Editorial: Prevention should be spill...

Editorial: Prevention should be spill focus, not response

There are 38 comments on the Public Opinion story from Jul 16, 2010, titled Editorial: Prevention should be spill focus, not response. In it, Public Opinion reports that:

While it's good to see our own U.S. Rep. Bill Shuster taking an active role in introducing new legislation, we have to question the logic of his most recent proposal.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Public Opinion.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Dan the Man

Waynesboro, PA

#22 Jul 17, 2010
Currently, 15 foreign-flagged vessels are involved in the largest response to an oil spill in U.S. history. No Jones Act waivers have been granted because none of these vessels have required such a waiver to conduct their operations in the Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/do...
Dan the Man

Waynesboro, PA

#23 Jul 17, 2010
Oil Spill, Foreign Help and the Jones Act

Q: Did Obama turn down foreign offers of assistance in cleaning up the Gulf oil spill? Did he refuse to waive Jones Act restrictions on foreign-flag vessels?

A: No to both questions. So far, offers from six foreign countries or entities have been accepted and only one offer has been rejected. Fifteen foreign-flag vessels are working on the cleanup, and none required a waiver.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/oil-spill-fo...
Dan the Man

Waynesboro, PA

#24 Jul 17, 2010
In reality, the Jones Act has yet to be an issue in the response efforts. The Deepwater Horizon response team reported in a June 15 press release that there are 15 foreign flagged ships currently participating in the oil spill cleanup. None of them needed a waiver because the Jones Act does not apply.

The Jones Act is a trade and commerce law that was enacted in 1920 as part of a larger Marine Merchant Act. It requires all trade delivered between U.S. ports to be carried in U.S. flagged vessels constructed in the United States and owned by American citizens. The law states its purpose is to develop a merchant marine for national defense and commerce.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/oil-spill-fo...
LIL JOHN

Landisburg, PA

#25 Jul 17, 2010
Dan the Man wrote:
Currently, 15 foreign-flagged vessels are involved in the largest response to an oil spill in U.S. history. No Jones Act waivers have been granted because none of these vessels have required such a waiver to conduct their operations in the Gulf of Mexico.
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/do...
''''The Coast Guard said there have been 107 offers of help from 44 nations''' I POSTED EARLIER!

AND YOU HAVE THE GALL TO POST THIS TRASH? lololllllll

AND ONLY 15 ARE OPERATING IN THE GULF! WHERE ARE THE REST?
LIL JOHN

Landisburg, PA

#26 Jul 17, 2010
Administration officials turned down generous (and repeated) offers from the Dutch to send a fleet of ships designed specifically to clean water after spills. They allegedly offered the vessels free of charge but the Administration declined the assistance for weeks.

Three days after the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico began on April 20, the Netherlands told the Administration that it has vessels that can clean 400 cubic metres per hour, according to Weird Koops, the chairman of Spill Response Group Holland (presumably, he was not turned down because his first name is weird).
It has been charged that, because the boats return only 99.9985% pure water to the ocean, it was not sufficiently clean for the EPA. Instead, the U.S. has been collecting oil tainted water for cleaning as opposed to the Dutch that can the water and return it on site.

According to this report, when the Administration finally relented, they still barred the Dutch ships and took the equipment for retrofitting on U.S. ships
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/07/01/dutch-tr...
Dave

Newville, PA

#27 Jul 18, 2010
LIL JOHN wrote:
<quoted text>
'''We have foreign vessels dock at US Ports all the time.'''
That shows us the level of ignorance you have!
The jones act deals with foreign ships and crews ''working'' in our waters ,,, NOT coming to out ports..
Do you know the difference between transiting out waters and working our waters? Apparently not!
The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (P.L. 66-261) is a United States Federal statute that regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports.
Section 27, also known as the Jones Act, deals with cabotage (i.e., coastal shipping) and requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents. The purpose of the law is to support the U.S. Maritime industry
only a small number have been accepted
''''The Coast Guard said there have been 107 offers of help from 44 nations, ranging from technical advice to skimmer boats and booms. But many of those offers are weeks old, and only a small number have been accepted, with the vast majority still under review, according to a list kept by the State Department''''
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/02/gulf...
Under review is a Euphemism for NO!
That not what Grumpy said was it. Get a grip, John Boy, & wait making up stuff to argue about.

I know what the Jones Act is about.

However, now the Jones Act has become an identify character for freakin right wing idiots.
Dave

Newville, PA

#28 Jul 18, 2010
LIL JOHN wrote:
Administration officials turned down generous (and repeated) offers from the Dutch to send a fleet of ships designed specifically to clean water after spills. They allegedly offered the vessels free of charge but the Administration declined the assistance for weeks.
Three days after the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico began on April 20, the Netherlands told the Administration that it has vessels that can clean 400 cubic metres per hour, according to Weird Koops, the chairman of Spill Response Group Holland (presumably, he was not turned down because his first name is weird).
It has been charged that, because the boats return only 99.9985% pure water to the ocean, it was not sufficiently clean for the EPA. Instead, the U.S. has been collecting oil tainted water for cleaning as opposed to the Dutch that can the water and return it on site.
According to this report, when the Administration finally relented, they still barred the Dutch ships and took the equipment for retrofitting on U.S. ships
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/07/01/dutch-tr...
"it has been charged" By whom, Rush Limbaugh.

You post a opinion piece again & treat is as fact.

Why would the EPA have a problem discharging water that pure - that's pure than most water treatment plants, more pure than most drinking water.
Grumpy

Shermans Dale, PA

#29 Jul 18, 2010
Don't argue with Dave. he doesn't know his arse from third base and keeps proving it with his inane posts straight from the Obama propaganda machine. Her has no idea what the Jones act says but will insist that his version of the lie is truth. Frankly the spill is so massive that the skimmers would have been like trying to put out a forest fire with a teacup but the left will never admit that their fearless leader isn't 100% correct 100% of the time.
Dave

Newville, PA

#30 Jul 18, 2010
Grumpy wrote:
Don't argue with Dave. he doesn't know his **** from third base and keeps proving it with his inane posts straight from the Obama propaganda machine. Her has no idea what the Jones act says but will insist that his version of the lie is truth. Frankly the spill is so massive that the skimmers would have been like trying to put out a forest fire with a teacup but the left will never admit that their fearless leader isn't 100% correct 100% of the time.
Don't argue with Grumps. He says outlandish things like Clinton created NAFTA & foreign ships aren't allowed to dock at our ports.

Then he cries, stomps his feet, and calls you a liar when you show him he is wrong.
Grumpy

Shermans Dale, PA

#31 Jul 18, 2010
What I said was that the Jones Act prevents foreign flag ships from operating inside US waters. I said nothing about transiting to a port to offload or onload cargo. The left distorts the truth far better than they can read.
numbers

Dublin, Ireland

#32 Jul 18, 2010
Kenneth wrote:
The P.O. editorial board never, ever misses a chance to slap a Republican. Bill Shuster is a frequent target for the P.O. Whenever he does anything, anything, there's a P.O. editorial to knock it. What has not been seen is a P.O. editorial criticizing any of the numerous bad policies of the Obama regime. To do so would get frowns from Media News Group folks in Denver.
In fairness there isn't a lot about Shuster for the P.O. editorial board to "knock" as he rarely does anything!
numbers

Dublin, Ireland

#33 Jul 18, 2010
Emil wrote:
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said it's not clear that the administration has a solid strategy for prevailing. The committee's top Republican, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, decried "a lack of clarity" about U.S. war goals. Let's be clear:
Obozo is in way over his inexperienced head. The Chicago community organizer is a flaming failure as chief executive of the United States. The world now realizes it.
Actually he's rather well liked over here! Mind you we don't see things as clearly as you do there.
Allen

Chambersburg, PA

#34 Jul 18, 2010
numbers wrote:
<quoted text>Actually he's rather well liked over here! Mind you we don't see things as clearly as you do there.
You probably see them more clearly than the redneck locals around here. Remember, "you have Pittsburg and Philadelphia, and rest pretty much looks like Alabama." Sorry Alabama!
numbers

Dublin, Ireland

#35 Jul 18, 2010
Grumpy wrote:
Don't argue with Dave. he doesn't know his **** from third base and keeps proving it with his inane posts straight from the Obama propaganda machine. Her has no idea what the Jones act says but will insist that his version of the lie is truth. Frankly the spill is so massive that the skimmers would have been like trying to put out a forest fire with a teacup but the left will never admit that their fearless leader isn't 100% correct 100% of the time.
So why your earlier preoccupation with the Jones Act?
Grumpy

Shermans Dale, PA

#36 Jul 18, 2010
Are all you leftists idiots? One of your fellow travelers brought up the Jones act as not having had any impact on the gulf oil spill operations because the countries who offered help wanted us to pay for the assistance. He was wrong, as usual, on both counts but continues to insist that he knows all about the Jones act. Just as he knows all about everything that ever comes up here.
Dave

Newville, PA

#37 Jul 18, 2010
Grumpy wrote:
What I said was that the Jones Act prevents foreign flag ships from operating inside US waters. I said nothing about transiting to a port to offload or onload cargo. The left distorts the truth far better than they can read.
Still scrambling. So now operating in US waters now does not mean delivering & picking up cargo by foreign owned vessels?

Foreign vessels do this every day. They can not pick up & delivery goods from one US port to another US port.

Instead of just saying that you meant us goods between US ports, you just keep digging yourself deeper & deeper.

Like trying to pin the creation of Nafta on Clinton.
numbers

Ireland

#38 Jul 18, 2010
Grumpy wrote:
Are all you leftists idiots? One of your fellow travelers brought up the Jones act as not having had any impact on the gulf oil spill operations because the countries who offered help wanted us to pay for the assistance. He was wrong, as usual, on both counts but continues to insist that he knows all about the Jones act. Just as he knows all about everything that ever comes up here.
I'm sorry. I'm sure the Jones Act is very important to you. However you do seem to be a bit unhinged about the whole issue don't you think? Maybe when you calm down you could explain yourself a bit more rationally.
Blah

Chambersburg, PA

#39 Jul 19, 2010
Wonderful discussion...about as worth-while as standing on an oil ladden beach wringing ones hands.

First, it's ironic that Matt would be arguing against a larger beauracracy, he's never had that problem before.

What is needed ISN'T more beauracracy. It's tighter enforcement and monitoring of current regulations. Updated as needed, absolutely.

Didn't BP have an emergency response plan for just such an instance as happened? Need anyone tell you that it didn't work? Who approved such a plan?

BP is responsible for this on-going disaster, but there is plenty of blame to go around, and all this discussion of the Jones Act is a side show.

I haven't read Shuster's Bill (probably full of loop holes for the industry, the leopard can't completely change his spots), but isn't it telling he would propose it at all, election year or not?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hollidaysburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: Home Solutions Of PA (Mar '13) Apr 6 Hsl sales person 29
Glendale Yearound. For Gods sake stay away from... (Apr '15) Apr 4 Wayno 14
News I am the forgotten Daughter of Randy Kagarise (Apr '06) Apr 2 Brandy DiClaudio 3
Review: Penn View Suites (Oct '13) Mar '17 R94matt 11
A Chat Area just for Altoona (Aug '06) Feb '17 dwhite1250 230
News Man Bitten By Snake In Car After Sale (Aug '11) Feb '17 Phart Starts Now 13
Best bar in altoona (May '16) Feb '17 CodeTaIker 15

Hollidaysburg Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Hollidaysburg Mortgages