The really reason US doesn't accept help with oil spill

[GostHacked]

Shady ???

[GostHacked]

Ohhhhhh SHADY!!!!?????

[Shady]

So how much would you be willing to put up with in your own yard before you start to see a problem?

My yard isn't that big, so probably not much.

5000 barrels a day from numerous leaking points all around the gulf. As opposed to 20,000 barrels a day coming from ONE site.

Not leaking points, natural seepage. But actually the BP leak is probably two or three times as much as 20,000 barrels.

The real question is why the hell did an oil rig blow up!???!??!??

Good question. From what I've been reading, BP noticed problems with the well back in February, but decided not to address them. I've also read that a build up of methane cause the well to do what it did.

That's been explained here in this thread and others, you chose to ignore it.

No it hasn't been explained at all. In fact, the questions are growing.

Don't tell me these question have been answered. That's a joke. An absolute joke.

[Shady]

21 offers of assistance from 17 countries, all refused. There's only 20 skimmers working in the Gulf at the present time. There's 2000 skimmers available to use.

You're either purposely lying, or grossly uninformed.

[GostHacked]

Don't tell me these question have been answered. That's a joke. An absolute joke.

In the second video there seems to be about 2000 skimmers available in the US alone. (2:10 mark) So why does the Jones Act need to be lifted for foreign skimmers when the US has 2000 that they can use?

Why not use the 2000 skimmers available that are in the US to help with this clean up? Seems like foreign assistance is not needed.

[Shady]

In the second video there seems to be about 2000 skimmers available in the US alone. (2:10 mark) So why does the Jones Act need to be lifted for foreign skimmers when the US has 2000 that they can use?

Because, the skimmers offered by foreign countries could have been there already, cleaning up oil. They could have been there many weeks ago, resulting in more oil cleaned up, and less damage to beaches and wildlife. Do you really need it explained to you?

Why not use the 2000 skimmers available that are in the US to help with this clean up? Seems like foreign assistance is not needed.

Sure, use the skimmers available. But they're not. And like I said, foreign ships and skimmers could have been helping out weeks ago, cleaning up more oil. But apparently that's not a high priority to the President. At least not as important as appeasing the unions.

[BubberMiley]

Don't you ever get tired of that egg on your face? Foreign vessels have been helping out for weeks, and are still there. They don't need to waive the Jones Act if the vessels do not call upon points in the United States.

You might want to now start raging about the compromise to national security because foreign vessels are operating in Gulf waters.

[naomiglover]

Get a grip, its just a blowout not a blowjob.

Funny.

[Shady]

Don't you ever get tired of that egg on your face? Foreign vessels have been helping out for weeks, and are still there. They don't need to waive the Jones Act if the vessels do not call upon points in the United States.

You might want to now start raging about the compromise to national security because foreign vessels are operating in Gulf waters.

That just isn't true. Countries have offered help, and have been denied. I guess they're just lying. I guess the Dutch are just making it all up.

[BubberMiley]

I guess the Dutch are just making it all up.

Or the right-wing bloggers that give you all your talking points are.

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/MARAD_revised_Jones_Act_Fact_Sheet.670991.pdf

[punked]

That just isn't true. Countries have offered help, and have been denied. I guess they're just lying. I guess the Dutch are just making it all up.

PROOF! You got none you made it all up ok.

The Jones applies to ships who are trading goods and landing in more then one US port. Is that what the skimmers would be doing Shady? Seems weird that they would trading goods if they were skimming for oil. That must be a republican plan or something.

Edited June 23, 2010 by punked

[Shady]

You guys can keep spinning for Obama. But facts are stubborn things.

UPDATE: The U.S. Government has reconsidered a Dutch offer to supply 4 oil skimmers. These are large arms that are attached to oil tankers that pump oil and water from the surface of the ocean into the tanker. Water pumped into the tanker will settle to the bottom of the tanker and is then pumped back into the ocean to make room for more oil. Each system will collect 5,000 tons of oil each day

...

Had the US bureaucracy accepted the Dutch offer on Day 3 when it came, it is clear that a lot more oil would have been surface skimmed.

SF Gate

As the Gulf oil spill grows, President Obama has laid out a bold Oval Office plan to make things right in the Gulf and change national energy policy in the process.

What Mr. Obama hasn't done is announce that he's calling in maritime mercenaries – foreign skimmers or Saudi supertankers – to help deal with the Gulf oil spill cleanup.

Well flow-rate estimates are now up to as many 60,000 barrels a day (2.5 million gallons), with about 18,000 barrels a day being captured by BP. Congressmen along the coast are pleading for a better and more coherent response, and pressure is growing to waive the protectionist Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (known as the Jones Act, for its sponsor), which blocks foreign fleets from helping in the Gulf.

AP

You guys are pathetic. You're more interested in attacking me, and protecting your golden boy Barack Obama, than asking the tough questions, and doing the proper reading for yourselves. All of you need to preface your posts with "Robert Gibbs approved this message." You're all factually incorrect. Your opinions are wrong, and your facts are wrong. All in your effort to protect Barack Hussein Obama's incompetence and negligence.

[punked]

Again please tell me what an act which deals with trade and ports has to do with skimmers Shady? Have you read the Jones act? Nope didn't think so. You have no clue what you are talking about why should anyone read what you say.

I also point out the idiocy in saying one minute oil is natural and the gulf will rebound and in the same sentence crying about Obama not skimming enough.

What is it Drill baby Drill, or oil is bad we should be cautious and drill less? What is it? Stop flip flopping, stop lying, stop making stuff up.

Edited June 23, 2010 by punked

[Shady]

According to Foreign Policy, thirteen entities that had offered the U.S. oil spill assistance within about two weeks of the Horizon rig explosion. They were the governments of Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations.

The U.S. response - Thank you, but no thank you, we've got it.

Separately, a Dutch news site De Standaard also reported Belgian and Dutch dredgers have technology in-house to fight the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but the Act Jones forbids them to work in the U.S.

A Belgian group--DEME-- contends it can clean up the oil in three to four months with specialty vessel and equipment, rather than an estimated nine months if done only by the U.S. The article noted there are no more than 5 or 6 of those ships in the world and the top specialist players are the two Belgian companies- DEME and De Nul - and their Dutch competitors.

The U.S. does not have the similar technology and vessel to accomplish the cleanup task because those ships would cost twice as much to build in the U.S. than in the Far East. The article further criticizes this "great technological delay" is a direct consequence of the Jones Act.

Link

Punked continues to battle against facts and reality.

The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (P.L. 66-261) is a United States Federal statute that regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports.

Section 27, also known as the Jones Act, deals with cabotage (i.e., coastal shipping) and requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents. The purpose of the law is to support the U.S. merchant marine industry, but agricultural interests generally oppose it because, they contend, it raises the cost of shipping their goods, making them less competitive with foreign sources. [1]

In addition, amendments to the Jones Act, known as the Cargo Preference Act (P.L. 83-644), provide permanent legislation for the transportation of waterborne cargoes in U.S.-flag vessels.

Link

The key term is cabotage.

Cabotage is the transport of goods or passengers between two points in the same country. Originally starting with shipping, cabotage now also covers aviation, railways and road transport. Cabotage is "trade or navigation in coastal waters, or, the exclusive right of a country to operate the air traffic within its territory."[1]

Link

Cabotage is trade OR navigation. And the shipping aspects of this law relate to vessels carrying boom and other oil cleaning materials.

[punked]

Punked continues to battle against facts and reality.

The key term is cabotage.

Cabotage is trade OR navigation. And the shipping aspects of this law relate to vessels carrying boom and other oil cleaning materials.

Accept your definitional of cabotage from Wiki says otherwise.

According to you "Cabotage is the transport of goods or passengers between two points in the same country."

Tell me if these skimmers are leaving from one port and returning to the same port what does the Jones act have to do with anything. There are several problems with your middle school interpretation of the act.

First the act deals with trade not with skimming might be why there are already ships from other countries cleaning up the mess right now. Second these ships that are in use would not be moving between ports they would have one port, one point of leaving and return so the Jones Act would again not apply.

Here I went out and found a conservative source that says you are an idiot.

http://liz.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/06/21/jones-act-not-blocking-aid-ships-to-gulf-hornbeck-ceo/

That helpful?

Maybe this is helpful

Q-CONFUSION ABOUT THE JONES ACT & WHETHER OR NOT IT IS IMPEDING OPERATIONS - CAN YOU EXPLAIN; AND HAVE THERE BEEN ANY EXPEDITED WAIVERS REQUESTED, IF YOU EVEN, INDEED, NEED THAT?

"I think there's been a lot of confusion about that and I think we posted talking points on a background paper on deepwaterhorizonrespoonse.com or go to our joint information center."

"Basically, if you're going to travel between u.s ports or do coast wise trade, you have to do that on a u.s. flagged vessel. For vessels that are going to be operating offshore, there's no jones act waiver required. So, we're really talking about foreign vessels would be operating inside 3 miles. "We haven't had any need to have those kind of vessels operate in there. Let me differentiate between skimmers. When I say skimmer, I mean, that's a ship with organic capability to recover oil. It's built to do that, versus skimming equipment. That's where you put a boom and some collection equipment, you tow it behind a shrimp boat and you vacuum the oil out. Equipment does not fall under the Jones Act. We need both. The most rare commodity we have right now, we've got pretty much up to speed on boom, but skimmers are our critical mass right now. We need to put those wherever we can get them. And we want to get them from where ever they are available. And to the extent that foreign equipment and skimmers are available, and can be use out there, we have accepted foreign offers of assistance, BP is buying skimming equipment and skimmers from overseas in areas that they normally operate, Mexico, Norway where they have oil operations is where we're getting it from mostly. So, to date nobody has come for a Jones Act waiver. We have expedited procedures to go with customs and border protection which would grant it, I'm willing to do that. It not only relates to skimming equipment but potentially it could relate to the amount of dredges that are available for some of the barrier island construction. But to date, no Jones Act waivers have been requested."

http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/17/thad-allen-updates-on-oil-spill-relief-well-flow-rate-jones-act/

I get it Shady you are uneducated and refuse to think for yourself but spreading lies after they have been pointed as such is just wrong.

Edited June 23, 2010 by punked

[Shady]

Accept your definitional of cabotage from Wiki says otherwise.

No, actually it doesn't. Perhaps you need to re-read it.

Cabotage is the transport of goods or passengers between two points in the same country. Originally starting with shipping, cabotage now also covers aviation, railways and road transport. Cabotage is "trade or navigation in coastal waters, or, the exclusive right of a country to operate the air traffic within its territory."[1]

I expect an apology.

Foreign vessels aren't avoiding helping with the clean up for no reason. The Dutch skimmers that were refused permission to help are apparently just making things up!

[punked]

No, actually it doesn't. Perhaps you need to re-read it.

I expect an apology.

Foreign vessels aren't avoiding helping with the clean up for no reason. The Dutch skimmers that were refused permission to help are apparently just making things up!

BETWEEN TWO PORTS WHEN THERE ARE SHIPS IN THE US THAT CAN DO THE JOB.

You can not write down half the act and pretend you are right. First of all Skimmers are right now out there from other countries sucking up oil BECAUSE they are operating out of one port. Second if there is no ship that can do the Job which is US made the act has a provision that any other vessel can do it. You can't make things up and call them fact.

I posted links showing you were wrong. You posted links showing you only read what you want to read.

It isn't trade in US waters. It is trade between two ports. It isn't only US ships, it is US ships when they can do the job. Fact is you don't know what you are talking about.

Dutch Skimmers were not refused help because of the Jones act end of story Shady.

I know it is hard for you to read but go back and read the links I posted.

Here is some more for you to read.

"[T]wenty-three percent of the vessels responding to the oil spill are not U.S.-flag," and they are "not in violation of the Jones Act."

David Matsuda, acting Maritime Administrator

Who do I believe Shady I known lair or David Matsuda, acting Maritime Administrator? Hmmmmm...

http://transportation.house.gov/Media/file/Coast%20Guard/20100617/Matsuda%20Testimony%20.pdf#page=5

Know what Waving the Jones Act would do though? It would make so that those Ships out there right now cleaning the oil spill in toxic fumes are not responsible for the danger they put their workers in. It would make so that if those workers suffer long term health issues due to those running the operation who care more about money then the safety of their workers would not be held responsible if something happened to one of those workers. That is what that would do.

Edited June 24, 2010 by punked

[Shady]

First of all Skimmers are right now out there from other countries sucking up oil BECAUSE

Because they're operating in waters greater than 3 miles from the coast. That's why. But the Jones Act is an issue. Even the link you provided asserts that there's now an expedited process for Jones Act waivers. There shouldn't be a process at all!!! This is an environmental crisis. Just waive the entire act while this is going on, and no claims for waivers would even be necessary!

[punked]

Because they're operating in waters greater than 3 miles from the coast. That's why. But the Jones Act is an issue. Even the link you provided asserts that there's now an expedited process for Jones Act waivers. There shouldn't be a process at all!!! This is an environmental crisis. Just waive the entire act while this is going on, and no claims for waivers would even be necessary!

Accept half the Jones Act deals with those working on ships and their rights Shady. You Wave the Jones act even though no Wavers have even been asked for and none have been needed and all of a sudden all those people working in already dangerous environments have no rights. If they get injured well to bad so sad for them.

The problem here is that no one but Republicans want the Jones Act waved and they are only saying to wave to make it look like they have ideas. Sure if you can show me how waving the Jones Act would be helpful then great. But Waving for the sake of waving is stupid. There are only a Handful of ships in the world that can do what you want issuing them waivers (which they don't need because they are operating out of one port) should not be a problem. Again 1 in 4 ships working on the oil spill in the gulf right now do not fly the US flag. That stat alone should tell you this is just a stupid talking point.

The Jones act applies to trade and to the rights of sailors at sea employed by private companies operating in US waters. Waving it wont help at all.

Edited June 24, 2010 by punked

[Yesterday]

I wonder if this might be a part of the reason for not allowing the aid offered? I have not legitimized this yet but it is interesting, a sad interesting...there is another article about this but the link is dead. I'll keep looking.

8.Black Oil leaking into the water is not the greatest danger in the catastrophe.While the oil does cause damage to water,beaches,and wildlife, there are far greater dangers being hid from the residents of the Gulf Coast . The EPA had a crew do some testing at the site and "volatile organic compounds"have been found to have become airborne and reached some of the Gulf

http://camrhon.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=safe&action=display&thread=6561

Coastal population areas. Please note the following:

Hydrogen Sulfide.acceptable safe levels allowed are 5 to 10 parts per billion.The EPA found 1,200 parts per billion.

Benzine.Acceptable is 0 to 4 ppb. The EPA found 3,000 ppb.

Methylene Chloride is 61 ppb.The EPA found 3,000 to 3,400 ppb.

[Yesterday]

http://article.wn.com/view/2010/06/13/BP_Gulf_oil_spill_Website_updates_public_on_daily_poison_exp/

This is the only reasonably unquestionable website I've found so far that discusses this issue.