. The only difference between the two groups is which side of the aisle they sit on.


This.  The President does not personally manage each and every government agency.  In most cases they are too busy having to deal with whatever the current "crisis" is that they are no more than peripherally aware of the agencies not involved in that issue until something happens to bring those agencies to the forefront of public interest.

Edited Addition:

Now, the actions of Mr. Salazar, if he did indeed change a report after it was signed, are something the President should be blamed for as he is responsible for this individual and, by extension, the individual's actions.


-------------


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 17 June 2010 at 9:47am
you guys should really read the new rolling stone, great article that covers exactly what Obama promised with what he actually delivered...
 
"The Spill, The Scandal and the President" is the title, you can google it online, but it has language, hence no link.
 
 
Here is a little of it.
 
"It's tempting to believe that the Gulf spill, like so many disasters inherited by Obama, was the fault of the Texas oilman who preceded him in office. But, though George W. Bush paved the way for the catastrophe, it was Obama who gave BP the green light to drill. "Bush owns eight years of the mess," says Rep. Darrell Issa, a Republican from California. "But after more than a year on the job, Salazar owns it too."

During the Bush years, the Minerals Management Service, the agency in the Interior Department charged with safeguarding the environment from the ravages of drilling, descended into rank criminality. According to reports by Interior's inspector general, MMS staffers were both literally and figuratively in bed with the oil industry. When agency staffers weren't joining industry employees for coke parties or trips to corporate ski chalets, they were having sex with oil-company officials. But it was American taxpayers and the environment that were getting screwed. MMS managers were awarded cash bonuses for pushing through risky offshore leases, auditors were ordered not to investigate shady deals, and safety staffers routinely accepted gifts from the industry, allegedly even allowing oil companies to fill in their own inspection reports in pencil before tracing over them in pen.

"The oil companies were running MMS during those years," Bobby Maxwell, a former top auditor with the agency, told Rolling Stone last year. "Whatever they wanted, they got. Nothing was being enforced across the board at MMS."

Salazar himself has worked hard to foster the impression that the "prior administration" is to blame for the catastrophe. In reality, though, the Obama administration was fully aware from the outset of the need to correct the lapses at MMS that led directly to the disaster in the Gulf. In fact, Obama specifically nominated Salazar – his "great" and "dear" friend – to force the department to "clean up its act." For too long, Obama declared, Interior has been "seen as an appendage of commercial interests" rather than serving the people. "That's going to change under Ken Salazar."

Salazar took over Interior in January 2009, vowing to restore the department's "respect for scientific integrity." He immediately traveled to MMS headquarters outside Denver and delivered a beat-down to staffers for their "blatant and criminal conflicts of interest and self-dealing" that had "set one of the worst examples of corruption and abuse in government." Promising to "set the standard for reform," Salazar declared, "The American people will know the Minerals Management Service as a defender of the taxpayer. You are the ones who will make special interests play by the rules." Dressed in his trademark Stetson and bolo tie, Salazar boldly proclaimed, "There's a new sheriff in town."

Salazar's early moves certainly created the impression that he meant what he said. Within days of taking office, he jettisoned the Bush administration's plan to open 300 million acres – in Alaska, the Gulf, and up and down both coasts – to offshore drilling. The proposal had been published in the Federal Register literally at midnight on the day that Bush left the White House. Salazar denounced the plan as "a headlong rush of the worst kind," saying it would have put in place "a process rigged to force hurried decisions based on bad information." Speaking to Rolling Stone in March 2009, the secretary underscored his commitment to reform. "We have embarked on an ambitious agenda to clean up the mess," he insisted. "We have the inspector general involved with us in a preventive mode so that the department doesn't commit the same mistakes of the past." The crackdown, he added, "goes beyond just codes of ethics."

Except that it didn't. Salazar did little to tamp down on the lawlessness at MMS, beyond referring a few employees for criminal prosecution and ending a Bush-era program that allowed oil companies to make their "royalty" payments – the amount they owe taxpayers for extracting a scarce public resource – not in cash but in crude. And instead of putting the brakes on new offshore drilling, Salazar immediately throttled it up to record levels. Even though he had scrapped the Bush plan, Salazar put 53 million offshore acres up for lease in the Gulf in his first year alone – an all-time high. The aggressive leasing came as no surprise, given Salazar's track record. "This guy has a long, long history of promoting offshore oil drilling – that's his thing," says Kierán Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity. "He's got a highly specific soft spot for offshore oil drilling." As a senator, Salazar not only steered passage of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, which opened 8 million acres in the Gulf to drilling, he even criticized President Bush for not forcing oil companies to develop existing leases faster.

Salazar was far less aggressive, however, when it came to making good on his promise to fix MMS. Though he criticized the actions of "a few rotten apples" at the agency, he left long-serving lackeys of the oil industry in charge. "The people that are ethically challenged are the career managers, the people who come up through the ranks," says a marine biologist who left the agency over the way science was tampered with by top officials. "In order to get promoted at MMS, you better get invested in this pro-development oil culture." One of the Bush-era managers whom Salazar left in place was John Goll, the agency's director for Alaska. Shortly after, the Interior secretary announced a reorganization of MMS in the wake of the Gulf disaster, Goll called a staff meeting and served cake decorated with the words "Drill, baby, drill."

Salazar also failed to remove Chris Oynes, a top MMS official who had been a central figure in a multibillion-dollar scandal that Interior's inspector general called "a jaw-dropping example of bureaucratic bungling." In the 1990s, industry lobbyists secured a sweetheart subsidy from Congress: Drillers would pay no royalties on oil extracted in deep water until prices rose above $28 a barrel. But this tripwire was conveniently omitted in Gulf leases overseen by Oynes – a mistake that will let the oil giants pocket as much as $53 billion. Instead of being fired for this *&^&*&, however, Oynes was promoted by Bush to become associate director for offshore drilling – a position he kept under Salazar until the Gulf disaster hit.

"Employees describe being in Interior – not just MMS, but the other agencies – as the third Bush term," says Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which represents federal whistle-blowers. "They're working for the same managers who are implementing the same policies. Why would you expect a different result?"

 


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 17 June 2010 at 11:26am
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

Originally posted by High Voltage High Voltage wrote:

. . . I equate the blowhards blaming the spill and slow cleanup on Obama with the tools on the left who blamed Bush for FEMA's crappy management of Katrina. The only difference between the two groups is which side of the aisle they sit on.


This.  The President does not personally manage each and every government agency.  In most cases they are too busy having to deal with whatever the current "crisis" is that they are no more than peripherally aware of the agencies not involved in that issue until something happens to bring those agencies to the forefront of public interest.

Edited Addition:

Now, the actions of Mr. Salazar, if he did indeed change a report after it was signed, are something the President should be blamed for as he is responsible for this individual and, by extension, the individual's actions.


This.


Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 17 June 2010 at 12:29pm
Now I'd be all for blaming the President for not stopping the spill had we voted this guy in.



-------------


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 17 June 2010 at 2:57pm
"All of this matters because it offers proof the moratorium was driven by politics, not safety. The drilling ban was not reviewed by experts, and was not necessary to satisfy most of the safety recommendations in Mr. Salazar's report. It was authored by political actors so Mr. Obama could look tough. A cynic might argue the ban was only added after review precisely because the Administration knew experts would refuse to endorse it."
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704198004575311033371466938.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704198004575311033371466938.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
 
 
spitting in the wind?


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 17 June 2010 at 3:10pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

It was authored by political actors so Mr. Obama could look tough. 




Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 17 June 2010 at 3:19pm
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by <strong>Wall Street Journal</strong> Wall Street Journal wrote:

It was authored by political actors so Mr. Obama could look tough. 


 
 
Notice the "" marks? That was written by a journalist... so I fixed it for you.


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 17 June 2010 at 3:26pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:


Notice the "" marks? That was written by a journalist... 

1) I'm aware. I just hit the "quote" button and didn't change the little tag. 

2) It was a stance. It was written by a columnist, or someone hired specifically to write stances. Those people often are not allowed to write news and other articles why they are hired there as not to corrupt the news cycle. They are not, usually, allowed to even sit in the same area of the newsroom with the journalists. Often they are on another floor or in a closed off area. They are not really "Journalists." 

But that's just a semantics thing. Not really important. 

 (On a side note, I started at my now-former paper writing opinions stances). 

3) Even if a journalist wrote this, you know I am allowed to disagree with journalists, right? Like I don't melt like the Wicked Witch if I try and criticize a journalist. 


 


Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 17 June 2010 at 4:31pm
So, just so I can sum up the latest argument that this is somehow a conspiracy by Obama to shut down oil companies or look stronger or something, and was NOT the fault of the multi-billion-dollar who skimped on the safety features, the plan was: 

  1. Weeks before, announce that you are approving more off-shore drilling. 
  2. Wait until the BP rig blows up.
  3. Wait much longer than you should before appearing to the public and going to the area, hurting your approval ratings. 
  4. Not send in the government to massively overtake the area on purpose so you can make the oil company look bad. 
  5. Have a moratorium on off-shore drilling, being forced to go back on your word saying we would expand drilling, looking like a waffler. 
  6. ???
  7. Profit. Somehow. 



Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 17 June 2010 at 4:32pm
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

 

3) Even if a journalist wrote this, you know I am allowed to disagree with journalists, right? Like I don't melt like the Wicked Witch if I try and criticize a journalist. 


 


I actually thought they would just bring you out back at the next liberal media meeting and whip you.


-------------
Que pasa?




Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 17 June 2010 at 4:37pm
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

 

3) Even if a journalist wrote this, you know I am allowed to disagree with journalists, right? Like I don't melt like the Wicked Witch if I try and criticize a journalist. 


 


I actually thought they would just bring you out back at the next liberal media meeting and whip you.

They won't be getting me a round at the next Applebee's meeting, that's for sure. 


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 17 June 2010 at 4:41pm
day 3
 
Dutch offers oil skimmers which would have contained the spill.
 
 
Obama rejects this offer.
 
Day 57, obama changes his mind, now that oil is on beaches... And asks for dutch help.
 
http://www.examiner.com/x-325-Global-Warming-Examiner~y2010m6d12-US-reconsiders-Dutch-offer-to-supply-oil-skimmers - http://www.examiner.com/x-325-Global-Warming-Examiner~y2010m6d12-US-reconsiders-Dutch-offer-to-supply-oil-skimmers


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 17 June 2010 at 4:52pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

day 3
 
Day 57, obama changes his mind, now that oil is on beaches... And asks for dutch help.

It's almost as if, in between days three and 57, multiple attempts to close the spill and contain the damage failed and the situation got worse than expected. 

MY GOD WHAT A MONSTER.


Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 17 June 2010 at 5:14pm
I should clarify by saying that, in the situation with Dutch assistance, I don't think it was a good decision to turn down their offer to start with. I can understand the misguided rationale of "Let's not make this an international thing," but I still think it was a dumb call not to see this getting bigger. 

That said, I don't think it falls in line with some sort of liberal/Kenyan/socialist/fascist/academic/OLIGARH/Chicagothug/ACORN/Muslim/robot/whatever the flavor of the day is conspiracy theory. 


Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 17 June 2010 at 5:32pm
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

day 3
 
Day 57, obama changes his mind, now that oil is on beaches... And asks for dutch help.

It's almost as if, in between days three and 57, multiple attempts to close the spill and contain the damage failed and the situation got worse than expected. 

MY GOD WHAT A MONSTER.
Finally, you're getting it. Welcome.

-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.


Posted By: Pariel
Date Posted: 17 June 2010 at 6:27pm
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:


I should clarify by saying that, in the situation with Dutch assistance, I don't think it was a good decision to turn down their offer to start with. I can understand the misguided rationale of "Let's not make this an international thing," but I still think it was a dumb call not to see this getting bigger. 


Same thing that happened to the Russians when the Kursk went down. I think it takes a lot of balls to say at the start "We can't handle this" in general, not to mention that in this situation no one had enough information to make a good decision on that count. Perhaps the morale of the story here should have been "Better safe than sorry".


Posted By: God
Date Posted: 17 June 2010 at 7:25pm


I like idea of using an atom bomb to close the hole.


Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 18 June 2010 at 1:43am
Originally posted by God God wrote:



I like idea of using an atom bomb to close the hole.

They should have detonated a nuke to shut the well after the first week of fail. Well shut, oil slightly radioactive but the leak is stopped. Drill elsewhere.


-------------


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 18 June 2010 at 7:24am
More government "brilliance"...
 
 
Don't worry, stuff like this would never happen in healthcare...
 
"Eight days ago, http://topics.abcnews.go.com/topic/Louisiana - Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Media/bp-oil-spill-thick-crude-hits-shore-workers/story?id=10869546 - ordered barges to begin vacuuming crude oil out of his state's oil-soaked waters. Today, against the governor's wishes, those barges sat idle, even as more oil flowed toward the Louisiana shore.
 
Sixteen barges sat stationary today, although they were http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/citizens-charge-10924636 - sucking up thousands of gallons of BP's oil as recently as Tuesday . Workers in hazmat suits and gas masks pumped the oil out of the Louisiana waters and into steel tanks. It was a homegrown idea that seemed to be effective at collecting the thick gunk. "
 
 
Hmm... Why would the coast guard stop actual progress that was removing oil from the water?...
 

"The Coast Guard came and shut them down," Jindal said. "You got men on the barges in the oil, and they have been told by the Coast Guard, 'Cease and desist. Stop sucking up that oil.'"

"But the Coast Guard ordered the stoppage because of reasons that Jindal found frustrating. The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges. "

 
And this proves the "community organizer" can't run anything... All the different agencies are fighting with each other. No leader...
 
"The governor said the problem is there's still no single person giving a "yes" or "no." While the Gulf Coast governors have developed plans with the Coast Guard's command center in the Gulf, things begin to shift when other agencies start weighing in, like the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

"It's like this huge committee down there," Riley said, "and every decision that we try to implement, any one person on that committee has absolute veto power."

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-gov-bobby-jindals-wishes-crude/story?id=10946379&page=1 - http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-gov-bobby-jindals-wishes-crude/story?id=10946379&page=1


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 18 June 2010 at 7:30am
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

day 3
 
Day 57, obama changes his mind, now that oil is on beaches... And asks for dutch help.

It's almost as if, in between days three and 57, multiple attempts to close the spill and contain the damage failed and the situation got worse than expected. 

MY GOD WHAT A MONSTER.
 
 
Glad you can't see any of the points I've brought up... more proof that you are just an ideologue for the current administration.


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 18 June 2010 at 8:34am

This thread needs a recap, since I have posted so much information...

 

I think the worst part of our country right now is the way the government controls the press... Or maybe the press is just too lazy to do their job...

 

Either or, we end up making assumptions based on partial knowledge of the situation.

 

 

 

Did you know that the government spent millions of dollars after Valdez disaster developing a contingency plan that would help fix another spill when it happened? (Because everyone knows accidents happen... nothing is perfect, so regulations were put into place to quickly fix a problem like this).

 

And here is that report, which was turned into law by executive order

 

http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/fr/59fr47384.pdf -  

 

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfr300_main_02.tpl -  

 

 

Here is the executive order making it law.

 

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12777 -  

 

 

 

Now, in this report the first thing done, (without government approval even) was to burn off the oil with an in-situ plan (aka fire booms)

 

http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/fss/fss09/dehaven.pdf -  

 

If they were going to burn it off right away, they would have to have these in stock… In the US

 

But, did they have these booms anywhere in ownership of the United States government as required by law?

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/gulf-oil-spill-impact-felt-country/story?id=10547590 -  

 

"The Mobile Press Register reported that the federal government did not have any fire booms in the Gulf region,  despite a 1994 response plan that called for them. Instead, booms had to be ordered from Illinois. "

 

 

 

And then you have this The clean water act EPA section 309

 

(d) National Contingency Plan.

   (1) Preparation by President. The President shall prepare and publish a National Contingency Plan for removal of oil and hazardous substances pursuant to this section.  

(2) Contents. The National Contingency Plan shall provide for efficient, coordinated, and effective action to minimize damage from oil and hazardous substance discharges, including containment, dispersal, and removal of oil and hazardous substances, and shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

      (A) Assignment of duties and responsibilities among Federal departments and agencies in coordination with State and local agencies and port authorities including, but not limited to, water pollution control and conservation and trusteeship of natural resources (including conservation of fish and wildlife).

      (B) Identification, procurement, maintenance, and storage of equipment and supplies.

      (C) Establishment or designation of Coast Guard strike teams, consisting of--

         (i) personnel who shall be trained, prepared, and available to provide necessary services to carry out the National Contingency Plan;

         (ii) adequate oil and hazardous substance pollution control equipment and material; and

         (iii) a detailed oil and hazardous substance pollution and prevention plan, including measures to protect fisheries and wildlife.      (D) A system of surveillance and notice designed to safeguard against as well as ensure earliest possible notice of discharges of oil and hazardous substances and imminent threats of such discharges to the appropriate State and Federal agencies.

      (E) Establishment of a national center to provide coordination and direction for operations in carrying out the Plan.

      (F) Procedures and techniques to be employed in identifying, containing, dispersing, and removing oil and hazardous substances.

      (G) A schedule, prepared in cooperation with the States, identifying--

         (i) dispersants, other chemicals, and other spill mitigating devices and substances, if any, that may be used in carrying out the Plan,

         (ii) the waters in which such dispersants, other chemicals, and other spill mitigating devices and substances may be used, and

         (iii) the quantities of such dispersant, other chemicals, or other spill mitigating device or substance which can be used safely in such waters, which schedule shall provide in the case of any dispersant, chemical, spill mitigating device or substance, or waters not specifically identified in such schedule that the President, or his delegate, may, on a case-by-case basis, identify the dispersants, other chemicals, and other spill mitigating devices and substances which may be used, the waters in which they may be used, and the quantities which can be used safely in such waters.

      (H) A system whereby the State or States affected by a discharge of oil or hazardous substance may act where necessary to remove such discharge and such State or States may be reimbursed in accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, in the case of any discharge of oil from a vessel or facility, for the reasonable costs incurred for that removal, from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

     (I) Establishment of criteria and procedures to ensure immediate and effective Federal identification of, and response to, a discharge, or the threat of a discharge, that results in a substantial threat to the public health or welfare of the United States, as required under subsection (c)(2).

      (J) Establishment of procedures and standards for removing a worst case discharge of oil, and for mitigating or preventing a substantial threat of such a discharge.

 

 

 

So to NOT place this at the feet of the President is to ignore the facts that he was responsible for making sure we were prepared, and based on the law if a news reporter actually did his job... We could find the paperwork that was approved and sent to the white house stating they were prepared for an oil disaster should one happen... And the Presidents signature would be on those documents...

 

But, I'm sure no one will ask for them, or even look for them...

 

pathetic.

 

More about the fire booms.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36912754/ -  

 

 

Then you have the power struggle that is going on... Who is in charge?

 

Based on the 1994 report, you can see why this is going south. Look at page 96 of the report.

 

 

http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/fr/59fr47384.pdf -  

 

Yes, that is right 15 different "leaders" all with veto power.

 

So, something that is working, any one of them can hold it up for any asinine reason... for example.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-gov-bobby-jindals-wishes-crude/story?id=10946379 -  

“Eight days ago, http://topics.abcnews.go.com/topic/Louisiana - - ordered barges to begin vacuuming crude oil out of his state's oil-soaked waters. Today, against the governor's wishes, those barges sat idle, even as more oil flowed toward the Louisiana shore.

 

"It's the most frustrating thing," the Republican governor said today in Buras, La. "Literally, yesterday morning we found out that they were halting all of these barges."

 

Sixteen barges sat stationary today, although they were http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/citizens-charge-10924636 - "These barges work. You've seen them work. You've seen them suck oil out of the water," said Jindal.

So why stop now?

"The Coast Guard came and shut them down," Jindal said. "You got men on the barges in the oil, and they have been told by the Coast Guard, 'Cease and desist. Stop sucking up that oil.'"

But the Coast Guard ordered the stoppage because of reasons that Jindal found frustrating. The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges.

The governor said the problem is there's still no single person giving a "yes" or "no." While the Gulf Coast governors have developed plans with the Coast Guard's command center in the Gulf, things begin to shift when other agencies start weighing in, like the http://topics.abcnews.go.com/topic/Environmental-Protection-Agency - - Fish and Wildlife Service .

"It's like this huge committee down there," Riley said, "and every decision that we try to implement, any one person on that committee has absolute veto power." “

 

 

 

Do you want more examples of this “anti” logic from our wonderful governments “disaster response” team?

 

How about on day 4 of the spill, the Dutch offered enough oil skimmers to capture ALL of the oil that was gushing out of the well…

But, the epa nixed that, as a small amount of oil would be put back into the water while it was capturing 146,000 barrels of oil per day…

http://www.examiner.com/x-325-Global-Warming-Examiner~y2010m6d12-US-reconsiders-Dutch-offer-to-supply-oil-skimmers -  

Now that the oil is hitting land… all oil production has been ceased, and the push for cap and tax is back on the table… “don’t let a crisis go to waste, as it will allow you to do things that normally weren’t possible”…

Now they want the skimmers…

 

I'm sure you remember this too...
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/144655.html - http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/144655.html
 
One scientist, and it stopped cleanup efforts for days, thanks to the EPA.

Oh, and the whole “drilling ban”, that was approved by experts in the field.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/11/1675960/engineers-say-interior-department.html - Lies and propaganda… The report they “signed” was changed afterwords to include the drilling ban… A ban that actually makes us LESS safe.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/537030/201006110000/A-Ban-On-Truth.aspx -  

 

If you aren’t convinced by all of that… Check out the new issue of rolling stone magazine (this article is already on the web, but has some language… hence not linked)

"The Spill, The Scandal and the President"

 

In the real world, accidents happen, our ability to fix the problems quickly is the key, and this spill is proof to “big” governments inability to run anything effectively and is the main reason so many are scared of the government takeover of so much of our lives, health, energy, and companies…



-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 18 June 2010 at 12:05pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges.

So, in conspiracy land, Obama directed personally the Coast Guard to block the progress of the tankers... By making them follow a standard safety protocol? 

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

 more proof that you are just an ideologue for the current administration.

There is a difference between bringing up sensible criticisms - which I have done in this thread - and near-constant flailing and deflecting so that anyone but the corporation who caused this mess is to blame for it. 

I've said in this thread that I thought Obama's response was too slow in today's environment, that it was a bad idea to turn down initial international help to try and keep the problem "localized," that the MMS needed to be reformed faster, etc. 

Somehow I guess that makes me an ideologue. Or not. 


Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 18 June 2010 at 12:08pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:


And this proves the "community organizer" can't run anything... All the different agencies are fighting with each other. No leader...

Ahem...

We just got done discussing how you and Breitbart thought that this was a conspiracy by Obama so that he could kill off the oil companies and rid the U.S. of drilling forever and make himself look like a hero. 

So which is this? 

Is this a socialist crafted grand conspiracy? 

Or is this, as you've also said, Obama being a spineless community organizer? 




Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 18 June 2010 at 12:13pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

 

I think the worst part of our country right now is the way the government controls the press... Or maybe the press is just too lazy to do their job...


I know right? The media is totally ignoring all of the problems you brought up. 


Oh, no, wait...

 

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/gulf-oil-spill-impact-felt-country/story?id=10547590 - http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/gulf-oil-spill-impact-felt-country/story?id=10547590

 

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36912754/ - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36912754/

 

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-gov-bobby-jindals-wishes-crude/story?id=10946379 - http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-gov-bobby-jindals-wishes-crude/story?id=10946379

 

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/144655.html - http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/144655.html
 

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/11/1675960/engineers-say-interior-department.html - http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/11/1675960/engineers-say-interior-department.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/11/1675960/engineers-say-interior-department.html -


You are just so adorable when you do that. Wink


Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 21 June 2010 at 8:21am
yes, because linking a story buried in the back of the site, only found with google. is so similar to what we see on abcnbccbs during the nightly news...
 
oh wait.
 
 


-------------
They tremble at my name...


Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 21 June 2010 at 11:55am
Well they can't stay on the main page forever...

-------------


Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 22 June 2010 at 10:28pm
An interesting pic to put the oil spill in a size comparison. 



Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 23 June 2010 at 3:46pm
So that's ALL oil now right?

-------------
Que pasa?




Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 23 June 2010 at 4:13pm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100623/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_containment_cap - Obama bumped the containment cap today.

It has to be removed now. Awesome. 

OOOBAAAMAAA!!! 



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2021 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net