| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Oil Spill not as Bad as O Hoped For - Coast Guard Change to Blame |
| 2010-08-01 |
| While the BP well was still gushing, the Obama administration issued an order that limited the spreading of controversial dispersant chemicals on the Gulf of Mexico's surface. Their use, officials said, should be restricted to "rare cases." The entire article rants about dispersants without ever once telling us why they're bad. What's worse: the use of dispersants or leaving the oil to clog up the shores, bayous and bays? You're a newspaper, WaPo, why not start acting like one? Despite the order - and concerns about the environmental effects of the dispersants - the Coast Guard granted requests to use them 74 times over 54 days, and to use them on the surface and deep underwater at the well site. The Coast Guard approved every request submitted by BP or local Coast Guard commanders in Houma, La., although in some cases it reduced the amount of the chemicals they could use, according to an analysis of the documents prepared by the office of Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.). The documents indicate that "these exemptions are in no way a 'rare' occurrence, and have allowed surface application of the dispersant to occur virtually every day since the directive was issued," Markey wrote in a letter dated Aug. 1 to retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad W. Allen, the government's point man on the spill. Markey chairs the House Select Committee on Allen said that on some days the amount of oil on the surface justified a "tactical" decision, by on-scene Coast Guard commanders, to spray some dispersants. "There's a dynamic tension that goes on when you're managing an incident that has no precedent," Allen said. "You establish general rules and guidelines, but knowing that the people on scene have the information" means trusting them to make decisions, he said. We don't permit individual initiative! In the end, Allen said: "You can quibble on the semantics related to 'rare.' I like to focus on the effects we achieved" by dispersing the oil. Officials have said that, in the days since the gusher was stopped, thick sheets of oil have nearly disappeared from the gulf's surface. Results are not important, following the procedures is all that counts! EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson conceded that there had been "frustration in the field" from EPA officials about the waivers. But Jackson said it was partly alleviated June 22, nearly a month after the order was issued, when Coast Guard officials began giving the EPA a greater role in the discussions over whether to approve dispersant use. Right! The EPA gets to regulate pollution! "EPA may not have concurred with every single waiver," Jackson said. But, she said, the Coast Guard had the ultimate say: "The final decision-making rests with the federal on-scene coordinator. That's where the judgment, the ultimate decision-making ability, had to lie." So why is this article on the front page (below the fold) of the Washington Post? Maybe the answer lies in the remainder of the article. The dispersants break up the oil, acting like a detergent on kitchen grease. They are intended to keep the oil from reaching shore in large sheets and to make it easier for microbes to consume the oil underwater. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case! In May, under pressure from environmental groups, the EPA and the Coast Guard issued a directive to BP, ordering the company to "eliminate" the use of dispersants on the surface. But the article laments the underwater use, as well, lumping the good and the bad into the bad. "Because so much is still unknown about the potential impact of dispersants, BP should use no more dispersant than is necessary," Jackson wrote in a letter to BP. The directive said BP could seek an exemption in rare cases when other cleanup methods were not feasible. Yeah, like those foreign ships we banned for 60 days! The government allowed BP to continue injecting dispersants below the surface, as oil leaked from the well on the gulf floor. Their logic was that the chemicals could be used more efficiently underwater, where the gushing of BP's well provided a turbulence that helped them work. Why waste a good crisis, when you can aggravate it? |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #11 That was the gummint experts! |
| Posted by: junkiron 2010-08-01 23:39 |
| #10 What, you're going to use phosphorous fertilizer? Everyone knows that's bad stuff, causes algae, milfoil, and who knows what. And nitrogen fertilizer? Good heavens, mix it with oil, look what happened in Oklahoma. I mean, the whole coast could go up if someone lit off an M80. Get some gummint experts in here to study this up, pronto! |
| Posted by: KBK 2010-08-01 22:03 |
| #9 Lessons from Exxon Valdez Bioremediation protocols employed during cleanup of the Exxon Valdez oil spill effectively demonstrated that application of nutrients in the form of fertilizer (nitrogen and phosphorus) could increase oil biodegradation rates. Ten days after treatment, the surfaces of the oil-blackened rocks on the shoreline turned white and appeared to be free of surface oil. The striking visual results strongly supported fertilizer application, which sustained higher numbers of oil-degrading microorganisms in oiled shorelines, according to EPAÂ’s 1990 interim report. Additionally, the EPA noted, biodegradation rates were enhanced as evidenced by the chemical changes detected in recovered oil from treated and untreated reference sites. The Exxon Valdez oil spill contaminated more than 1300 miles of coastline. Bioremediation was used only as an experiment on 78 miles of coastline. Two weeks after the fertilizer application, areas that had received bioremediation were easily distinguishable using satellite imagery. Bioremediation is far more advanced today than it was in 1989. It should be no surprise if it is even far more effective in the warmer waters of the Gulf. |
| Posted by: junkiron 2010-08-01 20:33 |
| #8 If you are suggesting the Coast Guard run up the Potomac and lay siege to the White House... well, OK. Couldn't happen. They probably have equipment violations like not enough of the proper types of fire extinguishers so they won't be allowed off the dock. |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-08-01 15:35 |
| #7 Looks like the Coast Guard takes seriously the part of the oath that says the will protect us from all enemies, foreign and domestic. If you are suggesting the Coast Guard run up the Potomac and lay siege to the White House... well, OK. As a side note, I read somewhere that years after the Exxon Valdez spill, the untreated areas of shoreline were cleaner than the treated parts. I suspect whatever treatment chemicals and techniques used reduced the microbial populations. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2010-08-01 15:08 |
| #6 Let's get back to producing those wells. Only the productive class will do that. The parasite class will continue to predict Gloom 'N Doom unless we follow the Party Line. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-08-01 14:55 |
| #5 The leak has been stopped as predicted. The giant, killer, methane bubble did not surface and destroy all life on the planet. Birds are still flying, gators are still gatering. I predict a near record season catch for gulf fishermen. Let's get back to producing those wells. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-08-01 13:51 |
| #4 Looks like the Coast Guard takes seriously the part of the oath that says the will protect us from all enemies, foreign and domestic. |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-08-01 13:31 |
| #3 In a related turf/oil war, the oil spill in Michigan resulted in a tussle between the EPA, Fish and Wildlife and Battle Creek police over how to best save/treat animals caught in the oil. No pun intnended, but feathers were severely ruffled when the BCPD took the lead in treating birds. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2010-08-01 11:33 |
| #2 Well said, P2K. |
| Posted by: WolfDog 2010-08-01 10:59 |
| #1 "You establish general rules and guidelines, but knowing that the people on scene have the information" means trusting them to make decisions, he said. aka ROE. Notice how much trouble keeps bubbling up with control freaks who need to have a mother-may-I empire rather than pushing responsibility down to the lowest level to address the immediate situation at hand? It's a fatal flaw in bureaucracies and institutions that become inflexible and eventually ineffective. If you don't trust your people to execute the job, then fire them and get new ones. When you can't find anyone willing to take the job anymore, it's time to fire yourself. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-08-01 10:46 |