Iran offers to help contain US oil spill [Archive] - The Diamond David Lee Roth Army

View Full Version : Iran offers to help contain US oil spill

Blaze

06-17-2010, 12:20 AM

Iran offers to help contain US oil spill
Mon, 03 May 2010 13:29:49 GMT

http://www.presstv.ir/photo/20100503/dastmalchi20100503123116327.jpg
A dead fish is seen on the Mississippi beach on May 2, 2010. While the death has not been linked to the vast oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, concerns over wildlife continue.

The National Iranian Drilling Company (NIDC) has offered to assist the US in efforts to prevent an ecological disaster caused by the spreading oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Following an explosion on a BP-operated oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico last month, at least 210,000 gallons (5,000 barrels) of crude oil are thought to be spilling into the water every day.

NIDC managing director Heidar Bahmani announced the firm's readiness to use its decades-long expertise to fight the oil slick, the company's public relations office told Press TV.

"Our oil industry experts in the field of drilling can contain the rig leakage in the Gulf of Mexico and prevent an ecological disaster in that part of the world," Bahmani said.

Overlooking the new US drive for slapping more UN sanctions on Iran over its civilian nuclear program, the company said that there is an urgent need for action to protect the nearby coasts from the advancing oil spill.

The governors of Alabama, Louisiana and Florida have reportedly called a state of emergency for fear of the oil slick's environmental and economic damages.

The disaster has also prompted the White House to ban oil drillings in new areas of the US coast until the British company explains the cause of the explosion that killed 11 employees and resulted in the oil spill.

ZHD/MD/MMN

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=125303

Iran renews offer to help on US oil spill
Sun, 23 May 2010 16:16:25 GMT

http://www.presstv.ir/photo/20100523/dastmalchi20100523170700140.jpg
Crews clean the oil-covered beach of a Louisiana-run wildlife refuge, Elmer's Island, May 22, 2010.

The National Iranian Drilling Company (NIDC) has renewed its offer to assist the US in reining in an ecologically disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Mehran Alinejad, the head of special drilling operations at NIDC, pointed to the experience gained by Iranian experts in containing huge oil leaks during the eight-year Iraqi-imposed war in the 1980s, and said, "Iranian technical teams have had major achievements in oil well capping and the Gulf of Mexico oil rig is not a great feat in comparison."

"There is, at any rate, an ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and its negative consequences will affect everyone. That is why if we receive a suitable response from relevant [American] officials we can examine the issue and contribute to its resolution," Alinejad was quoted by IRNA as saying.

Since April, when an explosion on a BP-operated oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico killed 11 employees and triggered a major oil spill, Iran has twice offered to help the US avoid the looming ecological catastrophe.

Washington, which has been pressing on with a campaign to impose a fourth round of tough UN sanctions against Tehran over its nuclear program, has yet to respond to the Iranian offer.

Concerns have deepened as the 120-mile (190-km) oil slick continues to approach the shoreline, threatening the region's ecosystem, fishing and tourism.

BP officials say that the ruptured undersea well is spewing some 5,000 barrels of crude oil a day. However, analysts believe that at least 70,000 barrels of oil is spewed every day.

ZHD/HGH/MMN

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=127487&sectionid=351020101

Interesting this was not even mentioned on any US news outlet.

Blaze

06-17-2010, 12:23 AM

jhale667

06-17-2010, 12:28 AM

Blaze

06-17-2010, 12:30 AM

Interesting also.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_97-zR4Gc58&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_97-zR4Gc58&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Blaze

06-17-2010, 12:36 AM

Blaze

06-17-2010, 12:37 AM

It's obviously a P.R. move on Iran's part, but if it would actually help - if they have some technology we're not employing, or have reserves of the supplies we're already running low on in the containment/clean-up effort - at this point we should allow Genghisfucking Khan to assist.

Really, I saw a lead where Russia offered to help and they were turned down.
I have not confirmed that. I'll look for it now.

Blaze

06-17-2010, 01:01 AM

You know, the two times I went to find information on this, earlier today and just now, my internet failed. Last time the tech support had a "gosh, this is odd" sound to his voice, this time i was sent to teir two support. One nice thing about small town living, is I know most everyone at the ISP.

Just thought I would note that~

I did find some info about Russia being told... "We got this" by the USA

Blaze

06-17-2010, 01:08 AM

U.S. not accepting foreign help on oil spill

Posted By Josh Rogin
Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 10:52 AM Share

When State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley refused to tell reporters which countries have offered assistance to help respond to the BP oil spill, the State Department press corps was flabbergasted.

"As a policy matter, we're not going to identify those offers of assistance until we are able to see, you know, what we need, assess the ongoing situation. And as we accept those offers of assistance, we will inform you," Crowley said.

Reporters pointed out that the Bush administration identified assistance offers after the Katrina disaster, so what is this, a new policy? They pressed Crowley, but he refused to budge.

Then they mentioned Iran's offer of assistance, through its National Iranian Drilling Company. Crowley said there was no Iranian offer of assistance, at least in any official capacity. The reporters kept on it, asking why it was taking so long to figure out what was needed in the first place? That's the Coast Guard's decision, Crowley explained.

Late Wednesday evening, the State Department emailed reporters identifying the 13 entities that had offered the U.S. oil spill assistance. They were the governments of Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations.

"These offers include experts in various aspects of oil spill impacts, research and technical expertise, booms, chemical oil dispersants, oil pumps, skimmers, and wildlife treatment," the email read.

"While there is no need right now that the U.S. cannot meet, the U.S. Coast Guard is assessing these offers of assistance to see if there will be something which we will need in the near future."

The Obama administration has been relentless in its messaging that it is doing everything possible to aggressively respond to the oil spill. But for the record, the current message to foreign governments is: Thanks but no thanks, we've got it covered.

A State Department official, speaking on background, said that the decision not to initially release the names of offering countries came directly from the State Department leadership.

1,570 people like this

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/05/06/us_not_accepting_foreign_help_on_oil_spill

Blaze

06-17-2010, 01:17 AM

Russia offers aid for Gulf of Mexico spill

By Adam Newman | 05/11/10 - 10:51

With the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico still yet to be contained after an attempt to drop a huge dome on the gushing well failed at the weekend, the US Department of State announced that both Russia and the United Arab Emirates had offered their assistance in tackling the disaster.

Speaking to the press, Philip Crowley, the department's assistant secretary, said, "Regarding the Deep Water Horizon oil spill... we received two additional offers of assistance which we are grateful for from the United Arab Emirates and Russia."

No details were given to how the two nations had offered help or whether the United States would accept it. However, they are now included with the United Nations and 13 other countries who have offered their help in the Gulf of Mexico.

Russia has some experience in cleaning up oil spills, but according to some sources, they have utilised unorthodox methods in the past. Russia's best-selling daily newspaper Komsomoloskaya Pravda has reportedly suggested that the United States stem the oil spill by 'nuking it'.

The article states that by 'bombing the area', "the underground explosion (would) move the rock, pressing on it, and, in essence, squeez the well's channel."

Apparently the country has actually utilised this method an astonishing five times in the past and have said it has an 80 percent success rate.

Russia to benefit?

There have also been reports that the Gulf oil spill could actually benefit Russia, with some environmentalists calling the disaster "Big Oil's Chernobyl". With BP being blamed for the 700 metric tons of oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico every day, the company is expected to see huge loses, as well as the cost of losing a us$350 million drill rig and the company's stock plummeting 12 percent, pushing its market value down by US$23 billion.

There are also rumours of lawsuits totalling us$4.6 billion with almost 150,000 people set to lose their jobs from the environmental fallout on the Southern states coasts.

While the global oil market has not been severely affected, due to the Deepwater Horizon well being a test well, the disaster is expected to seriously jeopardize the US energy program President Barack Obama had planned for the country.

This would see the construction of more nuclear power plants, channel substantial investment into the exploration and development of alternative energy sources, in particular into increasing shale gas production and develop offshore oilfields, which contain an estimated 1.6 trillion cubic meters of natural gas and 14.5 billion barrels of oil. This was all in order to reduce the American economy's dependence on energy imports as well as to generate additional cash to cover the budget deficit.

[I]However, this disaster may set all these plans back, maybe by years, ensuring that Russia will still be there to supply the US with oil and gas for the near future.

http://www.cisoilgas.com/news/russia-offers-aid-gulf-of-mexico-oil-spill/

http://www.cisoilgas.com/media/site-images/NGOGMENA/NGOG-logo.jpg
"At the centre of Russian Oil and Gas industry news..."

Blaze

06-17-2010, 01:20 AM

More countries have offered up assistance to help with the BP oil spill, bringing the total number of countries offering to help to 18. Qatar has offered containment boom. Sweden has followed up on an earlier offer of assistance to include skimmers. So far, the U.S. has accepted offers from Mexico, Norway, the Netherlands and Canada. The International Maritime Organization is scanning the globe for more boom now.

There was some new information on why the U.S. hasn't been accepting these offers more and faster. Apparently it's about the cost. "For the most part, they are offers to sell supplies. And in determining whether to accept these offers, we look at the availability of domestic sources and also, you know, compare pricing on the open market," Crowley said.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/16/briefing_skipper_iran_kyrgyzstan_bp_north_korea_pa kistan

Posted By Josh Rogin Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - 11:10 AM

Blaze

06-17-2010, 01:26 AM

Just must note a thought:
The cost are being "examined" yet during the war we had no bid contracts.
Yes, it is better to review cost and deplete our supplies first, however, the war was not a unexpected disaster.

Of course, price gouging during a disaster is wrong, but there is no international law against it, to my knowledge.
And there is no reason not to expect a % companies to predatorize BP and other organizations that are funding this disaster.

Nitro Express

06-17-2010, 03:32 AM

I heard Trojan wanted to donate a giant condom to go over the well and stop the spill.

Mushroom

06-18-2010, 12:30 AM

Just must note a thought:
The cost are being "examined" yet during the war we had no bid contracts.

that's what americans asked for and voted. ohhh the irony.

Mushroom

06-18-2010, 12:32 AM

it's absolutely absurd that we are turning down assistance from foreign countries to clean up an environmental disaster.

Blaze

06-18-2010, 06:45 AM

Well, I am hoping that the local governments, read Mississippi, can take advantage of some of the technological offerings to protect the well being of the state. If Mississippi can contain the oil to LA waters that would be good. And if the oil flows toward Mississippi, Mississippi can buff the oil off our coast toward FL that would do OK. Mississippi efforts would partially cover AL and SOME of the upper FL coast line.

If other countries (read Iran) have had experience in this oil loss, they also might could provide knowledges in protection else where.

ULTRAMAN VH

06-18-2010, 07:12 AM

It's obviously a P.R. move on Iran's part, but if it would actually help - if they have some technology we're not employing, or have reserves of the supplies we're already running low on in the containment/clean-up effort - at this point we should allow Genghisfucking Khan to assist.

Sorry J, not going to happen! The current administration turned down help from other countries with far superior technology in dealing with situations like this.

Blaze

06-18-2010, 07:16 AM

That is the at the Federal level. I am speaking of the Great State of Mississippi.
As long as we keep ourselves clear and the oil storm passes us chances are good for the Great State of Mississippi's recovery.
LA was already contaminated from Katrina. There is little reason to worry seriously on focused contamination issues there.
It would be a good of containment area because the vast amount of water from the river would give way to healing it faster.

Blaze

06-18-2010, 07:20 AM

the coonasses that get displaced and were truly part of the ecological based industry can migrate to the Mississippi and AL coast lines.

Blaze

06-18-2010, 07:21 AM

The coonasses that were part of the oil industry, have no need to migrate.

ULTRAMAN VH

06-18-2010, 07:26 AM

The Secret, 700-Million-Gallon Oil Fix That Worked — and Might Save the Gulf
May 13, 2010 at 6:46AM by Mark Warren
Workers on the Arabian Gulf overlook a supertanker owned by Saudi Aramco, the oil company that used a suck-and-salvage American technology to recover 85 percent of its previously unreported spill in 1993 and '94.

There's a potential solution to the Gulf oil spill that neither BP, nor the federal government, nor anyone — save a couple intuitive engineers — seems willing to try. As The Politics Blog reported on Tuesday in an interview with former Shell Oil president John Hofmeister, the untapped solution involves using empty supertankers to suck the spill off the surface, treat and discharge the contaminated water, and either salvage or destroy the slick.

1,312
diggs
digg Hofmeister had been briefed on the strategy by a Houston-based environmental disaster expert named Nick Pozzi, who has used the same solution on several large spills during almost two decades of experience in the Middle East — who says that it could be deployed easily and should be, immediately, to protect the Gulf Coast. That it hasn't even been considered yet is, Pozzi thinks, owing to cost considerations, or because there's no clear chain of authority by which to get valuable ideas in the right hands. But with BP's latest four-pronged plan remaining unproven, and estimates of company liability already reaching the tens of billions of dollars (and counting), supertankers start to look like a bargain.

The suck-and-salvage technique was developed in desperation across the Arabian Gulf following a spill of mammoth proportions — 700 million gallons — that has until now gone unreported, as Saudi Arabia is a closed society, and its oil company, Saudi Aramco, remains owned by the House of Saud. But in 1993 and into '94, with four leaking tankers and two gushing wells, the royal family had an environmental disaster nearly sixty-five times the size of Exxon Valdez on its hands, and it desperately needed a solution.

Pozzi, an American engineer then in charge of Saudi Aramco's east-west pipeline in the technical support and maintenance services division, was part of a team given cart blanche to control the blowout. Pozzi had dealt with numerous spills over the years without using chemicals, and had tried dumping flour into the oil, then scooping the resulting tar balls from the surface. "You ever cooked with flour? Absorbent, right?" Pozzi says. Next, he'd dumped straw into the spills; also highly absorbent, but then you've got a lot of straw to clean up. This spill was going to require a much larger, more sustained solution. And fast.

That's when Pozzi and his team came up with the idea of having empty ships park near the Saudi spill and pull the oil off the water. This part of the operation went on for six months, with the mop-up operations lasting for several years more. Pozzi says that 85 percent of the spilled oil was recovered, and it is precisely this strategy that he wants to see deployed in the Gulf of Mexico.

Yesterday, I spoke to Pozzi and his business partner, longtime Houston lawyer Jon King, about their proposed solution, and the difficulties they've encountered trying to assist in the disaster, with both BP and the government. While BP is attempting its very difficult maneuvers to contain the gusher at the source, they say, nothing is being done to adequately address the slick itself. Dispersant is being used by the ton, some of the oil is being burned, and there have been other efforts, which taken together, Pozzi likens to "a flea on an elephant's ass." The two men have been trying to rally support since just after the rig blew up, without much success. This has been typical of their experience:

JON KING: Well, we went down to the BP headquarters in Houma, Louisiana, and we didn't have an appointment so they wouldn't let us in. Then I called the president of BP and I talked to his secretary and she put me in touch with somebody, but the somebody she put me in touch with didn't know who we should talk to. Nick contacted a gentleman that he used to work with at BP, and he threatened to sue Nick for not going through channels. And I said, "Great. I'd love BP to sue us for trying to help them. That would be wonderful."

NICK POZZI: Keep in mind that what supertankers typically do is they sit in the middle of the ocean waiting for all the traders to come up with the right price. When they feel that the price is right, the tankers that are full, they take off, and they can be anywhere in the world in a few days. Right now there are probably 25 supertankers, waiting for orders, full of oil. So all they got to do is come to Texas, in the Gulf, unload the oil, and then turn around and suck up all this other stuff and pump it onto shore into on-shore storage. It's not rocket science. It's so simple. It's a Robinson Crusoe fix, but it works.

This past Monday, Pozzi and King spoke with Captain Ed Stanton, who is commanding the United States Coast Guard for much of the affected coastline. Stanton requested a quick proposal in writing, and said he would "take it up the chain of command." Below is the proposal, to which Pozzi and King are still awaiting a response.

From: Jon King
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 2:05 PM
To: Captain Ed Stanton
Cc: Nick Pozzi
Subject: Procedures Developed thru Lessons Learned
Re: Salt Water Clean-Up
Importance: High

Dear Captain Stanton,

Per your request this morning, this is to confirm our conversation with yourself, Mr. Nick Pozzi, and I.

My colleague, Nick Pozzi, has worked for over 40 years in the energy industry the majority with Saudi Aramco in the Middle East. During that time, Nick's team was part of the first responders that successfully cleaned similar sized spills of sweet and sour crude with the best technology available from the late 1980's thru the 1990's when he retired.

The primary equipment that was used to remove the crude from the Arabian Gulf was Super Tankers. The Super Tankers were used to store everything, run thru on-shore three-phase separators and sent to on-shore tank farms for additional clean up using centrifuges. The more the oil spreads the more tankers will be needed. Nick would be willing to provide a conceptual non-technical drawing to visualize this process.

This process not only cleaned up the ocean but it saved the local environment, minimized shoreline damage, and recovered approximately 85% of the crude oil. (Nick may be required to get permission from Saudi Aramco thru the Houston, Texas office in Sugar Land to provide you with any further details as to what information he is allowed to disclose to you regarding the various projects that he worked on.)

Nick does not know what the appropriate channels are to effectuate this process but feels, if asked, the Saudi Government may be willing to assist as he believes, that with the right calls, tankers could be on the scene in 2 days.

Please feel free to call Nick or I, if you need any additional information or have any questions.

Sincerely,

Jon King
Nick Pozzi

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/gulf-oil-spill-supertankers-051310#ixzz0rCcsgT1X

Blaze

06-18-2010, 07:33 AM

Ummmm... Ultra? Have you been in the bathroom too long????

BP sending more ships to remove siphoned oil
WASHINGTON
Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:05pm EDT
Related News
BP restarts oil capture after ship fire
Tue, Jun 15 2010
UPDATE 5-BP restarts oil capture after ship fire
Tue, Jun 15 2010
BP to have six ships to remove siphoned oil
Tue, Jun 15 2010
Euronav could benefit from BP spill - paper
Tue, Jun 15 2010
WRAPUP 12-BP accused of repeated shortcuts, Obama tours Gulf
Mon, Jun 14 2010
(Reuters) - BP said it will soon increase the number of ships collecting oil siphoned off from its ruptured undersea well, as the U.S. government urges the company to work faster to contain the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65E4A720100615

WASHINGTON, June 15 (UPI) -- BP suspended efforts temporarily Tuesday to contain the Gulf of Mexico oil spill following a fire on the derrick on the Discoverer Enterprise.

The ship is being used to hold oil siphoned from the broken well a mile beneath the gulf's surface that has been spewing oil since the BP-operated Deepwater Horizon drill rig exploded April 20, killing 11, and then sank two days later.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/06/15/UPI-NewsTrack-TopNews/UPI-30211276635600/

Blaze

06-18-2010, 08:50 AM

ULTRAMAN VH

06-19-2010, 09:25 AM

Blaze

06-19-2010, 10:27 AM

Well, perhaps, while Nickie was looking for a fan letter from the Capitan, I "feel", though I do "not know what the appropriate channels are to effectuate" the correct answer, "maybe" "if asked the" American "government", I "believe" is "willing to assist" this evening in providing actual time lines, when BP was sticking their clit over the rushing oil and saying what a good feeling they have.

Please feel free to call Nickie "Pozzi" or Don King, or 0'Jo

Nick does not know what the appropriate channels are to effectuate this process but feels, if asked, the Saudi Government may be willing to assist as he believes, that with the right calls, tankers could be on the scene in 2 days.

ULTRAMAN VH

06-19-2010, 02:18 PM

Keeping Up with the Jones Act

An old, protectionist chestnut is devastating the Gulf Coast.

As a self-proclaimed “citizen of the world,” Pres. Barack Obama should have welcomed rather than spurned international assistance to prevent BP’s underwater oil geyser from wrecking the Gulf Coast. But spurn he did. Obama’s failure to waive the Jones Act still maintains a sea wall that blocks potentially helpful foreign ships from this tear-inducing mess.

The 1920 Jones Act requires that vessels operating in American waters be built, owned, and manned by Americans. Some U.S. ship owners love this protectionist measure. So do maritime labor unions. When it comes to confronting unions, Obama rarely crosses that line.

On April 20, the Deepwater Horizon exploded, killed eleven oil-rig workers, and began gushing perhaps 60,000 barrels of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico daily. Three days later, the Dutch offered to sail to the rescue on ships bedecked with oil-skimming booms. They also had a plan for erecting protective sand barricades.

“The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’” Dutch consul general Geert Visser told the Houston Chronicle’s Loren Steffy. “What’s wrong with accepting outside help?” Visser wondered. “If there’s a country that’s experienced with building dikes and managing water, it’s the Netherlands.”

Had those Dutch ships departed for the Gulf nearly two months ago, who knows how much oil they already would have absorbed and how many pelicans now would soar rather than soak in soapy water while wildlife experts clean their wings.

After initially refusing to name them, the State Department on May 5 declared that Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Holland, Ireland, Mexico, Norway, Romania, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, the U.K., and the U.N. had offered skimmer boats and other assets and experts to prevent the oil from destroying dolphins, crabs, oysters, and this disaster’s other defenseless victims.

Alas, they were turned away.

“While there is no need right now that the U.S. cannot meet,” stated a State Department statement, “the U.S. Coast Guard is assessing these offers of assistance to see if there will be something which we will need in the near future.” Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin translated this into plain English: “The current message to foreign governments is: Thanks but no thanks, we’ve got it covered.”

Had Obama instead waived the Jones Act via executive order — as did Pres. George W. Bush three days after Hurricane Katrina — that S.O.S. would have summoned a global armada of mercy. Who knows how many fishing, shrimping, and seafood-processing jobs this would have saved? Instead, thousands of Gulf Coast workers will endure a long march from dormant docks to bustling unemployment lines.

Even now, Obama could invite the world to send boats to clean the waters off Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and (potentially) the Carolinas and points north, if this mass of oil (so far, roughly equal to 13 Exxon Valdez oil spills) seeps into the Loop Current, swerves around Key West, slips into the Gulf Stream, and slides up the Eastern Seaboard.

“If there is the need for any type of waiver, that would obviously be granted,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs promised on June 10. “But, we’ve not had that problem thus far in the Gulf.”

Problem? What problem?

The Jones Act sometimes gets waived. As Fox News Channel’s Brian Wilson reported on June 11: “According to a news article in Tradewinds Magazine, a US Customs official ruled recently that the Jones Act does not apply to foreign owned vessels installing wind turbines off the coast of Delaware.”

Meanwhile, as Obama respected this old, protectionist chestnut and its Big Labor beneficiaries, he had lots on his mind. As a GOP Internet ad devastatingly details, between Day One and Day 58 of this catastrophe, Obama met with Bono, rocked out with Sir Paul McCartney, and played six rounds of golf, among many other diversions. Yet Obama did not speak directly with BP CEO Tony Hayward until June 16.

Watching Obama’s Tuesday night Oval Office address, BP brass must have been startled to hear the president say: “I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company’s recklessness.”

Should BP pay, and pay big? Yes.

Reckless? BP sure seems so.

But since when does the American president “inform” executives that they must devote billions to any cause, no matter how worthy? Isn’t this why Congress passes legislation and courts administer justice?

So, while a pro-labor trade barrier traps potentially helpful boats in overseas ports, due process withers under presidential diktat.

And the crude oil keeps on flowing.

— Deroy Murdock is a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University.

Blaze

06-19-2010, 06:54 PM

What the article you posted is saying is that BP should not have to pay for the damages.
No, they should have to pay and pay until it bankrupts them if need be. Like any other business this is what happens when one does not have a plan in place.
Companies pay for their own errors.

the question really lies in, should BP be forced to accept no bid contracts for the spill. Yes. If it was the government paying, I would say no.

Should the government simply employ any means necessary and do the job, then bill BP. Perhaps. People and companies get billed for emergency responses all the time when their foolishness causes a threat or response.

Though we are bitching about the Feds turning away assistance, legally they may have no ability to accept or deny it. And if BP does not file requests to ask for an exemption no exemption can be made.

I am still on Tuesday of last week's news updates, After I catch up, my opinion might change.

I DO feel it is within the states rights to accept foreign help form any one they see fit. Venezuela provided oil and gas for some areas during 2005. Not only is it within their right but their best interest.

Each of those coastlines fund a large % of each of those states budgets. The coast line is not a State unto itself. And though their neighbors are important, one cannot save one's neighbor until they save themselves.
Florida as a whole might not give a damn about the northern intra-coastal beaches. They have plenty of other beaches and coastlines.