Interesting
he says one thing, then another. Oh well.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
|
I suspect there's nuance that the reporters are missing.
But one thing that has been consistently said, I think, is that it would be days before they knew whether it was a success. Crowing that it was working 12 hours later was clearly premature.
Cheers, Scott. |
|
And you would think that the lead gov't official
would know that. Least I would
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
|
I have not been *at all* impressed by Adm. Allen.
http://www.pbs.org/n...dallen_05-24.html
ADMIRAL THAD ALLEN, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant: First of all, let me tell you I have the highest regard for Secretary Salazar. We're great friends and he is a great mentor to me. 1) He has no business getting into the politics of "stepping on the neck". Salazar can speak for himself. JEFFREY BROWN: But that's I think what -- I think what is confusing to people is to -- to -- you use a term like BP is the responsible party. And then we hear the tough talk about pushing them aside. So, can you just clarify, who is, in fact, in charge of all this? 2) The US is running the response and he is reportable and accountable, but BP is the responsible party. BP is involved and has the equipment and the means to fix it and they need to be held accountable. But the US isn't dependent on them. The US's job is oversight. But the US is responsible. Am I the only one who sees this as gobblty-gook? Here and elsewhere, he spends too much time apologizing for BP and not addressing things like the following: 1) Most people understand that BP and Transocean have the equipment and the expertise to work on the BOP and the issues on the floor of the Gulf. Even though Scrips and others have deepwater subs, we are ultimately dependent on BP and companies like them to plug the well. 2) Most people don't understand why more isn't being done to keep the oil from fowling the beaches. And things like (based on news and blog reports): a) Why aren't booms being placed properly? b) Why are spill control supplies stacked up at staging areas for days or weeks without being used? c) Why are fishermen who have been trained in skimming and booming and so forth not out doing the work? d) Why is the Coast Guard saying that BP has to approve reporters access to areas? e) Why has BP been able to control information like the oil and gas spill rate? f) What's the full story on the dispersants that are being used? g) What about the idea of using supertankers to suck up the oil before it disperses and hits the beaches? http://www.esquire.c...pertankers-051310 Almost all of these things seem to be a problem with crisis management. It's not in BP's interest to address these things quickly - their interest is to minimize the perceived problem and minimize their costs. The US should be good at this, and should step in. Adm. Allen should be explaining things like that, not waiting for the press to ask the right questions. And not obfuscating the issue with lots of organizational chart jargon. The US should have a much stronger response in the area away from the sea floor while at the same time brainstorming ways to plug the well. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott. |
|
What I don't understand
According to the Mother Jones article, the sand that's being raked up is sent to a facility where the oil is separated from the sand. The sand is sent to a hazardous waste disposal facility, and the oil is sent for processing.
In other words, they still plan on selling the oil recovered from the beaches. If that's the case, wouldn't it make sense to do the booms properly, so that all the oil wound up in a few small spots, and relatively uncontaminated by sand? It should be in BP's best financial interests to contain the oil before it hits the beach. So why don't they? What else is going on here? --
Drew |
|
Maybe it's bureaucracy, maybe it's lawyers.
I agree that it makes sense to do those things, and things like be realistic about the scale of the problem to plan the response accordingly.
I saw something somewhere that said that BP's lawyers were running the communications. They're ultimately worried about the legal judgments against them, so doing things like using millions of gallons of detergents to keep the oil from coming on shore (even if there are very bad consequences) is a way to limit their liability. Downplaying the size helps to keep the ambulance chasers away, too, the thinking goes. Maybe that's it. But that's stupid because it's clear the problem is huge and isn't being adequately addressed. Happy talk isn't going to keep the oil off shore. It's much cheaper and better to keep the oil off shore than to scoop up and wash beaches and marshes... Maybe it's the usual problem of poor communications in large organizations. I agree that more needs to be known. Whatever the reason, the US needs to be more active. FWIW. Cheers, Scott. |
|
so you want the drivers licence post office
veteran affairs and the social secueity administration to stop the leak and clean up the oil? Coast Guard is in charge of ensuring that folks with the expertise get off their ass and spend the money to get it done. A traffic cop but in this case not a very good one. He has no business granting interviews at all. Thats a political job.
I think someone with clout in DC is sniffing for a no bid taxpayer paid cleanup contract which is why we are hearing the word Federal takeover. Bookmark that prediction |
|
Heh.
I'll not bite on the snark.
I don't have a problem with him granting the interview - that's appropriate and part of his job, but it's not a good reflection on the Coast Guard that he can't explain things clearly and avoid political landmines. There's no way there's going to be a "no bid" contract for the cleanup. http://www.whitehous...tion_10272009.pdf (13 page .pdf). I suspect there will be pressure for lots of contracts to spread the work around. And BP will get the bill (they've said they'll pay for the cleanup - they're hedging on the economic damages ("legitimate claims")). Cheers, Scott. |
|
that document is filed under the "ya gotta be shittin me"
http://www.businessw...cks-update1-.html even a quick obama no bid contract google will smoke out a ton of stuff. That is part of his smoke and mirrors. Behold the change! while its bidness as usual
|
|
There are always exceptions.
http://www.army.mil/...-during-drawdown/
After consultations with Commanders in theater and extensive analysis, the U.S. Army has decided to continue base life support (BLS) services in Iraq under the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) III, rather than transitioning these services to LOGCAP IV. As a result, BLS in Iraq, which includes engineering and sustainment services, equipment maintenance, facility operations, food service, cleaning, laundry, water production, sewage and trash services, will continue to be provided by KBR. Dunno how much of that is spin, but we all know that there are appeals and protest processes for government contracts, so it seems reasonable... Cheers, Scott. (Who thinks that private companies have no business doing this logistics stuff in a war zone, but there we are.) |