Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Giant oil skimmer makes stop in Norfolk on way to Gulf oil cleanup

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mhc_70

Originally posted by justadood
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


Is that the only law standing in their way? I'm not trying to defend "Obama", by the way. My point is let's discuss the specific laws and issues, and do away with the "Obama wants this to happen" speculation.

I'm more interested in defending the limitations of the office of Executive Chief, being a fan of Democracy, and all.

Perhaps you prefer the trains run on time.


Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this exempt ships, responded to an oil spill, from the Jones Act?


"§ 55113. Use of foreign documented oil spill response vessels "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an oil spill response vessel documented under the laws of a foreign country may operate in waters of the United States on an emergency and temporary basis, for the purpose of recovering, transporting,
and unloading in a United States port oil discharged as a result of an oil spill in or near those waters, if--
"(1) an adequate number and type of oil spill response vessels documented under the laws of the United States cannot be engaged to recover oil from an oil spill in or near those waters in a timely manner, as determined by the Federal On-Scene Coordinator for a discharge or threat of a discharge of oil; and
"(2) the foreign country has by its laws accorded to vessels of the United States the same privileges accorded to vessels of the foreign country under this section.



www.1800jonesact.com...





[edit on 27-6-2010 by mhc_70]


Yes looks good too me! Let the ship through and the lawyers argue. You better do something instead of talking about democracy! Martial law is more appropriate now....Much of this damage could have been averted with help from other countries! But America knows best! only 54% pay taxes unemployment over 20%, HUGE Government that is worthless. I won't mention how The Taliban is winning and Iraq is out of control! Iran probably has a bomb so too late on that one!

so what you have now is

BYE BYE GOM!

Funny thing is a hurricane may actually help mix-up the oil and lessen shoreline impact= it's true!




posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

GULFPORT, Miss. — A morning flight over the Mississippi Sound showed long, wide ribbons of orange-colored oil for as far as the eye could see and acres of both heavy and light sheen moving into the Sound between the barrier islands. What was missing was any sign of skimming operations from Horn Island to Pass Christian.

U.S. Rep. Gene Taylor got off the flight angry.

"It’s criminal what’s going on out there," Taylor said minutes later. "This doesn’t have to happen.”

A scientist onboard, Mike Carron with the Northern Gulf Institute, said with this scenario, there will be oil on the beaches of the mainland.

“There’s oil in the Sound and there was no skimming,” Carron said. “No coordinated effort.”

Taylor said it was a good thing he didn’t have a mic in the helicopter, because he might have said some things he didn’t want his children to hear.

“They’re paying all these boats to run around like headless chickens,” Taylor said, as reporters gathered to hear his assessment of the Sound.

Read more: www.mcclatchydc.com...


www.mcclatchydc.com...


"It’s criminal what’s going on out there," Taylor said minutes later. "This doesn’t have to happen.”

[edit on 023030p://bSunday2010 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jeffrybinladen
 


Spoken like a true American! Screw them stoopid laws! FULL STEAM AHEAD!

Come, now.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by In nothing we trust
 





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.


This thang won't be carrying goods BETWEEN U.S. PORTS, sounds like it will merely be skimming up oil/water and dropping it off at a single port. Sounds like that Section 27 is only relevant to port-to-port shipping in the US, which this operation is not.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


And this proves, what? That Taylor is running for office?

I'm sorry, but i dont see any specific solutions presented in your link. Just more finger-pointing.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   

The real money is in the use of dispersements.
NALCO is based in Chicago with subsidiaries in Brazil, Russia, India, China and Indonesia. "


Oil dispersant manufacturer NALCO is associated with Exelon
which was Rahm Emanuel's first big deal on Wall Street,
and with ComEd -for which Axelrod did the PR which Bill Ayers' father was CEO.
ComED & Exelon are connected to NALCO through UChicago Argonne and Fermilab.
UCHICAGO ARGONNE, LLC--Stimulus Contract: $163,724,912.00 DOE May 22, 2009


www.nachumlist.com...



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Now you're really discrediting yourself...

second line



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by justadood
reply to post by jeffrybinladen
 


Spoken like a true American! Screw them stoopid laws! FULL STEAM AHEAD!

Come, now.
Not American and grateful for this! the Kingdom had this problem and fixed it with money NOT LAWS!

also you follow me around all the time like a lost dog, I try only to help so don't blame me, blame the president and your leaders!

I'ts almost as if the whole USA is smoking marijuana with this gom disgrace.

instead of

drill here drill now

the mantra should be

TRY ANYTHING AND TRY IT NOW

Ok so i'll the LAW ABIDING american puppets wander around in the dark for the rest of the day...... That will help the surface oil from making landfall NO?



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by jeffrybinladen
 


how are you the same guy who gave us this thread?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh, right, it was info you copied and pasted from somewhere else.

GoodBye, troll.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Divinorumus
reply to post by In nothing we trust
 





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.


This thang won't be carrying goods BETWEEN U.S. PORTS, sounds like it will merely be skimming up oil/water and dropping it off at a single port. Sounds like that Section 27 is only relevant to port-to-port shipping in the US, which this operation is not.


So a foriegn flagged vessel will be allowed to come in, remove American oil and take it's cargo to a foriegn land?

That oil rightfully belongs to Americans not foriegners.


[edit on 27-6-2010 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 



Regarding how many days has it been? Do you remember the other Gulf oil spill from 1979? That was in less than 300ft of water and took 9 months for the oil to stop flowing. Now the water is deeper and the drill is deeper into the earth....God only knows how long it will take before the oil stops flowing, if ever.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by rangersdad
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 



Regarding how many days has it been? Do you remember the other Gulf oil spill from 1979? That was in less than 300ft of water and took 9 months for the oil to stop flowing. Now the water is deeper and the drill is deeper into the earth....God only knows how long it will take before the oil stops flowing, if ever.


Yes, I remember, and I realize it is an enormous undertaking.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Hundreds of Oil Skimmers NOT Being Used in Gulf

June 26, 2010
www.publiusforum.com...

-By Warner Todd Huston

Ken Marrero alerted me to this video of Florida Senator George LeMieux alerting the world that there are hundreds of oil skimmers across the country and the federal government has refused to allow them to be transferred to the Gulf to help in the cleanup because — get this — there may be an oil spill somewhere else and they might be needed there.

As LeMieux says, that this “logic” is like not sending a firetruck to a house fire because some other house might catch fire and the truck might be needed for that possible fire.



www.youtube.com...




posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
well i just hope they get it all better for the people, what ever it takes.I just dont understand the way things have happened like not accepting help straight away. what does it matter who drives the ships/


[edit on 27/6/10 by impyroo]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   
How come nobody is asking and answering the following questions:

1) Where did this ship come from?
2) How long did it take to build?
3) When was this project (to construct the ship) started?
4) Who owns this ship?
5) Why so big, unless they were expecting a huge, catastrophic oil disaster?
6) Could the oil disaster have been a deliberate attempt to make the existence of this ship profitable?
7) Speaking of profits, how does this ship produce an ROI? Nobody builds gigantic machines for free.

I hate to be the only one posing the 'conspiracy theorist' question, but isn't that was this site is all about? Instead I see everyone having a political discussion. What gives??

Come on, people! Let's speculate here! lol

[edit on 27-6-2010 by sumgai]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by justadood
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


Is that the only law standing in their way? I'm not trying to defend "Obama", by the way. My point is let's discuss the specific laws and issues, and do away with the "Obama wants this to happen" speculation.

I'm more interested in defending the limitations of the office of Executive Chief, being a fan of Democracy, and all.

Perhaps you prefer the trains run on time.


Hello,

Why are laws enacted? "For the good of society as a whole" would be the answer I would expect. Or something in that neighborhood.

Ferris made a strong point pertaining to merit the choices the Executive Chief as you fondly mean to defend the office of our leader. You defend the office that wishes to lead us away from this possible solution.

We are not bound by law to accept dis-solution. If the POTUS wants to serve his office, he should have the fortitude, and the humility to enable acceptance of foreign aid.

Didn't he sign EOs which enable foreign soldiers to conduct on American soil?

Do I have to link those executives orders?



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by loveguy
 



actually it was Plato who said... The reason we needed laws is because of idiots



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by justadood
 


So really, what you're saying is that laws are more important than stopping a disaster that's ruining an ecosystem? Are you really serious? I...whoa...

...So you would rather see wildlife flailing about and suffering in agony until they eventually die than have this crisis averted? No, don't call me out on a straw man fallacy. In fact, don't even bother picking out logical fallacies when you think that nobody should be able to assist and stop this leak.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeffrybinladen
reply to post by loveguy
 



actually it was Plato who said... The reason we needed laws is because of idiots




Hello,

Thank you, I think.

I would like to invite interested parties to this link;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Be it little to do with current topic, or maybe so.

When you click the link to executive order, scroll to bottom page. Then read what EO was first implemented.

Link to EO is here; edocket.access.gpo.gov...

Meanwhile continue to defend this office? I'm not addressing JBL in last sentence...





new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join