DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on June 23, 2010, 02:45:57 PM
-
Federal Gov't Halts Sand Berm Dredging
NEW ORLEANS -- The federal government is shutting down the dredging that was being done to create protective sand berms in the Gulf of Mexico.
The berms are meant to protect the Louisiana coastline from oil. But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department has concerns about where the dredging is being done.
Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser, who was one of the most vocal advocates of the dredging plan, has sent a letter to President Barack Obama, pleading for the work to continue.
Nungesser said the government has asked crews to move the dredging site two more miles farther off the coastline.
"Once again, our government resource agencies, which are intended to protect us, are now leaving us vulnerable to the destruction of our coastline and marshes by the impending oil," Nungesser wrote to Obama. "Furthermore, with the threat of hurricanes or tropical storms, we are being put at an increased risk for devastation to our area from the intrusion of oil.
Nungesser has asked for the dredging to continue for the next seven days, the amount of time it would take to move the dredging operations two miles and out resume work.
Work is scheduled to halt at midnight Wednesday.
The California dredge located off the Chandelier Islands has pumped more than 50,000 cubic yards of material daily to create a sand berm, according to Plaquemines Parish officials.
Nungesser's letter includes an emotional plea to the president.
"Please don't let them shut this dredge down," he wrote. "This requires your immediate attention!"
Obama apparently targeting more than just AZ (http://www.wdsu.com/news/23997498/detail.html)
-
Feds halt berm-building dredging off Louisiana coast
June 23, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Yesterday, Senator George LeMieux told me in an exclusive interview that the Gulf response is still chaotic, with no clear idea of anyone being in charge or having a clear plan. States have begun bypassing the feds in responding to the spill; in Florida, the state rented skimmers to keep oil from getting to their beaches after the Obama administration dragged their feet on supplying them. The feds did start building sand berms to keep the oil out of Louisiana wetlands, but late yesterday they blocked those efforts to save the Louisiana coast:
The federal government is shutting down the dredging that was being done to create protective sand berms in the Gulf of Mexico.
The berms are meant to protect the Louisiana coastline from oil. But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department has concerns about where the dredging is being done.
If the federal government has ?concerns? over the location of the dredging, then they should have made that decision immediately. After all, they have had 64 days now in which to react to the disaster by building these berms themselves. Governor Bobby Jindal has been shouting about this very issue since almost the first days of the crisis, along with skimmers, boom, and all sorts of other efforts.
Now, more than two months after the spill started, the government is still vacillating on the precise location from to dredge, a decision that should have been made in hours, not months. It?s yet another example of a lack of leadership and engagement on this crisis. Instead of throwing every available resource at the spill, the people in charge are debating the finer points of sand dredging as the oil washes up on shore. It?s as if this is a theoretical construct in a graduate-school bull session rather than a real-world disaster requiring actual leadership and decisiveness.
The president of Plaquemines Parish is begging the government to continue its dredging efforts in the seven days it will take to relocate to new positions. With hurricane season on the horizon, the issue of berms becomes even more urgent. It would be nice if the Obama administration acted as if they understood that. Failing that, maybe they should just get out of the way and let Louisiana do what they know is necessary, because that appears to be the only way anything is getting done in the Gulf.
Trying to "shake down" the states as well as BP, now? (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/23/feds-halt-berm-building-dredging-by-louisiana/)
-
the well just busted open, killed 2 people and is spewing more oil than ever. screw the berms, they aren't needed anyway. imagine had they drilled in shallow water how easy this would have been to fix. what morons liberals are.
-
imagine had they drilled in shallow water how easy this would have been to fix.
I`m pretty sure that doesn`t make a lick of sense
-
A lick of sense to liberal Government and the envirometal lobby perhaps. In reality, it makes all the sense in the world
-
imagine had they drilled in shallow water how easy this would have been to fix.
I`m pretty sure that doesn`t make a lick of sense
come again
-
the decision making for where it`s drilled might not depend on whats easy to fix.
-
The decision is frequently made by where they can't (drill)
-
the decision making for where it`s drilled might not depend on whats easy to fix.
you need to wake up from that snooze and look around. I hope you are buying that load of crap that all the places to drill for oil have disappeared and what's left is way out in the ocean miles deep.
-
I look at it by economics.
is it worth paying more money ,by drilling in plan sight or less money drilling furthur away.
plain sight means taking financial responsibility for income lost from local economy.
oil rigs are rarely tourist draws.
tourism and fishing are multi-billion dollar businesses.
-
I look at it by economics.
is it worth paying more money ,by drilling in plan sight or less money drilling furthur away.
plain sight means taking financial responsibility for income lost from local economy.
oil rigs are rarely tourist draws.
tourism and fishing are multi-billion dollar businesses.
yeah I know look what the hell this drilling 'further' away has done for fishing and tourism. what do you have to say now?
-
I look at it by economics.
is it worth paying more money ,by drilling in plan sight or less money drilling furthur away.
plain sight means taking financial responsibility for income lost from local economy.
oil rigs are rarely tourist draws.
tourism and fishing are multi-billion dollar businesses.
Interesting that you apply economics, Kimba. Lemme see, miles of piping and construction, in water over a mile deep, and oil that was discovered about 5 miles deep + the obligations of trying to apply safety standards to aquiring oil that deep, with the potential (now seen as real) catastrophic consequences of a major clean-up = $$$$$$$$ vs piping & construction of a fraction of the cost to the company (much shorter length pipes & equipment) + much greater ability at applying both the safety inspections and clean-up containment, in the event of a spill = $$
Again, I think you're looking at decision making on where to drill, NOT from that of the oil companies, but by those dictating where they can't
-
Interesting that you apply economics, Kimba. Lemme see, miles of piping and construction, in water over a mile deep, and oil that was discovered about 5 miles deep + the obligations of trying to apply safety standards to aquiring oil that deep, with the potential (now seen as real) catastrophic consequences of a major clean-up = $$$$$$$$ vs piping & construction of a fraction of the cost to the company (much shorter length pipes & equipment) + much greater ability at applying both the safety inspections and clean-up containment, in the event of a spill = $$
you did not factor immediate cost of drilling closer to the shore. remember local economy cost.
after the fact it looks like peanuts, but at the time to decide where to drill thats alot of money going to something thast produce no income for the company
-
The immediate cost of drilling closer to shore is much less cost to the company, as it requires much less hardware, piping, drilling, etc.
-
your still not factoring the cost of doing business in that specific area not just the material cost. it`s very presense is a income lost to several businesses.
-
I'm not a business major, Kimba, but if I'm running a company, and it costs me FAR less in materials, supply, transport, inspections, and safety, in 1 area vs another I'm going to go with it......unless I'm not allowed
-
Interesting that you apply economics, Kimba. Lemme see, miles of piping and construction, in water over a mile deep, and oil that was discovered about 5 miles deep + the obligations of trying to apply safety standards to aquiring oil that deep, with the potential (now seen as real) catastrophic consequences of a major clean-up = $$$$$$$$ vs piping & construction of a fraction of the cost to the company (much shorter length pipes & equipment) + much greater ability at applying both the safety inspections and clean-up containment, in the event of a spill = $$
you did not factor immediate cost of drilling closer to the shore. remember local economy cost.
after the fact it looks like peanuts, but at the time to decide where to drill thats alot of money going to something thast produce no income for the company
looking at the bigger picture, there are people out there, let's call them environmentalists, they don't want you to drill anywhere.
-
money is not always a over ridding factor in business.
oracle pulled some of it`s contract in india because they`re execs are not allow in the business meetings thier.
safeway made huge profits in the marina S.F. but jumped at leaving when it had the chance. way too many zoning compliances.
ike of ike place is leaving S.F. , which the very reason he has the ability to stay is the reason he`s leaving. he is so succesful he can make enough money stay at his location, but just don`t need the hassle.
-
money is not always a over ridding factor in business.
*snicker*......don't let the likes of Tee or Xo catch you saying that
-
in fact i think I can use kramer for this
kramer you said you run your own business because you didn`t want to the headache of certain people.
but you never mention money , so can you confirm money isn`t the only factor?
-
in fact i think I can use kramer for this
kramer you said you run your own business because you didn`t want to the headache of certain people.
but you never mention money , so can you confirm money isn`t the only factor?
Well a person has to make a minimum amount of money, whether they are self-employed or employed by some other means. With that said, I'm very happy where I'm at but if I wasn't at that minimum point I would have to do something like go find a good enough paying job in order to have income that is enough to pay all the bills and have enough left over for other expenses.
Over all money isn't the biggest motivating factor for me. I would be happy making $20,000 a year more but at the same time if I made $20,000 less I would still want to have my own business and would still be happy.
But bear in mind my income is directly tied to my productivity not necessarily how hard I work. I can get a lot done in a very short period because I work smart.
-
work smart
I won`t say I do that.
but if you got a particulary umpleasent job, would you turn it down ? I`ve found that some jobs are not really worth doing and money just couldn`t fix it. my company did that and lost a few employess for thier troubles. lets just say having a micro-managing client is not worth having. we literally had to hire temps to cover the last 6 months of the contract.
-
work smart
I won`t say I do that.
but if you got a particulary umpleasent job, would you turn it down ? I`ve found that some jobs are not really worth doing and money just couldn`t fix it. my company did that and lost a few employess for thier troubles. lets just say having a micro-managing client is not worth having. we literally had to hire temps to cover the last 6 months of the contract.
I don't do services I do products but yes I will turn down certain sales opportunities if it involves too small a profit margin or it isn't worth my while, and or has a chance of coming back, or might cause me to look bad in some way shape or form.
-
work smart
I won`t say I do that.
but if you got a particulary umpleasent job, would you turn it down ? I`ve found that some jobs are not really worth doing and money just couldn`t fix it. my company did that and lost a few employess for thier troubles. lets just say having a micro-managing client is not worth having. we literally had to hire temps to cover the last 6 months of the contract.
Familiar with the D200 database?
I don't do services I do products but yes I will turn down certain sales opportunities if it involves too small a profit margin or it isn't worth my while, and or has a chance of coming back, or might cause me to look bad in some way shape or form. In case you might wonder my primary customer is the US military. Most of my business is centered around maintaining and specifically rebuilding F-18's and other aircraft. Machine tools, aviation tools, consumables, safety equipment and other MRO stuff.
-
Familiar with the D200 database?
no
-
money is not always a over ridding factor in business.
oracle pulled some of it`s contract in india because they`re execs are not allow in the business meetings thier.
safeway made huge profits in the marina S.F. but jumped at leaving when it had the chance. way too many zoning compliances.
ike of ike place is leaving S.F. , which the very reason he has the ability to stay is the reason he`s leaving. he is so succesful he can make enough money stay at his location, but just don`t need the hassle.
You've helped reinforce points I've already made. That of insidious regulations impairing one's ability at making money in a certain location, and that of not having any hassles, while still making good money in a certain area.
Kimba, one of my patients is an engineer, who has helped design and construct many off shore oil rigs. I mentioned your theories to him, that you've posed, and he just kept shaking his head, in disbelief. When it comes to these oil platforms vs safeways, the cost involved in buidling, running, and maintaining in water so deep is sooooooo expensive, compared to shallow water drilling. The cost alone is staggering, BUT, if its the only areas they can drill, then that's where they drill. If they could, they'd FAR more decide on shallow water drilling for precisely the points I've already made, superior amount of less money required to build, maintain, transport, and safety. The rigs themselves provide great havens for increased fish populations, and when rigs are eventually abandoned, they become great artificial reefs, for even greater fishing populations
So, while other decisions may be involved in where to drill, besides cost, COST is still a primary factor in where oil companies would wish to drill, but all too often, Government and their restrictions are what prevent them from drilling in shallower waters, where catastrophes like the Deep Water Horizen could have been plugged/stopped in days, if not hours. And the only reason they were out that far, is because they were restricted from coming in closer, NOT because they chose to drill that far out
-
I`ll back that these rigs are relatively safe, but the problem is the percieved risk. I have no doubts these rigs are not harmful to the fish , but those fish would not be desireable to many for purchase. your patient is gonna have a even worst headache now, because I`m not the person to convince ,but the people directly impacted by the spill that shallow drilling is a good idea.
-
Sorry Kimba, but his direct knowledge, and just simple common sense, produces a conclusion that reinforces that if they could, drilling would occur in far shallower waters, than what the Deep Water Horizon was made to endure. Both in exponentially less cost to company and in much greater potential containment of any blow-out, which occured here.
By the way, you mention "perceived risk". Ignoring for the moment the increased fish populatings that would & HAVE occured in these shallower water rigs, can you cite me the last offshore oil rig that blew?? I mean, they've been drilling in the oceans for decades, with hundreds of oil rigs having been built, if not more. Surely you can site for us this justified risk that has come to prior fruition.
-
Sorry Kimba, but his direct knowledge, and just simple common sense, produces a conclusion that reinforces that if they could, drilling would occur in far shallower waters, than what the Deep Water Horizon was made to endure. Both in exponentially less cost to company and in much greater potential containment of any blow-out, which occured here.
By the way, you mention "perceived risk". Ignoring for the moment the increased fish populatings that would & HAVE occured in these shallower water rigs, can you cite me the last offshore oil rig that blew?? I mean, they've been drilling in the oceans for decades, with hundreds of oil rigs having been built, if not more. Surely you can site for us this justified risk that has come to prior fruition.
I honestly would not be surprised if it turned out that a environmental group blew the rig up.
-
From what I've read so far, they couldn't have, though the explosion was likely human error. I'll have to keep reading more on the sequence of events, that led to the explosion, and what occured following
-
I think ami brougt up that leaks has occured before, but this kind of accident is actually is a 1st.but also might be a goodthing. a 150 mile further out is a rig that`s deeper and larger and has much worst neglect with this eqiuipment. a potential bigger spill was averted ,because of this.
-
You're helping to make my point, Kimba. There have been no other accidents, outside of this one, and this one can easily be argued, would have either not happened, or have been capped in a matter of days, if not hours, if it had happened in shallow waters. And what day are we on now?? This "perceived risk" is not anything being perceived by the oil companies, and are largely a manifestation of pro-enviromental hysteria, MINUS any actual valid examples of such.
And again is why they're HAVING to drill in water so deep, vs choosing to drill in water much more financially & logistically compatible, not to mention actually safer for both human & enviroment, vs perceived
-
could be a blind spot of me here, I tend to zone out enviromentalist opinions since they tend to get abit on the xtremist side on issue for me to pay attention to them.
i really don`t acknowledge them, if you notice in all my time i rarely talk about them if at all. My hillbilly science background is alot more scientific than thiers.
ok that`s not say much.