Finally: Feds to accept help from 12 countries in dealing with oil spill
posted at 7:47 pm on June 29, 2010 by Allahpundit
The National Incident Command and the Federal On Scene Coordinator have determined that there is a resource need for boom and skimmers that can be met by offers of assistance from foreign governments and international bodies.
The United States will accept 22 offers of assistance from 12 countries and international bodies, including two high speed skimmers and fire containment boom from Japan. We are currently working out the particular modalities of delivering the offered assistance. Further details will be forthcoming once these arrangements are complete…
The Department has released a chart of offers of assistance that the U.S. has received from other governments and international bodies. The chart is updated as necessary to include any additional offers of assistance and decisions on accepting the offers. The chart is posted on the State Department Web site at: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/143488.pdf
Follow the link and look at the chart to see how many offers were still “under consideration” as of a few hours ago. The announcement comes two weeks after the Coast Guard acknowledged that more skimmers were needed and, of course, 67 days after the first offers of foreign aid started trickling in.
Three days after the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico began on April 20, the Netherlands offered the U.S. government ships equipped to handle a major spill, one much larger than the BP spill that then appeared to be underway. “Our system can handle 400 cubic metres per hour,” Weird Koops, the chairman of Spill Response Group Holland, told Radio Netherlands Worldwide, giving each Dutch ship more cleanup capacity than all the ships that the U.S. was then employing in the Gulf to combat the spill.
To protect against the possibility that its equipment wouldn’t capture all the oil gushing from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, the Dutch also offered to prepare for the U.S. a contingency plan to protect Louisiana’s marshlands with sand barriers. One Dutch research institute specializing in deltas, coastal areas and rivers, in fact, developed a strategy to begin building 60-mile-long sand dikes within three weeks…
Why does neither the U.S. government nor U.S. energy companies have on hand the cleanup technology available in Europe? Ironically, the superior European technology runs afoul of U.S. environmental rules. The voracious Dutch vessels, for example, continuously suck up vast quantities of oily water, extract most of the oil and then spit overboard vast quantities of nearly oil-free water. Nearly oil-free isn’t good enough for the U.S. regulators, who have a standard of 15 parts per million — if water isn’t at least 99.9985% pure, it may not be returned to the Gulf of Mexico.
If you’re not tearing at your hair after reading that, read this report from the New Orleans Times-Picayune about federal red tape keeping other skimmers out of the gulf. And not just foreign skimmers, either: For instance, thanks to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, you need minimum levels of certain equipment aboard (like booms) or else it’s no go. This is where we’re at after weeks of oil gushing at a rate of around one Exxon Valdez every three or four days.
Here’s the perfect ad to polish this all off. As Ace says, simply brutal.
Oil Spill Timeline from RightChange on Vimeo.
Related Posts:









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
What is with that horrible picture of Jindal on the main blog page?
I know it is still early, but put me on the Jindal train for 2016. I’m sure there will be other people I will also like, though.
bluegill on December 3, 2012 at 9:24 PM
You must not be from the Northeast. No, Northeastern liberals do NOT send their kids to Fordham, Loyola, Sacred Heart, etc. Liberals send their kids to Groton, Milton, Kent, Dalton, Horace Mann……
Maddie on December 3, 2012 at 9:45 PM
Another junk justice Judge Benedict “Egomania” Roberts wannabe who knows what’s best for the peons, or else. Surprise!
Ya gotta problem wit’ judicial tyranny? Shaddup, little people, or I’m gonna hold ya in contempt!
viking01 on December 3, 2012 at 10:54 PM
Wrong. Most voucher programs are directed at bad schools. These are the kind of schools that don’t educate, but by
Godgovernment you will send your children there to be uneducated, unless you can pay all your taxes and still afford to send your children to a private or Christian school, or home school.Yes, these are mostly lower income families. Higher income families typically move to whatever neighborhood has a good school, so their children can go there.
So technically, both upper income and lower income children are treated exactly the same: they both go to whatever public school is in their school district. But the end result is totally different.
Vouchers are not a giveaway. They divert some of the funding used for public schools to send children who were not learning at those schools to a school where they can actually learn. So the public school still gets a portion — maybe half — of the taxes raised to educate the child, while the charter school gets the other portion. Usually, the voucher completely covers the cost of the charter school tuition, because public schools waste so much money.
So why do public schools hate them: Because their funding is derived from how many students they have, and if even 100 children are home-schooled or private-schooled, they figure they’re losing that much funding.
And make no mistake: that is at the core of the issue. If vouchers were just a government giveaway, they wouldn’t care. But because it affects their own funding, they act like the money is being stolen from them. In spite of the fact that they are not entitled to funding to educate a student if that student is actually being educated elsewhere.
There Goes The Neighborhood on December 3, 2012 at 11:13 PM
Only an NEA-thug Obama voter would oppose the opportunity to move their kid to a competent private school where the teachers can actually speak English, inculcate hard science, understand addition, subtraction and the, er, higher math of multiplication and division and convey such knowledge to civilized students not cowering in fear for being shaken down for lunch money or molested (and worse) in the bathrooms.
viking01 on December 3, 2012 at 11:45 PM
Of course. People who are taught how to think don’t vote democrat.
Slowburn on December 4, 2012 at 12:37 AM
Here’s an explanation of the LA funding formula
http://www.coweninstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/SPELA-2011-2.pdf
It appears to me that Jindal could pull some money out of the funding and apply that to the voucher program, or given how severely underfunded LA’s schools are, seek a new source of funding for the vouchers.
Charter schools are included in the funding formula, but are under hte control of local school boards – that might be an avenue to explore as well.
Daisy_WI on December 4, 2012 at 8:48 AM
.
SARAH PALIN ? … : )
listens2glenn on December 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM
If these kids are forced back into the public schools I fear their grades will suffer from retaliation by the teacher their parents rejected.
agmartin on December 4, 2012 at 11:47 AM
Liberals DO NOT LIKE children being educated PROPERLY! They have been fighting that for over 50 years now. With the large number of minority students involved, IT IS RACIST for liberals—and liberal Judges—to decide that such large numbers of minority students DO NOT DESERVE a better education! LIBERALS ARE RACISTS!!!!!!!
DixT on December 4, 2012 at 11:55 AM
Everyone is treated the same now (equality of opportunity) but voucher proponents want giveaways only to “lower income families” to reach the same end results for all (equality of outcome). Muddleheaded liberalism (no matter how well-intentioned) that is spending money we don’t have and destroying our country.
sauldalinsky on December 4, 2012 at 12:21 PM
If annoyinglittletwerp is still reading, here’s the key difference between Jindal (liberal) and Milton Friedman (conservative)
sauldalinsky on December 4, 2012 at 12:44 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2