View Full Version : 1994 "In-Situ Burn" plan ignored by feds in oil rig leak disaster
Smurf-Herder
05-09-2010, 08:49 AM
Hey, I don't see this being reported much. But it sure looks like the government dropped the ball on this one.
Despite plan, not a single fire boom on hand on Gulf Coast at time of oil spill
If U.S. officials had followed up on a 1994 response plan for a major Gulf oil spill, it is possible that the spill could have been kept under control and far from land.
The problem: The federal government did not have a single fire boom on hand.
The "In-Situ Burn" plan produced by federal agencies in 1994 calls for responding to a major oil spill in the Gulf with the immediate use of fire booms.
But in order to conduct a successful test burn eight days after the Deepwater Horizon well began releasing massive amounts of oil into the Gulf, officials had to purchase one from a company in Illinois.
When federal officials called, Elastec/American Marine, shipped the only boom it had in stock, Jeff Bohleber, chief financial officer for Elastec, said today.
At federal officials' behest, the company began calling customers in other countries and asking if the U.S. government could borrow their fire booms for a few days, he said.
A single fire boom being towed by two boats can burn up to 1,800 barrels of oil an hour, Bohleber said. That translates to 75,000 gallons an hour, raising the possibility that the spill could have been contained at the accident scene 100 miles from shore.
"They said this was the tool of last resort. No, this is absolutely the asset of first use. Get in there and start burning oil before the spill gets out of hand," Bohleber said. "If they had six or seven of these systems in place when this happened and got out there and started burning, it would have significantly lessened the amount of oil that got loose."
In the days after the rig sank, U.S Coast Guard Rear Admiral Mary Landry said the government had all the assets it needed. She did not discuss why officials waited more than a week to conduct a test burn. (Watch video footage of the test burn.)
At the time, former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration oil spill response coordinator Ron Gouguet -- who helped craft the 1994 plan -- told the Press-Register that officials had pre-approval for burning. "The whole reason the plan was created was so we could pull the trigger right away."
Gouguet speculated that burning could have captured 95 percent of the oil as it spilled from the well.
Bohleber said that his company was bringing several fire booms from South America, and he believed the National Response Center discovered that it had one in storage.
Each boom costs a few hundred thousand dollars, Bohleber said, declining to give a specific price.
Made of flame-retardant fabric, each boom has two pumps that push water through its 500-foot length. Two boats tow the U-shaped boom through an oil slick, gathering up about 75,000 gallons of oil at a time. That oil is dragged away from the larger spill, ignited and burns within an hour, he said.
The boom can be used as long as waves are below 3 feet, Bohleber said.
"Because of the complexity of the system and the obvious longer production time to build them, the emphasis is on obtaining and gathering the systems," he said.
Bohleber said his company has conducted numerous tests with the Coast Guard since 1993, and it is now training crews on the use of the boom so workers will be ready when they arrive.
"We're arranging for six to be shipped in. We keep running into delays. Hopefully, they will be here by Wednesday to be available for use on Thursday. Bear in mind, two days ago, we thought they would be here today."
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/fire_boom_oil_spill_raines.html
John Galt
05-09-2010, 11:41 AM
This wasn't a spill.
Why should the HUGE govt. have to deal with this?
Why didn't BP have one on hand?
Do you expect the HUGE govt. to follow private corporations around, and clean up their messes?
If you recall, there were storms out there, that made burning impossible. They had plenty of time to burn the oil before it reached shore. The conditions weren't conducive.
Wanna explain why the govt. should do this?
Boogie man
05-09-2010, 11:45 AM
This wasn't a spill.
Why should the HUGE govt. have to deal with this?
Why didn't BP have one on hand?
Do you expect the HUGE govt. to follow private corporations around, and clean up their messes?
If you recall, there were storms out there, that made burning impossible. They had plenty of time to burn the oil before it reached shore. The conditions weren't conducive.
Wanna explain why the govt. should do this?
This wasn't a spill? LOL. Quick, someone call the lawyers.
The law says the Feds are responsible for having equipment there. Did you read the article?
John Galt
05-09-2010, 12:07 PM
This wasn't a spill? LOL. Quick, someone call the lawyers.
The law says the Feds are responsible for having equipment there. Did you read the article?
You want to point out where the article supports your statement?
The article is incorrect in its assessment of when burning should be implemented, as well.
Boogie man
05-09-2010, 01:24 PM
You want to point out where the article supports your statement?
The article is incorrect in its assessment of when burning should be implemented, as well.
I did read the article. Looks like the Federal Government which is the Obama Administration fucked up.
Smurf-Herder
05-09-2010, 01:28 PM
This wasn't a spill.
Why should the HUGE govt. have to deal with this?
Why didn't BP have one on hand?
Do you expect the HUGE govt. to follow private corporations around, and clean up their messes?
If you recall, there were storms out there, that made burning impossible. They had plenty of time to burn the oil before it reached shore. The conditions weren't conducive.
Wanna explain why the govt. should do this?
Because it's a Federal Response Plan established by Congress - worked out by the oil industry and 16 federal agencies over a decade ago; in response to the Exxon Valdez spill.
John Galt
05-09-2010, 03:30 PM
Because it's a Federal Response Plan established by Congress - worked out by the oil industry and 16 federal agencies over a decade ago; in response to the Exxon Valdez spill.
Have you read it?
You need the govt. to authorize it...and they continually refer to the use ONLY if:
The weather conditions are right.
Other methods have been shown to be futile.
Despite what false claims Bohleber makes.
The EPA isn't wild about the pollution caused by this burning.
As well, I saw nothing that addresses 'who' is supposed to run/manage this equipment.
Some states give a pre authorization, in order to save valuable time.
If the federal govt. was supposed to do the actual burning, why aren't we equipped with the boats/accessories? I'm under the impression that this is a govt. mandated program, but the drilling companies are the ones that must be prepared to implement the burning, with govt. oversight, and prior authorization.
Nevertheless, the seas weren't calm enough to use this method for quite some time. And...we can't ignore the fact that for whatever reason....the original claims as to severity changed drastically in the first week.
The law says the Feds are responsible for having equipment there. Did you read the article?
Silly, silly, gullible man. You really believe that if it's on the Internet than it must be true :banghead: Fucking amazing!
It's an article on a blog. See if you can find confirmation on the EPA web site where the actual regulation is hosted.
Go ahead. See if you can find the phrase "fire boom" any where and of course a law stating that the federal government, Nanny State, is responsible for keeping a bunch of these in the Gulf.
Boogie, The Brooklyn Bridge is for sale. You can read about it on the Internet so it must be true :lmao2:
Let's cut spending and make states responsible for everything but, revenue gaining oil profits, borders and taking over other countries.
No wonder you keep posting from American Thinker and Glenn Beck make you think Boogie. Your comment was beyond a doubt the best proof of the insane gullibility in the American sheep today.
John Galt
05-09-2010, 04:59 PM
No wonder you keep posting from American Thinker and Glenn Beck make you think Boogie. Your comment was beyond a doubt the best proof of the insane gullibility in the American sheep today.
If he were truly interested in learning something...it isn't that hard to do the research.
I don't expect any of the resident numbskulls to do the research, but for Timeout Boy to claim that the article makes any inference to the Feds' responsibility here, is just plain stupidity.
As well, I love the way the CFO for the boom manufacturer makes false claims about protocol.
How high can they pile this shit?
Smurf-Herder
05-09-2010, 05:12 PM
Use of In-Situ Burning in RRT Region IV
Prepared for
Region IV Regional Response Team
Response and Technology Committee
In-Situ Burn Workshop
April 20, 1995
http://ocean.floridamarine.org/acp/mobacp/PDF/ANNEXES/1-RRT4In-SituBurnPlan.pdf
(94 page PDF)
Use of In-Situ Burning in RRT Region IV
Prepared for
Region IV Regional Response Team
Response and Technology Committee
In-Situ Burn Workshop
April 20, 1995
http://ocean.floridamarine.org/acp/mobacp/PDF/ANNEXES/1-RRT4In-SituBurnPlan.pdf
(94 page PDF)
Silly Smurf-Herder, don't you know it is up to them to prove you wrong, not up to you to prove your point with actual links to validate what you said.
Just ask John Galt.
John Galt
05-09-2010, 09:32 PM
Use of In-Situ Burning in RRT Region IV
Prepared for
Region IV Regional Response Team
Response and Technology Committee
In-Situ Burn Workshop
April 20, 1995
http://ocean.floridamarine.org/acp/mobacp/PDF/ANNEXES/1-RRT4In-SituBurnPlan.pdf
(94 page PDF)
I've already read all that, and more.
In order to conduct a burn, the feds. need an agreement from each state. As well, the states need authorization, and full oversight by the feds to conduct such a burn.
Your criticism is with the fact that Obama didn't have the necessary equipment available.
If you read the document, you will see that the Coast Guard is the On Site Coordinator of the process.
As well, the EPA, and several other agencies must be consulted, to establish whether or not a variety of species will be harmed by the burn.
Likewise, the weather conditions must be perfect, or they won't allow it.
If you read the document, you will also see the repeated reference to the fact that a burn is NOT the first order of operation in case of a spill...contrary to the claims of the CFO in your article.
If you will....could you kindly point to the page where this document addresses something other than oversight, authorization, and coordination of this burn?
Could you point to the page where it documents the exact equipment that Obama is responsible for having at his disposal, to be dispatched into the torrent that surrounded the platform when the accident occurred?
I couldn't find it.
Smurf-Herder
05-10-2010, 05:53 AM
I've already read all that, and more.
In order to conduct a burn, the feds. need an agreement from each state. As well, the states need authorization, and full oversight by the feds to conduct such a burn.
Your criticism is with the fact that Obama didn't have the necessary equipment available.
If you read the document, you will see that the Coast Guard is the On Site Coordinator of the process.
As well, the EPA, and several other agencies must be consulted, to establish whether or not a variety of species will be harmed by the burn.
Likewise, the weather conditions must be perfect, or they won't allow it.
If you read the document, you will also see the repeated reference to the fact that a burn is NOT the first order of operation in case of a spill...contrary to the claims of the CFO in your article.
If you will....could you kindly point to the page where this document addresses something other than oversight, authorization, and coordination of this burn?
Could you point to the page where it documents the exact equipment that Obama is responsible for having at his disposal, to be dispatched into the torrent that surrounded the platform when the accident occurred?
I couldn't find it.
Well apparently nobody is required to have any equipment available for the federal response plan then. :thumbsup:
Gee, I guess the former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration oil spill response coordinator Ron Gouguet, who helped craft the 1994 plan during Clinton's term was lying.
BTW, you did read the part about pre-authorization, right?
John Galt
05-10-2010, 06:17 AM
Well apparently nobody is required to have any equipment available for the federal response plan then. :thumbsup:
Gee, I guess the former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration oil spill response coordinator Ron Gouguet, who helped craft the 1994 plan during Clinton's term was lying.
That didn't answer my question.
If you bothered to read the link you posted, most of it deals with authorizing a burn, when it should be used (NOT as a first response), and who heads up the plethora of coordinated agencies.
The feds. must get the agreement from each state in question. You posted the Fla. agreement.
Some states have pre authorization, and some states don't.
Please tell me how Gouget's affirmation of a pre authorization for Fla, has anything to do with my question?
If you read the document re. safety, they use the term 'employer' to address OSHA requirements.
Who exactly is this employer?
And...Mr Tea Party advocate....why should the govt. be meddling in private corporations' affairs? Isn't that unconstitutional?
Smurf-Herder
05-10-2010, 06:23 AM
That didn't answer my question.
If you bothered to read the link you posted, most of it deals with authorizing a burn, when it should be used (NOT as a first response), and who heads up the plethora of coordinated agencies.
The feds. must get the agreement from each state in question. You posted the Fla. agreement.
Some states have pre authorization, and some states don't.
Please tell me how Gouget's affirmation of a pre authorization for Fla, has anything to do with my question?
If you read the document re. safety, they use the term 'employer' to address OSHA requirements.
Who exactly is this employer?
And...Mr Tea Party advocate....why should the govt. be meddling in private corporations' affairs? Isn't that unconstitutional?
Hey, it took me two hours to find that one. And it has signed letters of agreement from eight states. Not just Florida.
You're a real pain in the ass.
I hate dealing with PDFs. I can't cut & paste. Anything good I have to retype.
Smurf-Herder
05-10-2010, 06:44 AM
Hey, it took me two hours to find that one. And it has signed letters of agreement from eight states. Not just Florida.
You're a real pain in the ass.
I hate dealing with PDFs. I can't cut & paste. Anything good I have to retype.
Maybe there's something in this one. There are so many documents on In-Situ Burn Plans, it's hard to know which of the dozens of pages of which document to find things.
RRT VI
In-Situ Burn Plan
(Operations Section)
http://epa.gov/Region06/6sf/pdffiles/isb_plan_part1_operations.pdf
(58 page PDF)
John Galt
05-10-2010, 06:45 AM
Hey, it took me two hours to find that one. And it has signed letters of agreement from eight states. Not just Florida.
You're a real pain in the ass.
I hate dealing with PDFs. I can't cut & paste. Anything good I have to retype.
Look...I'm not looking for a trollfest here.
It shouldn't have taken you 2 hours to find anything....I found it at the top of the page in a google search.
Now, READING it took me a long fuckin time!!!!
My only point here, is that (Boogie, more than you) wants to lay this at the feet of Obama.
If anyone wants to take the time that I did, to read the fuckin hundreds of pages of documents, then they can prove that this is on Obama....or not...
Your OP was misleading on at least one glaring fact.
A burn is NEVER approved as the first point of attack, when a spill occurs. Not only was this NOT a spill, but the weather didn't permit for quite some time.
Just because you need a burn permit from the town to burn your leaves in the fall, doesn't mean that the town is going to come out and burn your leaves.
Gotta get to work...
Smurf-Herder
05-10-2010, 06:51 AM
Look...I'm not looking for a trollfest here.
It shouldn't have taken you 2 hours to find anything....I found it at the top of the page in a google search.
Now, READING it took me a long fuckin time!!!!
My only point here, is that (Boogie, more than you) wants to lay this at the feet of Obama.
If anyone wants to take the time that I did, to read the fuckin hundreds of pages of documents, then they can prove that this is on Obama....or not...
Your OP was misleading on at least one glaring fact.
A burn is NEVER approved as the first point of attack, when a spill occurs. Not only was this NOT a spill, but the weather didn't permit for quite some time.
Just because you need a burn permit from the town to burn your leaves in the fall, doesn't mean that the town is going to come out and burn your leaves.
Gotta get to work...
If you found it at the top of the page in a google search, then why did I find it in the middle of the 7th page in a google search, after dozens of other references to other PDFs on In-Situ burning (trying to figure out which were relevant)?
Hey, why don't you waste your time proving former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration oil spill response coordinator Ron Gouguet, who helped craft the 1994 plan during Clinton's term was lying?
Smurf the EPA site is very easy to find and, "YES" you can do key word searches on PDF files.
My comments come from the obvious idiocy of Boogie and people like him. He and so many others simply believe that if it's on the Internet or a pundit says it than it must be true.
If you want to know what's wrong with America today, you need to look no further than his comments that show obvious belief for something from a blog. Even if it's true and according to the EPA site it's not, it's still a perfect example of gullibility that so many fall for over and over again.
doctordog
05-10-2010, 12:30 PM
And the EPA never lies or mis-state the facts.
And the EPA never lies or mis-state the facts.
Have you read anything in this thread? What does your comment have to do with Boogie believing what's on a blog post, again?
If you can find a law or regulation that claims the American Federal Government is supposed to spend $millions of tax payer dollars to keep a bunch of fire booms in The Gulf and spend tax payer dollars on maintaining them since 1994 then please post it.
It's just strange. On one hand people want to pay lower taxes and on the other they want the government to spend a bunch of money to purchase and maintain equipment for 16 years.
Either you want to pay for it or you don't.
doctordog
05-10-2010, 04:06 PM
Have you read anything in this thread? What does your comment have to do with Boogie believing what's on a blog post, again?
If you can find a law or regulation that claims the American Federal Government is supposed to spend $millions of tax payer dollars to keep a bunch of fire booms in The Gulf and spend tax payer dollars on maintaining them since 1994 then please post it.
It's just strange. On one hand people want to pay lower taxes and on the other they want the government to spend a bunch of money to purchase and maintain equipment for 16 years.
Either you want to pay for it or you don't.
I know it is not there, I was only commenting as to how much the EPA changes their status on the same subject from state to state and the actual meaning of an enforcable act depending on what day the week it is.
Smurf-Herder
05-10-2010, 06:50 PM
Smurf the EPA site is very easy to find and, "YES" you can do key word searches on PDF files.
My comments come from the obvious idiocy of Boogie and people like him. He and so many others simply believe that if it's on the Internet or a pundit says it than it must be true.
If you want to know what's wrong with America today, you need to look no further than his comments that show obvious belief for something from a blog. Even if it's true and according to the EPA site it's not, it's still a perfect example of gullibility that so many fall for over and over again.
I NEVER said you couldn't do word searches in a PDF file (unless it's a JPG exported as a PDF - and don't tell me that's not possible, because I deal with idiot customers every week that do that shit, thinking we can separate shapes in a graphic file, just because it's a PDF). Where the hell did you pull that out of? I said you can't cut & paste ........... or are you still lost in some old Limbaugh rant a few dozen threads ago? That's why I hate PDFs. I can't cut & paste it all, so it's right there to see.
And I never went to the EPA site - I did Google searches.
And I'm not referring to pundit saying it - I'm posting a story that includes a quote from the former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration oil spill response coordinator under Clinton, Ron Gouguet, who helped put together the 1994 In-Situ burn plan.
And John Galt lied if he said it was right at the top of the page in a Google search. You have to sift through tons of references to the very story I posted; and then sift through all the In-Situ burn documentation over the years from all the different regions, trying to figure out which contain the information.
So basically you guys are saying the former head of NOAA under Clinton is lying, right?
John Galt
05-10-2010, 09:19 PM
.
And I'm not referring to pundit saying it - I'm posting a story that includes a quote from the former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration oil spill response coordinator under Clinton, Ron Gouguet, who helped put together the 1994 In-Situ burn plan.
Read the documents when you get a chance. For obvious reasons, there are several fed. organizations that must be coordinated in order to perform a burn.
The fed. govt. authorizes, and oversees every aspect of a burn. The pre authorization you speak of, is something Fla. agreed to. There are pages of details to be worked, out, depending on how far offshore the spill occurs. The closer ones come under state jurisdiction.
Your repeated references to Gouget prove nothing other than a pre authorization by the state of Fla.. Pulling the trigger, means that they won't have to go through the paperwork to get authorization in the middle of a crisis.
Nowhere does it say that the fed. govt. is supposed to dispatch equipment for the actual corralling of the oil in order to burn it. They dispatch personnel from about 5 different agencies.
And John Galt lied if he said it was right at the top of the page in a Google search. You have to sift through tons of references to the very story I posted; and then sift through all the In-Situ burn documentation over the years from all the different regions, trying to figure out which contain the information
I must be an idiot. I just googled the topic of the thread....
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS332US332&q=1994+in+situ+burn+plan
Top of the goddamned page.
So basically you guys are saying the former head of NOAA under Clinton is lying, right?
No...I'm saying that Bohleber was lying...but he gets hundreds of thousands of dollars when he lies.
I'm saying you don't understand Gouget's comment.
Where the hell did you pull that out of? I said you can't cut & paste ........... or are you still lost in some old Limbaugh rant a few dozen threads ago? That's why I hate PDFs. I can't cut & paste it all, so it's right there to see.
You tried to defend Rush.
BTW - Here's a cut and paste from the pdf that you posted. :thumbsup:
http://ocean.floridamarine.org/acp/mobacp/PDF/ANNEXES/1-RRT4In-SituBurnPlan.pdf
Use of In-Situ Burning in
RRT Region IV
And John Galt lied if he said it was right at the top of the page in a Google search. You have to sift through tons of references to the very story I posted; and then sift through all the In-Situ burn documentation over the years from all the different regions, trying to figure out which contain the information.
So basically you guys are saying the former head of NOAA under Clinton is lying, right?
You posted a blogger's post from Alabama. Boogie read it and believed it and never bothered to check the facts. :banghead:
Sure there is a contingency and the plan allows for controlled burns but there are stipulations and there is no regulation requiring $1,000,000 of tax payers sitting around in The Gulf.
Should there be? That's another question that has nothing to do with anything that you posted or anything that Gullible Boogie believes.
Boogie man
05-10-2010, 10:08 PM
You posted a blogger's post from Alabama. Boogie read it and believed it and never bothered to check the facts. :banghead:
Sure there is a contingency and the plan allows for controlled burns but there are stipulations and there is no regulation requiring $1,000,000 of tax payers sitting around in The Gulf.
Should there be? That's another question that has nothing to do with anything that you posted or anything that Gullible Boogie believes.
Typical fucking liberal. The government is never responsible if dems are in power. Queer.
Smurf-Herder
05-10-2010, 11:34 PM
Read the documents when you get a chance. For obvious reasons, there are several fed. organizations that must be coordinated in order to perform a burn.
The fed. govt. authorizes, and oversees every aspect of a burn. The pre authorization you speak of, is something Fla. agreed to. There are pages of details to be worked, out, depending on how far offshore the spill occurs. The closer ones come under state jurisdiction.
Your repeated references to Gouget prove nothing other than a pre authorization by the state of Fla.. Pulling the trigger, means that they won't have to go through the paperwork to get authorization in the middle of a crisis.
Nowhere does it say that the fed. govt. is supposed to dispatch equipment for the actual corralling of the oil in order to burn it. They dispatch personnel from about 5 different agencies.
I must be an idiot. I just googled the topic of the thread....
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS332US332&q=1994+in+situ+burn+plan
Top of the goddamned page.
No...I'm saying that Bohleber was lying...but he gets hundreds of thousands of dollars when he lies.
I'm saying you don't understand Gouget's comment.
That initial document covered region VI. The second one I posted covered region IV. Which one was the rig in?
Are you saying Florida is the only state that agreed to pre-authorize a burn?
And regardless, the law states that somebody must have equipment available, regardless of who it is; and the government is supposed to have that verified - according to virtually everything after the Exxon Valdez accident. So either way, the government screwed up.
And how am I not understanding Gouget's comment?
The equipment is supposed to be available, somewhere, by somebody.
BTW, I googled the law referred to, and I got dozens of repeats of the same story; including from the Times of London. The government documents were dispresed among dozens of stories .......... and dozens of other documents that covered every area of the country. I don't see how in hell the exact document I chose to post was the very first result you had among hundreds. It's statistically impossible.
Smurf-Herder
05-10-2010, 11:36 PM
You tried to defend Rush.
BTW - Here's a cut and paste from the pdf that you posted. :thumbsup:
http://ocean.floridamarine.org/acp/mobacp/PDF/ANNEXES/1-RRT4In-SituBurnPlan.pdf
Fine, explain it to me. When I highlight and select, I've never been able to copy a PDF document into an HTML post.
Smurf-Herder
05-11-2010, 12:00 AM
You posted a blogger's post from Alabama. Boogie read it and believed it and never bothered to check the facts. :banghead:
Sure there is a contingency and the plan allows for controlled burns but there are stipulations and there is no regulation requiring $1,000,000 of tax payers sitting around in The Gulf.
Should there be? That's another question that has nothing to do with anything that you posted or anything that Gullible Boogie believes.
It's not just a blogger's post. He's the environmental reporter for the Mobile Press-Register, an Alabama Newspaper.
US had burn-off plan for oil spills but the equipment wasn’t there
The White House faced claims last night that the Gulf Coast oil spill could have been contained and kept far from land within days of the Deepwater Horizon explosion if oil from the gushing wellhead had been burnt off in line with a plan drafted by the US Government for precisely this sort of disaster.
The plan requires the immediate deployment of specialised “fire booms” capable of burning 95 per cent of a slick— but not one boom was available on the Gulf Coast at the time of the blast, according to a supplier who eventually provided one eight days later.
“The whole reason the plan was created was so that we could pull the trigger right away,” Ron Gourget, a former federal oil spill response co-ordinator and one of those who drafted the document, said yesterday.
The disclosure came as officials analysed the bodies of 23 dead sea turtles found on Mississippi beaches to see if they were poisoned by the growing slick, and the Port of New Orleans planned to start scrubbing ships’ hulls as they enter the Mississippi River.
The White House faced claims last night that the Gulf Coast oil spill could have been contained and kept far from land within days of the Deepwater Horizon explosion if oil from the gushing wellhead had been burnt off in line with a plan drafted by the US Government for precisely this sort of disaster.
The plan requires the immediate deployment of specialised “fire booms” capable of burning 95 per cent of a slick— but not one boom was available on the Gulf Coast at the time of the blast, according to a supplier who eventually provided one eight days later.
“The whole reason the plan was created was so that we could pull the trigger right away,” Ron Gourget, a former federal oil spill response co-ordinator and one of those who drafted the document, said yesterday.
The disclosure came as officials analysed the bodies of 23 dead sea turtles found on Mississippi beaches to see if they were poisoned by the growing slick, and the Port of New Orleans planned to start scrubbing ships’ hulls as they enter the Mississippi River.
Thirteen days into the disaster, engineers were no closer to shutting off the flow of oil at its source 40 miles from the entrance to the river, whose lowest section is one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes. The spillage continues to run at 5,000 barrels of oil each day.
So far, merchant vessels have been guided round the slick. But if it grows to the point that they have to plough through it, they will be scrubbed with high-pressure hoses at two cleaning stations being set up in the delta region, 75 miles southeast of Louisiana’s main container port.
“The crucial question is whether the ship is transporting oil into clean water,” Chris Bonura, of the Port of New Orleans, said. Cleaning is not yet mandatory, but the US Coast Guard could require it if there were a risk of contaminating the river with the heavy oil at the centre of the slick.
Hopes of reactivating the blowout preventer, whose failure caused the spill, appeared to be fading yesterday as BP shifted its public focus to three giant structures being built from steel and concrete to be lowered over the three separate leaks 5,000ft (1,5000m) below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico.
The box-like structures, called cofferdams, could be in place by the end of the week. They are designed to collect the rising crude oil but they have never been used before at this depth.
The race to cap the well and contain a spill the size of Puerto Rico continued against a background of fingerpointing by the US Government and BP. Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, repeated what is becoming the Administration’s favourite metaphor, saying the Government would “keep a boot to the throat” of BP to make sure it fulfils its responsibility to lead and pay for the clean-up.
Tony Hayward, BP’s chief executive, accepted responsibility “for the oil and for dealing with it and cleaning the situation up”, but he surprised George Stephanopoulos, the ABC news anchor and former White House press secretary, by saying that “this wasn’t our accident”. Despite the negative press that BP has received for appearing to split hairs on who is to blame, Mr Hayward insisted: “This was a Transocean rig. It was their equipment that failed.”
Such arguments are likely to be eclipsed, however, by the claim that the Government’s own burn-off plan could not be put into action because the equipment was not available.
A single fire boom of the kind required by the “In-Situ Burn” plan drafted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for Gulf Coast spills can burn up to 75,000 gallons of oil an hour – roughly a third of the estimated daily leakage from the Deepwater Horizon site.
“They said this was the tool of last resort,” Jeff Bohleber, a supplier of the booms, said. “No, this is absolutely the asset of first use. Get in there and start burning the oil before the spill gets out of hand.”
So far federal officials have authorised only one test burn eight days into the disaster, using a boom obtained from Mr Bohleber in Illinois, when it became clear that none was available in the Gulf region. Instead of burning, emergency workers are relying on chemical dispersants being injected by submersibles directly into the leaks in the collapsed riser pipe that connected the wellhead to the rig.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7115273.ece
John Galt
05-11-2010, 06:06 AM
That initial document covered region VI. The second one I posted covered region IV. Which one was the rig in?
Are you saying Florida is the only state that agreed to pre-authorize a burn?
And regardless, the law states that somebody must have equipment available, regardless of who it is; and the government is supposed to have that verified - according to virtually everything after the Exxon Valdez accident. So either way, the government screwed up.
And how am I not understanding Gouget's comment?
BTW, I googled the law referred to, and I got dozens of repeats of the same story; including from the Times of London. The government documents were dispresed among dozens of stories .......... and dozens of other documents that covered every area of the country. I don't see how in hell the exact document I chose to post was the very first result you had among hundreds. It's statistically impossible.
I seem to remember getting the bullshit stories like the one in your OP when I first started searching.
I refined my search, and got the one I provided the link for. The links I read, are for the law, and they address each state one at a time. Fla. is in there somewhere. I don't know if each state has pre authorization...it didn't affect the specific facts I was looking for.
It isn't on the top of the page?
I don't remember reading about the law stating the 'somebody' must have equipment available. Remember...this is for spills. We aren't talking about a spill. I would venture to say that most spills happen closer to shore, when the ships encounter issues in the shallower water.
How many drilling platforms are there in the ocean? Are we supposed to maintain a fleet, in case something happens out at sea? I don't think so.
The equipment is supposed to be available, somewhere, by somebody.
I won't argue that.
At least you're straying from the claims that this is on the president.
John Galt
05-11-2010, 06:13 AM
If you read this article, you will see what I've been repeatedly trying to tell you.
At first, this seemed like a small affair. Then, the rig collapsed, and oil started to show up on the surface. Days later, more oil was evident, as these leaks got worse.
By the time it was recognized as a huge affair, the weather wasn't conducive to a burn.
BP had a small fleet of equipment/manpower on hand.
I want you to tell me how Obama was delinquent, in organizing a burn.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/24/oil-rig-deepwater-horizon_0_n_550849.html
Smurf-Herder
05-11-2010, 06:45 AM
If you read this article, you will see what I've been repeatedly trying to tell you.
At first, this seemed like a small affair. Then, the rig collapsed, and oil started to show up on the surface. Days later, more oil was evident, as these leaks got worse.
By the time it was recognized as a huge affair, the weather wasn't conducive to a burn.
BP had a small fleet of equipment/manpower on hand.
I want you to tell me how Obama was delinquent, in organizing a burn.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/24/oil-rig-deepwater-horizon_0_n_550849.html
Look Mr. Sensitive, I didn't single out the infomercial king.
But you're trying to tell me that laws passed since the Exxon Valdez, specifically because of the Exxon Valdez, don't require anybody to have any equipment immediately available anywhere?
John Galt
05-11-2010, 07:23 AM
Look Mr. Sensitive, I didn't single out the infomercial king.
But you're trying to tell me that laws passed since the Exxon Valdez, specifically because of the Exxon Valdez, don't require anybody to have any equipment immediately available anywhere?
Sensitive...that's cute.
Your first sentence in this thread accuses 'the govt.' of 'dropping the ball'.
Boogie chimes in w/a crock of shit that you chose not to refute.
You bolded in red, a blatant lie w/respect to when a burn is used.
You didn't bother to research the law you held up as proof that 'the govt.' was delinquent...and as a result, you support/highlight a blatant lie by the CFO of a company that profits from oil spills.
You are aware that the law was passed to obliterate the volumes of red tape that would hinder the deployment of the proper agencies in order to deal with the spill?
It does nothing to address the 'who'. It references 'employers', in the discussion of safety. It addresses the required training/certification of key respondents.
This is similar to changes made to FBI/CIA cooperation after 9/11. It removes obstacles that are in the way, in order to create a more thorough response.
The law also cuts response time, by getting permission from certain states to act on a spill. Many spills occurs within the state's jurisdiction...not federal waters.
I learned a lot about this topic, just because I was interested to see who was responsible here.
Clearly, those arguing your side have/had no such interest.
I would suspect....rightfully so....that the oil companies are required to have the necessary booms available, but only when they near a port. I don't believe 'spills' occur at the same rate, out in the middle of the ocean.
But you're trying to tell me that laws passed since the Exxon Valdez, specifically because of the Exxon Valdez, don't require anybody to have any equipment immediately available anywhere?
I think you're mistaken Smurf. You're trying to tell us that a law requires the federal government to have equipment on hand but can't actually show any law supporting that statement.
Heck, I wish they did have a law and equipment there on the ready but I'm also willing to pay higher taxes to support it. Are you?
You can't have lower taxes and government holding onto equipment. Someone has to pay for it and aren't we all tired of China doing it?
John Galt
05-11-2010, 07:30 AM
Edit...
You keep ignoring the fact that weather conditions weren't conducive to a burn.
BP had an armada out there. It's popular to put everything on 'the govt.' these days.
This is an interesting topic. I don't see why it had to take place in an attempt to blame Obama?
Smurf-Herder
05-13-2010, 07:44 PM
Edit...
You keep ignoring the fact that weather conditions weren't conducive to a burn.
BP had an armada out there. It's popular to put everything on 'the govt.' these days.
This is an interesting topic. I don't see why it had to take place in an attempt to blame Obama?
I didn't blame Obama. I blamed the government.
Every region has a safety plan. Every company has to file papers on everything. And somebody has to have specific equipment on hand; and the government has to know who has what. You're saying the government has no accoutablility in any of this? After Exxon Valdez they have no oversight capacity? After putting all these laws and regulations into effect, you're arguing about their not having to account for anything?
We still have a situation where the only boom in the country had to be searched for. So even if we had a different situation and a fire boom could have been used sooner, there wasn't one on-hand.
Smurf-Herder
05-13-2010, 07:47 PM
I think you're mistaken Smurf. You're trying to tell us that a law requires the federal government to have equipment on hand but can't actually show any law supporting that statement.
Heck, I wish they did have a law and equipment there on the ready but I'm also willing to pay higher taxes to support it. Are you?
You can't have lower taxes and government holding onto equipment. Someone has to pay for it and aren't we all tired of China doing it?
You have to know what you're looking for, to be able to find it in Google searches.
I found a law that went into extreme detail about exactly what equipment is supposed to be on hand, in HTML. But it's specifically for the state of Texas.
Who's jurisdiction was the oil rig in?
No point in searching unless I know exactly what to look for while sifting results.
John Galt
05-13-2010, 08:36 PM
I didn't blame Obama. I blamed the government.
Every region has a safety plan. Every company has to file papers on everything. And somebody has to have specific equipment on hand; and the government has to know who has what. You're saying the government has no accoutablility in any of this? After Exxon Valdez they have no oversight capacity? After putting all these laws and regulations into effect, you're arguing about their not having to account for anything?
We still have a situation where the only boom in the country had to be searched for. So even if we had a different situation and a fire boom could have been used sooner, there wasn't one on-hand.
I understand, but I don't think this is on the govt.
I would think that those in the business of pumping oil, would have this equipment.
I keep referring to the law, as it it written. You should take the time to read it...however boring...
The law deals w/specific protocol....not 'who' should have a boom on hand. As well...contrary to the bullshitter CFO....the govt. is loathe to use this method, because the fumes are horrid.
They go through a number of different agencies to assure that wildlife, wetlands, etc. won't be negatively affected by a burn.
And, the weather conditions must be perfect, or they won't allow a burn.
If you read my link...by the time they realized the enormity of the problem, the weather took a turn for the worse.
I understand your point about the boom not being available, but I still think this is standard equipment for a company like BP.
At least, it should be.
John Galt
05-13-2010, 09:25 PM
As it turns out, there was an in situ burn going on before this thread was started.
As well, there's a picture of a burn going on 3 days before this bloggers nonsensical rant...in his own fucking blog!
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/disaster_unfolds_slowly_in_the.html
You can see from these pics, why a burn is never the first option....
I didn't blame Obama. I blamed the government.
For some reason you spoke about a possible conspiracy theory and mentioned the current administration. Not the government. Outside of Rush telling you to do so, why?
You have to know what you're looking for, to be able to find it in Google searches.
I found a law that went into extreme detail about exactly what equipment is supposed to be on hand, in HTML. But it's specifically for the state of Texas.
Who's jurisdiction was the oil rig in?
No point in searching unless I know exactly what to look for while sifting results.
So you can't find a law that claims the federal government should be spending a bunch of tax payer dollars on purchasing and maintaining the equipment. Then why are you bitching if you have no point?
As it turns out, there was an in situ burn going on before this thread was started.
As well, there's a picture of a burn going on 3 days before this bloggers nonsensical rant...in his own fucking blog!
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/disaster_unfolds_slowly_in_the.html
You can see from these pics, why a burn is never the first option....
He's a blogger. If he posts it on the Internet than it must be true.
Fine, explain it to me. When I highlight and select, I've never been able to copy a PDF document into an HTML post.
Well you highlight and select copy. Then you come here and you select paste.
It's ain't that difficult.
Smurf-Herder
05-16-2010, 11:34 AM
For some reason you spoke about a possible conspiracy theory and mentioned the current administration. Not the government. Outside of Rush telling you to do so, why?
I gave as a possibility, among others. Since we didn't know the cause at the time.
Smurf-Herder
05-16-2010, 11:41 AM
Well you highlight and select copy. Then you come here and you select paste.
It's ain't that difficult.
Bullshit.
I've got Adobe Acrobat 5.0. All I get is a hand icon in the PDF. It won't select and highlight anything. And I when I click on select all and copy in the menu nothing highlights and copies either.
So what exactly are you doing to copy?
slowhand
05-16-2010, 12:10 PM
Bullshit.
I've got Adobe Acrobat 5.0. All I get is a hand icon in the PDF. It won't select and highlight anything. And I when I click on select all and copy in the menu nothing highlights and copies either.
So what exactly are you doing to copy?
I have Adobe 8, and I can copy and paste
Smurf-Herder
05-16-2010, 12:38 PM
I have Adobe 8, and I can copy and paste
Is it free and does it work on Windows 98?
Smurf-Herder
05-16-2010, 12:40 PM
So you can't find a law that claims the federal government should be spending a bunch of tax payer dollars on purchasing and maintaining the equipment. Then why are you bitching if you have no point?
Actually, IMO you have to prove the former head of NOAA is lying. Instead of playing your game of trying to figure out what government document is relevant to the specific rig in question.
slowhand
05-16-2010, 01:38 PM
Is it free and does it work on Windows 98?
It's free, but I dont know if you can use Adobe 8 on Windows 98..I have Vista
I had a 98 before I bought this thing, and I recall having issues with copy and paste/PDF
I know there were updates that you could download from the Adobe website, but that was a few years ago, and I dont remember exactly what the deal was..Might be worth a look
Actually, IMO you have to prove the former head of NOAA is lying. Instead of playing your game of trying to figure out what government document is relevant to the specific rig in question.
Smurf, cut the bull shit.
Either there is a law that exists or there isn't. If there is then show it.
do you really expect us to show every law that exists in America, expect everyone on the board to read them all and than agree that something is missing?
Has RG stolen your account?
Smurf-Herder
05-17-2010, 06:48 PM
Smurf, cut the bull shit.
Either there is a law that exists or there isn't. If there is then show it.
do you really expect us to show every law that exists in America, expect everyone on the board to read them all and than agree that something is missing?
Has RG stolen your account?
Look, there are dozens of federal documents on In-Situ burn plans dating back to the early 90's and 2000's, from every state and region. There are so many, you have to know what you're looking for before you even search. Then you have to sift through all the non-relevant results.
I found burn plans in Alaska, Florida, etc. and one in Texas that even inventoried all equipment and stored locations. But the laws themselves and the actual detailed procedures of the plans are in different documents. So I have to know what jurisdiction that specific rig falls under, before I can even go after the detailed specifics, which could be under any one of a number of headings.
So lets just go with you theory - the federal government isn't obligated to verify anything they're told by the oil companies. And nobody is obligated to do anything. The federal government has no responsibility in this. How's that. :taunt:
So lets just go with you theory - the federal government isn't obligated to verify anything they're told by the oil companies. And nobody is obligated to do anything. The federal government has no responsibility in this. How's that. :taunt:
Smurf, please explain where I've posted that theory?
By now you should know my theory and that's that some people hear or read something and automatically either believe it or jump to the wrong conclusion based on desire, programming and no factual information.
Isn't that kind of what's been happening here?
Even if the government was required by law to spend your tax dollars on maintaining all this equipment, wouldn't the Tea Party, sheepish followers and fiscal conservatives be happier that the Federal Dollars weren't being spent?
The bottom line is that people read an article and automatically jumped to the wrong conclusion. That's often my point and I don't think it even needs to be a theory any more since you and so many help to prove it.
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.