BP oil disaster: Who made it that way?
in [Technical]
|
Prev: 2000 Mazda Protege ES: Might need air conditioner clutch. Remove AC instead
Next: Toyota recalling, halting sales of Lexus HS250h in US
From: cuhulin on 2 Jul 2010 09:26 Breaking: Obama shuts down 33% of the country's oil refining capacity http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=292114 cuhulin
From: hls on 2 Jul 2010 14:32 "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote in message news:yqqdnYLIOuKUArHRnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d(a)bright.net... > > > hls wrote: >> >> "Tegger" <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote in message n >> > But the primary point here is the absolutely moronic refusal of the US >> > government to allow ANY oil recovery AT ALL except by actually removing >> > the water from the Gulf and placing it in an on-shore storage facility. >> >> > Tegger >> Well, hell, if that is the only item of disagreement, we dont disagree at >> all. > > You and any number of fools can agree with any nonsense you want to > but your agreeing doesn't make any of it true. The statement that "the > US government is refusing to allow ANY oil recovery AT ALL except by > actually removing the water from the Gulf and placing it in an on-shore > storage facility." is simply not true. Whatever you say, Jim
From: Tegger on 2 Jul 2010 15:40 "hls" <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote in news:3pudnc1v-fhSrbPRnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com: > > "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote in message > news:yqqdnYLIOuKUArHRnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d(a)bright.net... >> >> >> hls wrote: >>> >>> "Tegger" <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote in message n >>> > But the primary point here is the absolutely moronic refusal of >>> > the US government to allow ANY oil recovery AT ALL except by >>> > actually removing the water from the Gulf and placing it in an >>> > on-shore storage facility. >>> >>> > Tegger >>> Well, hell, if that is the only item of disagreement, we dont >>> disagree at all. >> >> You and any number of fools can agree with any nonsense you want to >> but your agreeing doesn't make any of it true. The statement that >> "the US government is refusing to allow ANY oil recovery AT ALL >> except by actually removing the water from the Gulf and placing it in >> an on-shore storage facility." is simply not true. > > Whatever you say, Jim > > US law requires that any water removed from the Gulf must have 15ppm, or less, of any pollutants when returned to the Gulf. In other words, water taken must be 99.9985% pure, or it can't be put back. The US lacks any of its own shipboard equipment that is capable of doing an on-board clean of water to such purity. As a consequence, oily water had to be removed to an on-shore facility that /is/ capable of purifying water to the degree required. This means that the recovery ships cover about ten times the mileage the Dutch ships would cover, and clean a tiny fraction of the water the Dutch ships could, if allowed to. Not only environmental law stands in the way. So does the Jones Act, which places restrictions on foreign vessels from operating in US waters. The government didn't want to temporarily waive that law for the sake of the environment. Says a lot about the mindset of those in charge of the country, doesn't it? -- Tegger
From: jim on 2 Jul 2010 15:55 hls wrote: > > "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote in message > news:yqqdnYLIOuKUArHRnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d(a)bright.net... > > > > > > hls wrote: > >> > >> "Tegger" <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote in message n > >> > But the primary point here is the absolutely moronic refusal of the US > >> > government to allow ANY oil recovery AT ALL except by actually removing > >> > the water from the Gulf and placing it in an on-shore storage facility. > >> > >> > Tegger > >> Well, hell, if that is the only item of disagreement, we dont disagree at > >> all. > > > > You and any number of fools can agree with any nonsense you want to > > but your agreeing doesn't make any of it true. The statement that "the > > US government is refusing to allow ANY oil recovery AT ALL except by > > actually removing the water from the Gulf and placing it in an on-shore > > storage facility." is simply not true. > > Whatever you say, Jim It has nothing to do with what I say. The prohibition of dumping oil into the sea is governed by International treaties: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=258&doc_id=678 According to international marine law the regulations for Dutch simmers are the same in Europe as they are in the Gulf of Mexico. The USCG enforces the MARPOL regulations in US waters. The Coast Guard has issued a directive back in May that skimmers in the Gulf may return water back into the sea. The rule is that as long as it is discharged in front of the skimmer it won't be considered a violation of Marpol regulations. -jim
From: jim on 2 Jul 2010 16:09
Tegger wrote: > > "hls" <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote in > news:3pudnc1v-fhSrbPRnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com: > > > > > "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote in message > > news:yqqdnYLIOuKUArHRnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d(a)bright.net... > >> > >> > >> hls wrote: > >>> > >>> "Tegger" <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote in message n > >>> > But the primary point here is the absolutely moronic refusal of > >>> > the US government to allow ANY oil recovery AT ALL except by > >>> > actually removing the water from the Gulf and placing it in an > >>> > on-shore storage facility. > >>> > >>> > Tegger > >>> Well, hell, if that is the only item of disagreement, we dont > >>> disagree at all. > >> > >> You and any number of fools can agree with any nonsense you want to > >> but your agreeing doesn't make any of it true. The statement that > >> "the US government is refusing to allow ANY oil recovery AT ALL > >> except by actually removing the water from the Gulf and placing it in > >> an on-shore storage facility." is simply not true. > > > > Whatever you say, Jim > > > > > > US law requires that any water removed from the Gulf must have 15ppm, or > less, of any pollutants when returned to the Gulf. In other words, water > taken must be 99.9985% pure, or it can't be put back. Or so you imagine. > > The US lacks any of its own shipboard equipment that is capable of doing an > on-board clean of water to such purity. As a consequence, oily water had to > be removed to an on-shore facility that /is/ capable of purifying water to > the degree required. This means that the recovery ships cover about ten > times the mileage the Dutch ships would cover, and clean a tiny fraction of > the water the Dutch ships could, if allowed to. They are allowed. The Dutch skimmers are in the Gulf right now. But guess what? Their performance is not anywhere near as good as you claimed. > > Not only environmental law stands in the way. So does the Jones Act, which > places restrictions on foreign vessels from operating in US waters. This is more made up fiction. The Jones act requires requires US shipping to move goods from one US port to another US port. Lots of foreign ships operate in US waters every day. Only a loon would misconstrue the removal of oil from the gulf as moving goods from one port to another. It is obvious you don't even know what the Jones Act is. It has no effect on the clean up in the gulf. > The > government didn't want to temporarily waive that law for the sake of the > environment. Says a lot about the mindset of those in charge of the > country, doesn't it? It might say something, if any of that were true. But it isn't true. -jim |