SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: koan who wrote (77006)6/2/2010 12:38:13 AM
From: tejek  Respond to of 149317
 
That's the good Dr's school?



To: koan who wrote (77006)6/2/2010 1:01:30 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
BP clashes with scientists over deep sea oil pollution

guardian.co.uk



To: koan who wrote (77006)6/2/2010 1:19:10 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
BP's clumsy response to oil spill threatens to make a bad situation worse

guardian.co.uk



To: koan who wrote (77006)6/2/2010 3:45:19 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
Oil spill may reach Florida Panhandle beaches by end of week

tampabay.com



To: koan who wrote (77006)6/2/2010 10:05:41 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
Government Impotence and Corporate Rule

creators.com

By Jim Hightower

Published on Wednesday, June 2, 2010 by Creators Syndicate

Many news reports about the Gulf oil catastrophe refer to it as a "spill." Wrong. A spill is a minor "oops" — one accidentally spills milks, for example, and from childhood, we're taught the old aphorism: "Don't cry over spilt milk." What's in the Gulf isn't milk and it wasn't spilt. The explosion of BP's Deepwater Horizon well was the inevitable result of deliberate decisions made by avaricious corporate executives, laissez faire politicians and obsequious regulators.

As the ruinous gulf oil blowout spreads onto land, over wildlife, across the ocean floor and into people's lives, it raises a fundamental question for all of us Americans: Who the hell's in charge here? What we're witnessing is not merely a human and environmental horror, but also an appalling deterioration in our nation's governance. Just as we saw in Wall Street's devastating economic disaster and in Massey Energy's murderous explosion inside its Upper Big Branch coal mine, the nastiness in the gulf is baring an ugly truth that We the People must finally face: We are living under de facto corporate rule that has rendered our government impotent.

Thirty years of laissez-faire, ideological nonsense (pushed upon us with a vengeance in the past decade) has transformed government into a subsidiary of corporate power. Wall Street, Massey, BP and its partners — all were allowed to become their own "regulators" and officially encouraged to put their short-term profit interests over the public interest.

Let's not forget that on April 2, barely two weeks before Deepwater Horizon blew and 11 people perished on the spot, the public's No. 1 official, Barack Obama, trumpeted his support for more deepwater oil drilling, blithely regurgitating Big Oil's big lie: "Oil rigs today generally don't cause spills." He and his advisors had not bothered to check the truth of that — they simply took the industry's word. That's not governing, it's aiding and abetting profiteers, and it's a pathetic performance.

But that was only the start of Washington's oily confession that it has surrendered control to corporate arrogance and avarice.

With an unprecedented volume of crude gushing from the well and the magnitude of the disaster multiplying geometrically by the day, who was in charge of coping with that? Not the White House, not the interior secretary, not the EPA. As we saw when Wall Street's greed exploded our economy, the polluting scoundrels were left in charge!

While BP's dapper CEO issued patently ridiculous statements (such as, "Everything we can see at the moment suggests that the overall environmental impact of this will be very, very modest."), our government blindly went along with BP's false assertion that only some 5,000 barrels a day were pouring from the well, when independent experts were shouting at the White House that the correct volume was up to 19 times that much.

Finally, almost a month after the blowout, Obama ordered a moratorium on drilling new offshore wells and on granting environmental waivers to the oil giants. Bravo, Mr. President! But ... his moratorium was simply ignored. Days after his order, oil companies were handed at least seven more drilling permits and five waivers.

Last week, with 63 percent of the public disapproving of his meek deference to BP, the president of the United States of America was reduced to convening a press conference to insist that he was "engaged" and, behind the scenes, was "monitoring" BP's efforts.

Wow, monitoring! Excuse me, but who's the president here? Obama should personally take charge —-cancel all of his social and political events, convene an emergency response team of the best scientific minds in the world, announce a clear plan of clean-up actions, install all relevant Cabinet officials in a Gulf Coast command center to direct the actions, make daily reports on progress to the public, fire a mess of failed regulators and go to Congress with sweeping legislation to replace America's oil dependency with a crash program of conservation and renewable energy sources.

Oh, he should also wring a few corporate necks. Instead of monitoring these criminals, prosecute them — and put the public back in charge of our government.

*National radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of the book, Swim Against The Current: Even A Dead Fish Can Go With The Flow, Jim Hightower has spent three decades battling the Powers That Be on behalf of the Powers That Ought To Be - consumers, working families, environmentalists, small businesses, and just-plain-folks.

© 2010 Creators.com



To: koan who wrote (77006)6/2/2010 12:39:34 PM
From: Jim McMannis  Respond to of 149317
 
Are you suggesting the guy is not qualified because he's at the university of southern mississippi?



To: koan who wrote (77006)6/2/2010 3:05:36 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
Did you know this:

"The U.S. has been a net importer of natural gas for the past 30 years, according to the Energy Information Administration. Over the past two (recession) years, we have been a net importer at an average rate of 235 billion cubic feet per month. Earlier this year, as the domestic natural-gas process touched historic lows, the EIA reported that the U.S. continued to import natural gas from Canada, Mexico, Egypt, Nigeria, Qatar, Trinidad, and Yemen."

For the past two years, I have heard Cramer and others complain that we have all this NG and that Obama is crazy for being anti NG. Then you brought up the whole issue of NG and why are we not moving in that direction. During this time, I had assumed we had a surplus of NG. In reality, we don't.

I know why Cramer is making the big push.........probably because he owns Marcellus Shale land.....but why are you pushing it when we don't have enough?



To: koan who wrote (77006)7/4/2010 12:55:39 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 149317
 
Large-scale skimmer begins testing in GulfBy the CNN Wire Staff

July 3, 2010 11:00 p.m. EDT

New Orleans, Louisiana (CNN) -- A ship billed as the world's largest skimming vessel has begun testing its effectiveness in the Gulf of Mexico, a spokesman for its owner, Taiwanese company TMT Shipping, said Saturday.

The A Whale has been assigned a 5-mile-by-5-mile area to test its capability, spokesman Bob Grantham said, citing Coast Guard Rear Adm. Paul Zukunft. Testing is expected to continue Saturday and Sunday, with initial results probably available Monday, Grantham said.

The skimmer works by "taking in oily water through a series of vents, or jaws, on the side of the ship and then decanting the intake," Grantham said. "In many ways, the ship collects water like an actual whale and pumps internally like a human heart."

The testing area is just north of the underwater oil gusher, the statement said.

The A Whale arrived in the Gulf on Wednesday and has been awaiting approval to join in cleanup efforts. The vessel is estimated to be able to skim 21 million gallons of oil a day, at least 250 times the amount that modified fishing vessels currently conducting skimming operations have been able to contain, according to TMT.

Built this year, the vessel was meant to carry crude oil and iron ore. But after hearing about the oil disaster in the Gulf, TMT modified it to become the world's first large-scale skimmer, spokesman Frank Maisano said this week.

Researchers have estimated that between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels (1.5 million to 2.5 million gallons) of oil have been gushing into the Gulf daily since April 20, when the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded and sank off the coast of Louisiana.

Also Saturday, response workers recovered boom suspected to have been vandalized in the marshes of Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana, the Deepwater Horizon Joint Information Center said. It released several Coast Guard photographs of the boom, which appeared to have been cut open.

"Boom vandalism and mishaps involving small craft moving or cutting boom with propellers impedes oil recovery efforts, endangers workers who must return to recover and replace the boom and slows efforts to conduct booming operations elsewhere," a statement from the center said.

In an effort to reduce boom damage, the Coast Guard has instituted a safety zone around boom sites and established a hotline to report damage.

Meanwhile, Environmental Protection Agency scientists were set to meet with the agency's chief Saturday to discuss the chemicals BP is using to break up the oil slick. Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson's briefing on dispersants in Gulf Breeze, Florida, comes two days after the agency released results from its first round of toxicity testing on eight of the dispersants used in the Gulf.

The EPA study showed that the chemicals, when not mixed with oil, did not significantly disrupt the endocrine systems of marine life. But the agency has said it plans to conduct more tests of the toxicity of the dispersant when mixed with crude.

Dispersants have been a key part of BP's cleanup strategy. Since the beginning of the disaster, more than 1.6 million gallons of the dispersant Corexit 9500 alone have been injected into the Gulf.

Critics say the chemicals could harm marine life. But the Coast Guard has said that dispersant use is "evaluated daily" and that it's using the "safest and most effective methods available" to protect the sea environment.

A CNN analysis of daily dispersant reports provided by the Deepwater Horizon Unified Command showed that the chemical dispersants keep flowing into the Gulf of Mexico at virtually unchanged levels despite the EPA's May 26 order to BP to "significantly" scale back.

Before that date, BP used 25,689 gallons a day of Corexit. Since then, CNN's analysis showed, the daily average of dispersant use has dropped to 23,250 gallons a day, a 9 percent decline.

Over the past few days, bad weather has significantly hampered BP's oil cleanup and collection efforts. Hurricane Alex made landfall in northeastern Mexico late Wednesday, but its impact was still felt in the Gulf days later.

On Friday, more oil than what would fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool slipped by the cap on BP's ruptured undersea well because of the bad weather, Zukunft said.

The cap on the well in the Gulf of Mexico, bouncing in the rough conditions, captured 20,000 fewer barrels (840,000 gallons) of oil than anticipated, Zukunft said.

The rough seas also prevented skimming or burning for the past two days, displaced boom and made it unsafe to fly, he said.

BP spokesman Mark Proegler noted that forecasters expect rough seas to calm a bit this weekend.

Crews are standing by to resume skimming operations and survey inland waterways that may have been affected because of a storm surge. Shoreline cleanup operations continue with limited weather interruption.

For the 12-hour period from midnight until noon Friday, approximately 8,665 barrels of oil were collected and about 4,155 barrels of oil and 28.6 million cubic feet of natural gas were flared, BP said.

Thursday's total oil recovered was approximately 25,150 barrels.

Newly retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen announced Friday that since June, the skimming capability in the Gulf has increased more than fivefold, from approximately 100 large skimmers to 550 skimming vessels of various sizes working to collect oil in all parts of the region as. To date, 28.2 million gallons of an oil-water mix have been skimmed from the Gulf's surface.

cnn.com



To: koan who wrote (77006)7/4/2010 2:53:11 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 149317
 
The Right's Faux Jones Act Outrage

Is Obama's support for an arcane maritime law really preventing other countries from assisting in the Gulf?

— By Stephanie Mencimer
Fri Jun. 18, 2010 3:00 AM PDT

Usually Dick Armey gets worked up over things like taxes and the deficit. But at a June 16 symposium about the Tea Party movement, the former House majority leader and current chair of FreedomWorks was jumping out of his chair over something even more arcane: the Jones Act—a 1920s-era maritime law that bars foreign-flagged vessels from shuttling goods between American ports.

To hear Armey talk, the act—and President Obama's support for it—are all that's keeping eager Norwegian skimmers from mopping up the oil destined for Florida's pristine sands. "How do you explain a president who does not waive the Jones Act on day one?" he fumed. "No press is even asking the questions." His explanation: It's a "silly little labor sop."

During the past week, the Jones Act has become a big GOP talking point, with the likes of Oliver North, Dick Morris, and congressional GOP freshmen stepping up to bash Obama for his alleged shortsightedness.
Obama, his critics insist, needs to follow the lead of—yes—his predecessor. "In the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the Bush administration didn't hesitate to waive the law completely in an emergency," John Fund wrote in the Wall Street Journal this week.

Just one problem with these arguments: They are almost entirely false.

Let's start with this Bush business: It is true that Bush issued a Jones Act waiver post-Katrina. But he did so not to help relief efforts, but rather as a gift to the oil industry. The waiver allowed firms to use unregulated foreign vessels to ship oil and gas from local refineries that were damaged in the hurricane.

In fact, Bush waived the Jones Act at the same time he suspended anti-pollution laws for gasoline—hardly a humanitarian gesture. Whether the Jones waiver helped relief efforts at all is unclear—and was disputed even back then.


"You cannot find a person in Bush's administration who can explain why that was a good idea, or how it helped," says Mark Ruge, counsel to the Maritime Cabotage Task Force, a coalition of labor unions, shipbuilders and operators, and "pro-defense" organizations. Ruge says that the waiver may have enabled some foreign cruise ships to house displaced residents, but that didn't require the sort of blanket waiver the GOP is now demanding from Obama. (His organization supports case-by-case waivers, as needed, to assist with the oil spill.)

Bush's move also prompted Jones Act waiver requests from a host of unrelated companies who also wanted to utilize cheaper foreign shippers. In the same vein, freshman Hawaii Rep. Charles Djou—the GOP's pit bull for this latest Obama attack—had actually campaigned on promises that he would introduce legislation to exempt his state from the Jones Act. The act was an issue for Djou and his fellow Hawaii Republicans long before the spill, since the state depends on ships for supplies, and critics of the act say it makes things more expensive for Hawaiians.

So, has the Jones Act really prevented the US from enlisting foreign help in the Gulf cleanup? Doesn't seem so. On June 15, Adm. Thad Allen, the Coast Guard's point man on the disaster, issued a press release noting that there are already 15 foreign-flagged ships working the spill—the act only applies to ships operating within three miles of shore, and there's plenty of work to be done outside that boundary.

"While we have not seen any need to waive the Jones Act as part of this historic response, we continue to prepare for all possible scenarios," Allen said. "Should any waivers be needed, we are prepared to process them as quickly as possible to allow vital spill response activities being undertaken by foreign-flagged vessels to continue without delay." He added that no foreign entities have even requested a waiver—which can be granted if no suitable American vessels are available.

His statement has done little to quiet conservatives' claims—particularly the notion that Obama won't waive the act because he's in bed with labor. On June 10, Heritage Foundation fellow Joseph Carafano set the tone for this accusation on Fox News, noting that foreign ships are being sidelined because "this is a big thing for unions. The unions see it as…protecting jobs. They hate when the Jones Act gets waived, and they pound on politicians when they do that."

There's a nugget of truth to the labor critique. Maritime unions did back Obama in 2008, and they are generally supportive of the Jones Act. But they take issue with suggestions that labor is putting politics over the Gulf cleanup. "To say the unions are standing in the way is completely unfounded," says a spokesperson for the Seafarers International Union.


This wouldn't be the first time the Jones Act has come under fire as a union-protection measure. Shipping companies that rely on foreign vessels have long hoped to amend the act so that they can compete domestically without paying US taxes or complying with domestic labor, environmental, or safety regulations. (Many of these, such as the Virginia-based Liberian International Ship and Corporate Registry, are American companies.) Firms that would prefer to save money by using foreign-registered ships have also griped about the Jones Act. In the mid-1990s, a group of such interests calling itself the "Jones Act Reform Coalition" tried—without success—to weaken the law.

There's one big reason the Jones Act, this union-friendly protectionist measure, has managed to survive a frontal assault by big corporations: national security. The act's requirements that domestic vessels be owned, registered, and built in America—and largely operated by US crews—ensures that there are sufficient working shipyards and skilled labor to supply the military's needs. The Navy, for its part, relies heavily on commercial vessels to supply the fleet in war zones; in the Iraq fighting, merchant mariners moved 90 percent of the American combat cargo. That's hardly a job the Pentagon wants to turn over to a bunch of leaky Liberian-flagged boats staffed with Somali teenagers earning slave wages.

In fact, given the GOP's concerns about terrorism and the party's historic love of all things military, it's hard to imagine folks like Armey and members of Congress really wanting to open domestic shipping to foreign ships. Yet, in effect, that's what they're arguing for. Of course, had Obama waived the Jones Act on day one, as Armey suggests he should have, the same crowd likely would have accused him of sacrificing national security for the environment and a chance to export jobs to his European socialist friends.

Nope, Obama really can't win on this one.


motherjones.com