Foreign oil sucker ships [28 countries] still not allowed in

lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=547385

Many foreign offers to help with oil spill still hanging, website indicates

Press-Register [Mobile, AL], by Sean Reilly

Original Article

blog.al.com/live/2010/06/many_foreign_offers_to_help_wi.html

Posted: 6/19/2010 2:05:38 PM

Washington — Some 28 foreign countries and international organizations have offered help in responding to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, but the bulk of those overtures remain "under consideration," according to a tally posted on the U.S. State Department's website. On May 10, for example, the United Arab Emirates offered to send oil skimmers, dispersant and containment boom, along with human and technical support, the website says. As of Friday, no decision had been made on any of those propositions, the site indicates. Also pending for more than a month are offers of containment boom and skimmers

Comments:
The plan: let the spill get so far out of control that we'll give a meek OK when they ram "green, sustainable, clean energy" down our throats.

It's the same tactic they've used for years with so-called Guest Workers: allow the problem to get so out of control that we'll give a meek OK to "comprehensive amnesty."

Here is the U.S. State Dept's Web site for the foreign oil sucker ship listing:

state.gov/documents/organization/143488.pdf

Considering the hundreds of rigs in the Gulf, a plan should have been in place if and when something like this happened. It is inconceiveable that Obama is unable to act unless he chooses not to act. If he can’t get it together over this, what would he do if the US was attacked.

Could the Gulf states bring a joint suit against him and the Federal government for failure to act? Could AZ do the same citing his inability to protect our borders ?

[quote="Monte_RCMS, post:1, topic:202520"]
lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=547385

Many foreign offers to help with oil spill still hanging, website indicates

Press-Register [Mobile, AL], by Sean Reilly

Original Article

blog.al.com/live/2010/06/many_foreign_offers_to_help_wi.html

Posted: 6/19/2010 2:05:38 PM

Washington — Some 28 foreign countries and international organizations have offered help in responding to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, but the bulk of those overtures remain "under consideration," according to a tally posted on the U.S. State Department's website. On May 10, for example, the United Arab Emirates offered to send oil skimmers, dispersant and containment boom, along with human and technical support, the website says. As of Friday, no decision had been made on any of those propositions, the site indicates. Also pending for more than a month are offers of containment boom and skimmers

Comments:
The plan: let the spill get so far out of control that we'll give a meek OK when they ram "green, sustainable, clean energy" down our throats.

It's the same tactic they've used for years with so-called Guest Workers: allow the problem to get so out of control that we'll give a meek OK to "comprehensive amnesty."

Here is the U.S. State Dept's Web site for the foreign oil sucker ship listing:

state.gov/documents/organization/143488.pdf

[/quote]

Yeh, who the hell wants green, sustainable, clean energy? It's our right to sit in our own mess if we want to!

The article doesn't explain why most of the offers of aid have not been accepted. It does mention in one case that chemicals banned in the US would be used. And, in an earlier article posted in this forum, many oil skimmers operate by returning a certain percentage of oil back to the water, which is also banned in the US.

Its frustrating to hear of offers of aid, but not know why the offers haven't been accepted. It seems in some cases federal laws or regulations are barriers. But it would be nice if the news media would provide more in depth explanation.

Dinner with a group of engineers the other night who brought up some of the drawbacks to the alternatives. None said we shouldn’t advance with these products, but these alternatives have problems too which have not been discusssed in the media.

Let’s keep in mind that whatever is used for fuel, we still will need petroleum for the plastic, pharmaceutical, cosmetic and a host of other industries.

Solar energy…what do you do with the batteries? The hazardous materials in them are mercury, lead, lithium etc. Where are we to dispose of them? Got the same problem with the new lightbulbs which contain mercury.

Windmills…these giants apparently do not run if it gets too cold or if there is too much wind. Check below re. Minnesota.

The second article discusses the size of these monsters weighing in at 160 tons, the number of birds killed, and the number of jobs created after they’re up and running…that would be two jobs.

hotair.com/archives/2010/01/30/minnesota-wind-turbines-wont-work-in-cold-weather/

wind-watch.org/news/2010/02/02/costs-of-windmills-are-too-great/

[quote="aicirt, post:5, topic:202520"]
Dinner with a group of engineers the other night who brought up some of the drawbacks to the alternatives. None said we shouldn't advance with these products, but these alternatives have problems too which have not been discusssed in the media.

Let's keep in mind that whatever is used for fuel, we still will need petroleum for the plastic, pharmaceutical, cosmetic and a host of other industries.

Solar energy.....what do you do with the batteries? The hazardous materials in them are mercury, lead, lithium etc. Where are we to dispose of them? Got the same problem with the new lightbulbs which contain mercury.

Windmills.....these giants apparently do not run if it gets too cold or if there is too much wind. Check below re. Minnesota.

The second article discusses the size of these monsters weighing in at 160 tons, the number of birds killed, and the number of jobs created after they're up and running....that would be two jobs.

hotair.com/archives/2010/01/30/minnesota-wind-turbines-wont-work-in-cold-weather/

wind-watch.org/news/2010/02/02/costs-of-windmills-are-too-great/

[/quote]

I have no argument with anything you've written and certainly agree that all sources of energy have their own problems. Nevertheless, as your engineer friends said, green, clean and sustainable energy is still a worthy goal to pursue. I don't think we should fear green, clean and sustainable energy simply because it is a goal pursued by environmentalists.

We are our own worst enemy. Read here about the US refusing foreign help because of a 1920"s law which included the Jones Act.

liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/10/jones-act-slowing-oil-spill-cleanup/

"Cause this is a big thing for unions,” Carafano said. “The unions see it as … protecting jobs. They hate when the Jones Act gets waived, and they pound on politicians when they do that. So … are we giving in to unions and not doing everything we can, or is there some kind of impediment that we don’t know about?

If we waive the Jones Act, we could accept the much-neede help and greatly reduce the disasterous effects of the spill on coastal areas.

[quote="bcarson, post:7, topic:202520"]

"Cause this is a big thing for unions,” Carafano said. “The unions see it as … protecting jobs. They hate when the Jones Act gets waived, and they pound on politicians when they do that. So … are we giving in to unions and not doing everything we can, or is there some kind of impediment that we don't know about?

[/quote]

Carafano is speculating about union influence. The Jones Act does not require union labor, but does require that ships operating between US ports be US flagged, and US crewed.

The Jones Act as a barrier is an interesting twist. I hope that waivers to it will be expedited, if that is the only thing barring help from foreign countries.

We have an EMERGENCY.

The offered devices are less than perfect.

So we are not going to use them.

What if there was a fire and fire trucks were not used because not every fire hose on every truck could be brought to bear on the fire? Would that be “less than logical” ? **

[quote="aicirt, post:5, topic:202520"]
Dinner with a group of engineers the other night who brought up some of the drawbacks to the alternatives. None said we shouldn't advance with these products, but these alternatives have problems too which have not been discusssed in the media.

Let's keep in mind that whatever is used for fuel, we still will need petroleum for the plastic, pharmaceutical, cosmetic and a host of other industries.

Solar energy.....what do you do with the batteries? The hazardous materials in them are mercury, lead, lithium etc. Where are we to dispose of them? Got the same problem with the new lightbulbs which contain mercury.

Windmills.....these giants apparently do not run if it gets too cold or if there is too much wind. Check below re. Minnesota.

The second article discusses the size of these monsters weighing in at 160 tons, the number of birds killed, and the number of jobs created after they're up and running....that would be two jobs.

hotair.com/archives/2010/01/30/minnesota-wind-turbines-wont-work-in-cold-weather/

wind-watch.org/news/2010/02/02/costs-of-windmills-are-too-great/

[/quote]

Lol! Well, don't tell the tree-huggers.

Click Here: Earth First Members crying over dead trees

(Peace, Love, and Bobby Sherman!)

God Bless.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

QUOTE=Tsuwano;6763188]Yeh, who the hell wants green, sustainable, clean energy? It’s our right to sit in our own mess if we want to!

What’s wrong with having BOTH? That way, fewer of us will starve. Are you aware that people are really beginning to suffer from all of the **** going on? Or is it you just don’t care?

Try a little sarcasm next time.

The unions may have no jobs to protect in that part of the country if something is not done. When something like this happens, stupid and bureaucratic laws need to be waived in order to get a handle on things. And this is the administration some want to run the healthcare in this country. Down right scary.

You know what’s downright scary? That the same people who wanted corporations to run health care unfettered, now can’t admit that those corporations are only better than the government at one thing: making money! Maybe we can fix that pesky “not enough to go around” problem by finding a BP for the health sector…

As for the stupid, bureaucratic laws - ever heard of the cure sometimes being worse than the disease? Now is not the time for knee jerk decisions that may or may not help the situation.

[quote="Monte_RCMS, post:9, topic:202520"]
We have an EMERGENCY.

The offered devices are less than perfect.

So we are not going to use them.

What if there was a fire and fire trucks were not used because not every fire hose on every truck could be brought to bear on the fire? Would that be "less than logical" ? **
I agree, and am frustrated both by the inaction, and the lack of explanation/justification for the inaction.

[/quote]

If this comes to pass (intriguing article below)---the oil in the Gulf will pale in comparison:

How the ultimate BP Gulf disaster could kill millions

...you won't be reading posts from DawnInTexas anymore, that's for sure!

150-200 ft. wave. 400-600 mph.

I'll be watching Y'all from the other side of the Veil.

God Bless.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

[quote="Ceil-1, post:11, topic:202520"]

[/quote]

What's wrong with having BOTH? That way, fewer of us will starve. Are you aware that people are really beginning to suffer from all of the **** going on? Or is it you just don't care?

Try a little sarcasm next time.

Sarcasm is lost on those who don't understand it, so I suppose I shouldn't have used it in my original post. The fact is that I do care about what is going on very much. Indeed, I have family in Louisiana who are directly connected with the oil spill and its effects. This is why I think it is ridiculous to assume that there is some great plan on the part of the government or some vast left wing conspiracy to allow the Gulf oil spill to get so out of control that green, clean and sustainable energy is rammed down our throats, as the original post in this thread seemed to suggest. There is absolutely nothing wrong with pursuing green, clean and sustainable energy and we should not associate that pursuit with some ideology which would prevent us from doing the research and taking the steps to make such energy available. Clean energy is no more left wing than oil spills are right wing. Now, I hope that is clearer to you than my sarcasm and you can now calm down.

Its not a matter of either/or. I don’t think anyone doesn’t want sustainable energy. But what’s being proposed as “green, sustainable energy” is in fact not yet even readily available and is instead the government ramming down our throats. As for all of this being some “vast left-wing conspiracy”, it was Rahm Emmanuel who said, “never let a crisis go to waste” so there you go. I think its the height of naivete to think the Obama administration wouldn’t use the oil spill to further their narrow agenda.

Obama ni damasarenai yo ni ki o tsukete…

Ishii

"Breaking: Obama Administration Only Accepted Help From 5 Countries Out of 28 That Offered Assistance

Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, June 19, 2010, 3:30 PM

Just last weekend Barack Obama announced that the BP oil spill was like 9-11.
This weekend as President Obama went golfing and to the ballgame, the Obama State Department was STILL in the review process on deciding which countries the US would
accept help from… 60 days after the disaster

As the Gulf Coast shores continue to be coated with crude, the Obama Administration has only accepted assistance from 5 countries out of 28 who offered to assist the US with the cleanup.

The State Department posted this on their website.
28 countries have offered to help assist the United States with the worst environmental disaster in American history. Only 5 offers have been accepted the rest are under review.!"…

gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/06/breaking-obama-administration-only-accepted-help-from-5-countries-out-of-28-that-offered-assistance/

So, your position is that there is indeed a conspiracy of some sort being perpetuated by the Obama Administration to allow the Gulf oil spill to reach such porportions that the administration, led by Rahm Emmanuel, will then be able to “ram” green, clean and sustainable energy “down the throats” of the American public? And they are doing this at the risk of losing essential votes should such a conspiracy come to light in the 2012 presidential elections? Well, I certainly agree that we should be careful not to be fooled by President Obama, but I also think we should not allow ourselves to be fooled by our own ideological and political bias, especially if that bias prevents us from continuing research on cleaner methods of fulfilling future energy needs. I agree with Mr. Emmanuel that we should not let this crisis go to waste. We should use this crisis and the suffering it has engendered to spur us to greater effort to find new and better solutions to for our energy problems.

As a general rule, it always pays to actually think before taking any form of action, so the idea of reviewing offers seems quite reasonable. From what I’ve heard, one or more of those countries use chemicals that are banned in the US (are they toxic, shouldn’t that be reviewed?) or spew oil back into the sea (somewhere else?) after sucking it up.

A drowning man will clutch at a straw but he had better make sure it is a straw and not a stick of explosives…

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.