Response time to the Oil disaster!

Zona

A guy in ariZONA
Aug 15, 2009
13,874
1,000
48
Phoenix, AZ.
I see this guided towards Obama and the scrutiny of everything he does. 20 billion dollars aside, I have a question for you all....


How long did it take Bush 1 to respond to the exxon Valdez disaster? Did he ever even address it let alone get the victims money?

Seriously, right leaning people, can anyone one of you answer me this, did he do ANYTHING about the Valdez?
Yes, I know that was a while ago, but I am just reminded time and time again how bad Obama handled this, but Bush 1 did nothing.

Valdez = Bush 1 = He did nothing and no scrutiny from any right wingers.
Gulf = Obama = 20 billion dollars for victims and scrutiny on EVERY aspect of everything he does.

Why the difference? I know he said he would continue deep drilling after the valdez, but that is just one of the problems we are dealing with now. :eusa_whistle:

Stay on point please. This thread is about response time from Bush 1 and why there was NO back lash for it. I found ONE thing he said after the Valdez and all he said was he will continue drilling and looking for energy. Never about the Valdez directly really.

STAY ON POINT PLEASE.
 
Last edited:
can't make it through a day without saying "boooooooooooooosh."





:lol::lol::lol::lol:



doesn't matter a diddly damn to an oil soaked pelican how long it took "boooooooooooooooooooooooooosh" this is the here and now and obie wan's response time sucked lemons.
 
You know, I'm kinda wondering the same thing myself now.

BTW...........most of this outrage against Obama playing golf is a tiny reflection of the outrage against Tony Hayward for going sailing in the clean waters off the Isle of Wight.

They saw the anger against Hayward for doing something recreational and immediately looked at Obama for something similar, which is why they focused on his golf game on Fathers Day.

However.............Obama was playing in an American golf course, as well as still able to receive updates at all times.

Hayward wasn't even close to being kept informed while he was on his boat.

At least Obama was still here in America.
 
lol....it was solely obama who got the 20 billion....BP quaked in their knees at the sight of the messiah and gave up anything he asked for

:lol:
 
I'm not sure what legislation passed, but it looks like his administration had a part in Obama being able to leverage BP for compensation.





Prepared by the National Response Team, this report was requested by the President and undertaken by Secretary of Transportation Samuel K. Skinner and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William K. Reilly. The report addresses the preparedness for, the response to, and early lessons learned from the Exxon Valdez incident. The President has also asked Secretary Skinner to coordinate the efforts of all federal agencies involved in the cleanup and Administrator Reilly to coordinate the long-term recovery of the affected areas of the Alaskan environment. These efforts are ongoing.

While it remains too early to draw final conclusions about many spill effects, the report addresses a number of important environmental, energy, economic, and health implications of the incident.

The lack of necessary preparedness for oil spills in Prince William Sound and the inadequate response actions that resulted mandate improvements in the way the nation plans for and reacts to oil spills of national significance.

This report starts the critical process of documenting these lessons and recommending needed changes to restore public confidence and improve our ability to plan for and respond to oil spills. The following points deserve special emphasis:

*

Prevention is the first line of defense. Avoidance of accidents remains the best way to assure the quality and health of our environment. We must continue to take steps to minimize the probability of oil spills.
*

Preparedness must be strengthened. Exxon was not prepared for a spill of this magnitude--nor were Alyeska, the State of Alaska, or the federal government. It is clear that the planning for and response to the Exxon Valdez incident was unequal to the task. Contingency planning in the future needs to incorporate realistic worst-case scenarios and to include adequate equipment and personnel to handle major spills. Adequate training in the techniques and limitations of oil spill removal is critical to the success of contingency planning. Organizational responsibilities must be clear, and personnel must be knowledgeable about their roles. Realistic exercises that fully test the response system must be undertaken regularly. The National Response Team is conducting a study of the adequacy of oil spill contingency plans throughout the country under the leadership of the Coast Guard.
*

Response capabilities must be enhanced to reduce environmental risk. Oil spills--even small ones--are difficult to clean up. Oil recovery rates are low. Both public and private research are needed to improve cleanup technology. Research should focus on mechanical, chemical, and biological means of combating oil spills. Decision-making processes for determining what technology to use should be streamlined, and strategies for the protection of natural resources need to be rethought.
*

Some oil spills may be inevitable. Oil is a vital resource that is inherently dangerous to use and transport. We therefore must balance environmental risks with the nation's energy requirements. The nation must recognize that there is no fail-safe prevention, preparedness, or response system. Technology and human organization can reduce the chance of accidents and mitigate their effects, but may not stop them from happening. This awareness makes it imperative that we work harder to establish environmental safeguards that reduce the risks associated with oil production and transportation. The infrequency of major oil spills in recent years contributed to the complacency that exacerbated the effect of the Exxon Valdez spill.
*

Legislation on liability and compensation is needed. The Exxon Valdez incident has highlighted many problems associated with liability and compensation when an oil spill occurs. Comprehensive U.S. oil spill liability and compensation legislation is necessary as soon as possible to address these concerns.
*

The United States should ratify the International Maritime Organization (IMO) 1984 Protocols. Domestic legislation on compensation and liability is needed to implement two IMO protocols related to compensation and liability. The United States should ratify the 1984 Protocols to the 1969 Civil Liability and the 1971 Fund Conventions. Expeditious ratification is essential to ensure international agreement on responsibilities associated with oil spills around the world.
*

Federal planning for oil spills must be improved. The National Contingency Plan (NCP) has helped to minimize environmental harm and health impacts from accidents. The NCP should, however, continue to be reviewed and improved in order to ensure that it activates the most effective response structure for releases or spills, particularly of great magnitude. Moreover, to the assure expeditious and well-coordinated response actions, it is critical that top officials--local, state, and federal--fully understand and be prepared to implement the contingency plans that are in place.
*

Studies of the long-term environmental and health effects must be undertaken expeditiously and carefully. Broad gauge and carefully structured environmental recovery efforts, including damage assessments, are critical to assure the eventual full restoration of Prince William Sound and other affected areas.

The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: A Report to the President | EPA History | US EPA
 
Wasn't the 'exxon valdez' incident the responsibility of the transportation company? Like a train engineer or truck driver wrecking a load of hazardous cargo (not a direct result of the oil company)?
 
Wasn't the 'exxon valdez' incident the responsibility of the transportation company? Like a train engineer or truck driver wrecking a load of hazardous cargo (not a direct result of the oil company)?




The Valdez was an oil tank ship.



On March 24, 1989 the oil tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling an estimated 11 million gallons of crude oil across 1,300 miles of coastline - a catastrophic event that lead to one of the most thorough examinations of the effects of oil on the environment. While the vast majority of the spill area now appears to have recovered, pockets of crude oil remain in some locations, and there is evidence that some damage is continuing.

The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) Trustee Council was established with funds from the legal settlement between the State of Alaska, the Federal Government and Exxon to develop research, restoration and habitat conservation plans for the spill area. The NMFS Alaska Regional Administrator represents NOAA on the Council and oversees the NMFS Office of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Damage Assessment and Restoration. The EVOS office administers projects carried out by NMFS researchers and outside contractors, and facilitates research planning and coordination between EVOS projects and other programs.

NOAA Fisheries Office of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) Damage Assessment and Restoration
 
can't make it through a day without saying "boooooooooooooosh."





:lol::lol::lol::lol:



doesn't matter a diddly damn to an oil soaked pelican how long it took "boooooooooooooooooooooooooosh" this is the here and now and obie wan's response time sucked lemons.

Funny stuff there. I have to say this is the first Bush 1 thread I have ever started. Hell, this may be the first time I have ever even mentioned his name.

The only reason why I did this time is because of the similar disasters.

No one said anything when the president did NOTHING. Absolutley nothing about the oil except to say we will continue deep drilling. (He is an oil man for god's sake.)

The other is called a failure as a president because he got the victims 20 billion dollars.

Interesting stuff there, ya think?
 
Last edited:
Wasn't the 'exxon valdez' incident the responsibility of the transportation company? Like a train engineer or truck driver wrecking a load of hazardous cargo (not a direct result of the oil company)?




The Valdez was an oil tank ship.



On March 24, 1989 the oil tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling an estimated 11 million gallons of crude oil across 1,300 miles of coastline - a catastrophic event that lead to one of the most thorough examinations of the effects of oil on the environment. While the vast majority of the spill area now appears to have recovered, pockets of crude oil remain in some locations, and there is evidence that some damage is continuing.

The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) Trustee Council was established with funds from the legal settlement between the State of Alaska, the Federal Government and Exxon to develop research, restoration and habitat conservation plans for the spill area. The NMFS Alaska Regional Administrator represents NOAA on the Council and oversees the NMFS Office of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Damage Assessment and Restoration. The EVOS office administers projects carried out by NMFS researchers and outside contractors, and facilitates research planning and coordination between EVOS projects and other programs.

NOAA Fisheries Office of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) Damage Assessment and Restoration

That was my point, it came back to the captain. The same way a driver or an engineer would have been found negligent. Exxon was not in the process of drilling oil (not using preventative methods for stopping explosions). Liked your post.
 
Exxon has gotten away with the Valdez disaster screwing Alaskans under Bush I, Clinton, Bush II & Obama.

This BP $20 billion fund is only thing Obama has done right so far. Time will tell if the money gets to the affected people in time. This administration is still guilty of allowing BP who lobbied the Obama white-house to drill without following safety regs.

Obama appointed these defendants named in the BP lawsuit: Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Department of Interior, Wilma Lewis, Assistant Secretary Land and Minerals Management, Department of the Interior, and S. Elizabeth Birnbaum, Director Minerals Management Service, Department of the Interior.

The Sierra Club and the Gulf Restoration Network are accusing the Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service of contributing to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico by waiving safety regulations for oil explorations.

The federal lawsuit argues that the Minerals Management Service issued Notice to Lessee which exempted offshore exploratory drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico from compliance with the Blowout Scenario Disclosure and portions of the Worst Case Oil Spill Response requirements found in the governing federal rules. This waiver allowed BP to drill in 5000 feet of water without first conducting blow-out and worst case oil spill response analysis, the Sierra Club and the Gulf Restoration Network argue.

Obama administration blocked efforts to stop BP oil drilling before explosion
In 2009, the Obama administration intervened to support the reversal of a court order that would have halted offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Obama’s Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who has long had close ties to the industry, specifically cited BP’s Deepwater Horizon operation as one that should be allowed to go forward, according to a group involved in the court case.

A Washington DC Appeals Court ruled in April 2009 that the Bush administration’s five-year plan for offshore oil and gas drilling (covering 2007 to 2012) was not based on a proper review of the environmental impact of the drilling. Only days before the ruling, the Obama administration had granted BP a “categorical exclusion,” exempting it from an environmental impact study for the Deepwater Horizon project.

The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry trade group, intervened to reverse the court order, and was backed by the administration.

Kierán Suckling, executive director and founder the Center for Biological Diversity, which was involved in the original lawsuit, told the World Socialist Web Site that Salazar “filed a special motion asking the court to lift the injunction, and he cited the BP drilling several times by name in the request.”

In July 2009, the court ruled that drilling in both the Gulf and off the coast of Alaska could continue, on the condition that the administration conduct a study of the potential environmental risks. This study has yet to be completed.

Salazar praised the decision at the time, saying it allowed the administration to go forward with “a comprehensive energy plan,” including the BP project and a sale of leases for drilling in the Gulf.

Even since the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon less than three weeks ago, the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Services (MMS) has continued to grant “categorical exclusions” to oil and gas companies, allowing them to bypass environmental studies.

The administration has publicly announced that no new offshore drilling grants will be issued until a review, to be completed by the end of the month. Nevertheless, at least 27 exemptions have been granted, including one for a BP exploration plan for drilling at more than 4,000 feet. Another exemption was granted to Anadarko Petroleum Corporation for an exploration plan at more than 9,000 feet. The Deepwater Horizon was drilling at about 5,000 feet.

“The same problems we saw under the Bush administration are continuing under Obama,” Suckling said. “The change in political parties has done very little in terms of corporate domination of the political system. Who got to vote on turning over our natural resources to private corporations? The whole system is corrupt from the bottom up.”

The Obama administration’s announcement earlier this year that he would expand offshore oil drilling was a clear sop for the oil industry, as was his earlier decision to appoint Salazar as Interior Secretary. Suckling noted that as a Senator for Colorado Salazar supported the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, which expanded drilling. Salazar received money from BP, and when he became Interior Secretary he brought several BP officials on his staff.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't the 'exxon valdez' incident the responsibility of the transportation company? Like a train engineer or truck driver wrecking a load of hazardous cargo (not a direct result of the oil company)?




The Valdez was an oil tank ship.



On March 24, 1989 the oil tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling an estimated 11 million gallons of crude oil across 1,300 miles of coastline - a catastrophic event that lead to one of the most thorough examinations of the effects of oil on the environment. While the vast majority of the spill area now appears to have recovered, pockets of crude oil remain in some locations, and there is evidence that some damage is continuing.

The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) Trustee Council was established with funds from the legal settlement between the State of Alaska, the Federal Government and Exxon to develop research, restoration and habitat conservation plans for the spill area. The NMFS Alaska Regional Administrator represents NOAA on the Council and oversees the NMFS Office of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Damage Assessment and Restoration. The EVOS office administers projects carried out by NMFS researchers and outside contractors, and facilitates research planning and coordination between EVOS projects and other programs.

NOAA Fisheries Office of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) Damage Assessment and Restoration

That was my point, it came back to the captain. The same way a driver or an engineer would have been found negligent. Exxon was not in the process of drilling oil (not using preventative methods for stopping explosions). Liked your post.

My point is, no one said anything to Bush 1 about his response to the victims, the environment, the future of deep sea oil drilling (although he did say he will continue to deep drill) etc.

Did you know it was Souter who made it so (after years of waiting for the relief money) the number went from 5 billion to 500 million. People died before getting penny one.

Perhaps Obama realized this and got this 20 billion set up?

Again, no word from Bush and his white house about money for the victims, no word about the environment etc.
 
Exxon has gotten away with the Valdez disaster screwing Alaskans under Bush I, Clinton, Bush II & Obama.

This is only thing Obama has done right so far. Time will tell if the money gets to the affected people in time. This administration is still guilty of allowing BP who lobbied the Obama white-house to drill without following safety regs.

Obama appointed these defendants named in the BP lawsuit: Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Department of Interior, Wilma Lewis, Assistant Secretary Land and Minerals Management, Department of the Interior, and S. Elizabeth Birnbaum, Director Minerals Management Service, Department of the Interior.

The Sierra Club and the Gulf Restoration Network are accusing the Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service of contributing to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico by waiving safety regulations for oil explorations.

The federal lawsuit argues that the Minerals Management Service issued Notice to Lessee which exempted offshore exploratory drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico from compliance with the Blowout Scenario Disclosure and portions of the Worst Case Oil Spill Response requirements found in the governing federal rules. This waiver allowed BP to drill in 5000 feet of water without first conducting blow-out and worst case oil spill response analysis, the Sierra Club and the Gulf Restoration Network argue.

Obama administration blocked efforts to stop BP oil drilling before explosion
In 2009, the Obama administration intervened to support the reversal of a court order that would have halted offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Obama’s Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who has long had close ties to the industry, specifically cited BP’s Deepwater Horizon operation as one that should be allowed to go forward, according to a group involved in the court case.

A Washington DC Appeals Court ruled in April 2009 that the Bush administration’s five-year plan for offshore oil and gas drilling (covering 2007 to 2012) was not based on a proper review of the environmental impact of the drilling. Only days before the ruling, the Obama administration had granted BP a “categorical exclusion,” exempting it from an environmental impact study for the Deepwater Horizon project.

The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry trade group, intervened to reverse the court order, and was backed by the administration.

Kierán Suckling, executive director and founder the Center for Biological Diversity, which was involved in the original lawsuit, told the World Socialist Web Site that Salazar “filed a special motion asking the court to lift the injunction, and he cited the BP drilling several times by name in the request.”

In July 2009, the court ruled that drilling in both the Gulf and off the coast of Alaska could continue, on the condition that the administration conduct a study of the potential environmental risks. This study has yet to be completed.

Salazar praised the decision at the time, saying it allowed the administration to go forward with “a comprehensive energy plan,” including the BP project and a sale of leases for drilling in the Gulf.

Even since the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon less than three weeks ago, the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Services (MMS) has continued to grant “categorical exclusions” to oil and gas companies, allowing them to bypass environmental studies.

The administration has publicly announced that no new offshore drilling grants will be issued until a review, to be completed by the end of the month. Nevertheless, at least 27 exemptions have been granted, including one for a BP exploration plan for drilling at more than 4,000 feet. Another exemption was granted to Anadarko Petroleum Corporation for an exploration plan at more than 9,000 feet. The Deepwater Horizon was drilling at about 5,000 feet.

“The same problems we saw under the Bush administration are continuing under Obama,” Suckling said. “The change in political parties has done very little in terms of corporate domination of the political system. Who got to vote on turning over our natural resources to private corporations? The whole system is corrupt from the bottom up.”

The Obama administration’s announcement earlier this year that he would expand offshore oil drilling was a clear sop for the oil industry, as was his earlier decision to appoint Salazar as Interior Secretary. Suckling noted that as a Senator for Colorado Salazar supported the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, which expanded drilling. Salazar received money from BP, and when he became Interior Secretary he brought several BP officials on his staff.

Did you just blame the valdez on Obama? wow.
 
No one really looked to DC for leadership on things like this in those days. It wasn't considered a national emergency. Alaskans were hopping mad of course, but Americans weren't of the mindset at that time to demand Washington get involved. That didn't seem to come about until Katrina came along and it was decided that Bush should take charge of Louisiana. (Inept leadershp at the state and local level probably made looking to Bush even more attractive.)

Plus, the Valdez spill didn't involve stopping an indefinite flow oil. It was more about cleanup.
 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: Vel

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top