Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

[Sea Skimmer]

It's not only whackaloon stuff, there's a variety of dangerous air-borne chemicals that are given off by oil, and it's a remarkably big spill out there. Benzene is a good example since it's very dangerous and pretty common, and the effects are well documented. Part of that 'oil smell' is benzene, and it's really nasty, cancer-causing stuff, and it can hang around for weeks, and thus get spread pretty far on wind.

Something worth remembering remember is that the oil that goes into and spills out of oil tankers has already been processed. That is mostly just to clean debris out of the oil, but it also removes a fair amount of the gases. But the oil dumping into the gulf isn't processed, its fresh from the ground and its a fairly heavy grade of oil too. So that means its at least slightly more toxic, particularly in terms of the vapor hazard, then oil from Exxon Valdez. How much that difference would matter after the oil floats around in the sun on the water for a days, I don't know.

[Quetzalcoatl]

whack-a-loon? has anyone ever told you about Bophol India?

which does set a precident, we could charge BP execs with depraved indiferance/manslaughter under existing laws, though I doubt that our government could get the execs to serve the two years that the guys in India got.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't really undestand how an industrial pesticide accident in the middle of an urban area is comprabable to an oil spill in the ocean.

[The Yosemite Bear]

they were turning raw petrol into industrial pesticides

but hey I have a 30+ year fued going with Union/Carbide+DOW for actions in Vietnam, along with a standing hatred with them and KBR/Haliburton for building such houses of cards as this and the shit showers in Iraq (US facility built in Iraq litterially was so fucked up, it drew water for the showers from the sewers)

[Ronsu]

Somehow, BP is trying to find a silver lining in all this.

Trying to find something positive in tens of millions of gallons of oil pumping into the Gulf of Mexico every day and downplaying the complaints as being upset that BP won't rent out their services is somehow reminding me of a stereotypical evil, world-controlling corporation from a cyberpunk novel.

You´re not far from the truth. This is almost exactly how corporatist asshole Zorg argued for universal armageddon in The Fifth Element, reference to ballet included: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krcNIWPkNzA

BP drones are fucking parodying themselves at this point. Life imitating art is painful in this instance.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Does the threat of toxic gas/vapors extend beyond the cleanup crews to residents of the Gulf States themselves?

Edit: Seems this lady is kind of an alarmist (according to some other videos I've seen). Here, however, is a news report (same lady featured, similar buzzwords).

Of course there's toxic vapors. What do you think gave me cancer?

[J]

Please fill out these forms in triplicate after completing your negotiations with 50 different government agencies which can't find their butts with both hands, and maybe, just maybe, we'll let you guys help with the oil cleanup. But first we need to negotiate with our lawyers, no hurry, the leak in the Gulf isn't going anywhere...

Linky

Massive oil-skimming ship makes stop in Norfolk

By Scott Harper
The Virginian-Pilot
© June 26, 2010

NORFOLK

Ten stories tall and nearly four football fields long, the world's largest oil skimmer dropped anchor Friday in Norfolk, on its way to the Gulf of Mexico and a possible bout with the biggest oil spill in U.S. history.

Before the floating behemoth can wage war, though, its billionaire owner has a few hurdles to jump, including one key question: Will it even work?

Nobu Su, the CEO and founder of TMT Group, a Taiwanese shipping company, described the engineering behind his latest creation as "totally not common sense and totally against the rules."

Speaking in shirt sleeves and a blue baseball cap on the docks of Norfolk International Terminals, Su was referring to the special holes he had cut into the sides of his massive vessel, named A Whale.

As designed, the giant skimmer would roll across the Gulf "like a lawn mower cutting the grass," Su said, ingesting millions of gallons of oily water through the small slits.

The tainted water would then fall into huge storage tanks in the belly of the ship. There, oil would separate from sea water. The toxic stuff would be collected and disposed of, the water returned to the Gulf.

"A large-scale disaster needs a large-scale solution," Su told a crowd of reporters, shipping executives and regulators.

A Whale could handle 500,000 barrels of oily water a day, or slightly less than what all the skimmers now in the Gulf have gathered in more than 60 days on the job, Su said.

A no-brainer? Not quite.

Because the vessel is Taiwanese and was built in South Korea, it needs an exemption from the Jones Act, a federal law requiring commercial ships doing business in U.S. coastal waters to be American-flagged.

Then there are environmental concerns. Because the ship would discharge water back into the Gulf, albeit after much of the oil had been skimmed away, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency must go along with the deal.

Compounding the problem is that A Whale has never actually processed oily water before - though it did pass a recent test in Portugal, where a foaming agent was sucked into the ship's bowels at sea and "did quite nicely," said Bob Grantham, an executive with TMT Group.

Gov. Bob McDonnell's administration supports the experiment and hopes A Whale is granted all necessary approvals "to see if it works," said Matt Strader, state assistant secretary of transportation.

TMT Group has hired a Washington lobbying firm, Bracewell & Giuliani, to help negotiate a work plan with federal regulators and to create public pressure in favor of A Whale.

One reason the ship came to Norfolk was so the Coast Guard could get a good look at it. TMT held a briefing for Coast Guard officials on Thursday, and a few Coast Guard officers attended the media event Friday.

Also attending the event was Ed Overton, a professor emeritus of environmental sciences at Louisiana State University. TMT flew Overton to Norfolk to get a personal look at the mega-skimmer.

"Bureaucracy shouldn't stand in the way of cleaning up our coastline," Overton said. "We need help. So I encourage them to just go down there and not take no for an answer. I mean, seriously, how can it hurt?"

Ironically, the ship was originally built as a supertanker for oil. But soon afterward, the BP oil spill began off the Louisiana coast, and Su saw an opportunity.

He sailed the ship to Portugal for modifications, turning A Whale into an oil skimmer that "drinks seawater," Su said.

Su has spent "many millions" on the project, said Frank Maisano, a spokesman, and would "pretty much like to recover his costs."

The shipping magnate has not talked to BP yet and is not sure who would pay his expenses, assuming A Whale is approved for the work.

Still, the ship was expected to leave Norfolk Friday night, arriving at ground zero in the Gulf within three days.

Scott Harper, (757) 446-2340, scott.harper@pilotonline.com

Even if the ship doesn't quite work as advertised it's not going to make things any worse. But as with the special Dutch skimmers and other foreign ships, the administration and its agencies are going to tie them up in red tape while oil continues to gush into the Gulf.

[MKSheppard]

And people -- this is living proof how fucking incompetent the Obama Administration is.

I cannot fault them for the first week and a half of the spill, because at that point it looked like it was just an oil rig explosion and sinking -- it takes time to realize that yes, it's leaking like crazy and no we can't quickly stop it.

And I can't blame them for not getting the oil capped. Because the well is at such deep depths it's a massive technnological feat in doing so.

But the disaster response and handling from Day 10-68 (Present)?

They're so stupid and incompetent they make the G.W. Bush administration circa Katrina look like geniuses.

[Serafina]

I'm not sure this is comparable to Katrina.
In that case, good plans and responses should (and did, IIRC) exist, but were managed really sloppy.
In this case (if i'm not mistaken), there were no plans and no government agencies that are supposed to deal with this.

Quite a difference - that doesn't mean the Obama administration made no errors, but i think the comparison is not valid.

[Aaron]

Can he not declare a state of emergency to override all this crap and get things done?

[Broomstick]

Yes, of course. Then the republitards will cry that he is overstepping his authority.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

They're so stupid and incompetent they make the G.W. Bush administration circa Katrina look like geniuses.

I've been through Katrina, and I'm currently dealing with this crap. I'm sorry, but they're just letting BP run the whole thing while Piyush refuses to call the goddamn National Guard to a far worse degree than Landrieu did. It was six days before I saw Guardsman in NOLA (and they turned the building I was holed up in into their base), it's still 68 before I've seen any Guardsmen anywhere but the one still on his burger-flipping job down from my work.

Oh, and I'll trust this Coonass chick before I trust anything from BP. Watch:

[aerius]

And people -- this is living proof how fucking incompetent the Obama Administration is.

I cannot fault them for the first week and a half of the spill, because at that point it looked like it was just an oil rig explosion and sinking -- it takes time to realize that yes, it's leaking like crazy and no we can't quickly stop it.

And I can't blame them for not getting the oil capped. Because the well is at such deep depths it's a massive technnological feat in doing so.

But the disaster response and handling from Day 10-68 (Present)?

They're so stupid and incompetent they make the G.W. Bush administration circa Katrina look like geniuses.

I gotta agree here. I can't say I had high hopes for Obama with how badly he fucked up the handling of the economy and healthcare reform, but that's politics and shit happens.

But the BP debacle? Fuck. It's a clear disaster and you don't have to worry about the politics shit. You declare a state of emergency, waive all the laws as needed and get shit done. Other countries were and are offering to help, accept their help and put them them work right away instead of the utter bullshit we have now. Local communities also want to do their part to protect their own beaches & so forth but BP & the government won't let them do it, that's bullshit. The government should be going "tell us what you need, we'll fucking get it to you today". But instead the government, EPA, Coast Guard and all the other parties involved are dragging their feet going "you can't do this, you can't do that, I don't think that's legal" with the end result that practically nothing's getting done.

[Broomstick]

That's what happens when you elect lawyers to run the country.

[Simon_Jester]

Can he not declare a state of emergency to override all this crap and get things done?

Yes, of course. Then the republitards will cry that he is overstepping his authority.

And he cares?

What, so this is another case of "we're afraid to do anything because our political enemies will use harsh language?" GAH!

The whole affair tends to strengthen my belief that the current brand of American government is so hopelessly locked up that we can't get it moving even to deal with urgent, easily solved problems. I'm afraid it's going to take a level of social outrage as least as bad as what we saw in the 1960s (as in, bad enough for people to get violent) before that's going to change, and I am not looking forward to that.

[Aaron]

It'll be intersting to see if he manages another term after this. We can't be the only ones who realize how pathethic this is.

[Pelranius]

It'll be intersting to see if he manages another term after this. We can't be the only ones who realize how pathethic this is.

That's assuming anyone remembers. Unless it involves a lot of people dying, the American public isn't too good at remembering things.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Didn't Bush waive the Jones act like... ten hours after Katrina cleared? People have been BEGGING Obama to do this.

[stormthebeaches]

Is it even possible for the President to ignore the Jones act? Or any of these acts for the matter? Is there any legal system to ignore these laws to get stuff done?

[Aaron]

Declare a state of emergency. Shep, or J posted a number of pages back that the Jones Act has a provision to allow it to be waved anyways.

[Pu-239]

Usually Dick Armey gets worked up over things like taxes and the deficit. But at a June 16 symposium about the Tea Party movement, the former House majority leader and current chair of FreedomWorks was jumping out of his chair over something even more arcane: the Jones Act—a 1920s-era maritime law that bars foreign-flagged vessels from shuttling goods between American ports.

To hear Armey talk, the act—and President Obama's support for it—are all that's keeping eager Norwegian skimmers from mopping up the oil destined for Florida's pristine sands. "How do you explain a president who does not waive the Jones Act on day one?" he fumed. "No press is even asking the questions." His explanation: It's a "silly little labor sop."

During the past week, the Jones Act has become a big GOP talking point, with the likes of Oliver North, Dick Morris, and congressional GOP freshmen stepping up to bash Obama for his alleged shortsightedness. Obama, his critics insist, needs to follow the lead of—yes—his predecessor. "In the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the Bush administration didn't hesitate to waive the law completely in an emergency," John Fund wrote in the Wall Street Journal this week.

Just one problem with these arguments: They are almost entirely false.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Let's start with this Bush business: It is true that Bush issued a Jones Act waiver post-Katrina. But he did so not to help relief efforts, but rather as a gift to the oil industry. The waiver allowed firms to use unregulated foreign vessels to ship oil and gas from local refineries that were damaged in the hurricane.

In fact, Bush waived the Jones Act at the same time he suspended anti-pollution laws for gasoline—hardly a humanitarian gesture. Whether the Jones waiver helped relief efforts at all is unclear—and was disputed even back then.

"You cannot find a person in Bush's administration who can explain why that was a good idea, or how it helped," says Mark Ruge, counsel to the Maritime Cabotage Task Force, a coalition of labor unions, shipbuilders and operators, and "pro-defense" organizations. Ruge says that the waiver may have enabled some foreign cruise ships to house displaced residents, but that didn't require the sort of blanket waiver the GOP is now demanding from Obama. (His organization supports case-by-case waivers, as needed, to assist with the oil spill.)

Bush's move also prompted Jones Act waiver requests from a host of unrelated companies who also wanted to utilize cheaper foreign shippers. In the same vein, freshman Hawaii Rep. Charles Djou—the GOP's pit bull for this latest Obama attack—had actually campaigned on promises that he would introduce legislation to exempt his state from the Jones Act. The act was an issue for Djou and his fellow Hawaii Republicans long before the spill, since the state depends on ships for supplies, and critics of the act say it makes things more expensive for Hawaiians.

So, has the Jones Act really prevented the US from enlisting foreign help in the Gulf cleanup? Doesn't seem so. On June 15, Adm. Thad Allen, the Coast Guard's point man on the disaster, issued a press release noting that there are already 15 foreign-flagged ships working the spill—the act only applies to ships operating within three miles of shore, and there's plenty of work to be done outside that boundary.

"While we have not seen any need to waive the Jones Act as part of this historic response, we continue to prepare for all possible scenarios," Allen said. "Should any waivers be needed, we are prepared to process them as quickly as possible to allow vital spill response activities being undertaken by foreign-flagged vessels to continue without delay." He added that no foreign entities have even requested a waiver—which can be granted if no suitable American vessels are available.

His statement has done little to quiet conservatives' claims—particularly the notion that Obama won't waive the act because he's in bed with labor. On June 10, Heritage Foundation fellow Joseph Carafano set the tone for this accusation on Fox News, noting that foreign ships are being sidelined because "this is a big thing for unions. The unions see it as…protecting jobs. They hate when the Jones Act gets waived, and they pound on politicians when they do that."

There's a nugget of truth to the labor critique. Maritime unions did back Obama in 2008, and they are generally supportive of the Jones Act. But they take issue with suggestions that labor is putting politics over the Gulf cleanup. "To say the unions are standing in the way is completely unfounded," says a spokesperson for the Seafarers International Union.

This wouldn't be the first time the Jones Act has come under fire as a union-protection measure. Shipping companies that rely on foreign vessels have long hoped to amend the act so that they can compete domestically without paying US taxes or complying with domestic labor, environmental, or safety regulations. (Many of these, such as the Virginia-based Liberian International Ship and Corporate Registry, are American companies.) Firms that would prefer to save money by using foreign-registered ships have also griped about the Jones Act. In the mid-1990s, a group of such interests calling itself the "Jones Act Reform Coalition" tried—without success—to weaken the law.

There's one big reason the Jones Act, this union-friendly protectionist measure, has managed to survive a frontal assault by big corporations: national security. The act's requirements that domestic vessels be owned, registered, and built in America—and largely operated by US crews—ensures that there are sufficient working shipyards and skilled labor to supply the military's needs. The Navy, for its part, relies heavily on commercial vessels to supply the fleet in war zones; in the Iraq fighting, merchant mariners moved 90 percent of the American combat cargo. That's hardly a job the Pentagon wants to turn over to a bunch of leaky Liberian-flagged boats staffed with Somali teenagers earning slave wages.

In fact, given the GOP's concerns about terrorism and the party's historic love of all things military, it's hard to imagine folks like Armey and members of Congress really wanting to open domestic shipping to foreign ships. Yet, in effect, that's what they're arguing for. Of course, had Obama waived the Jones Act on day one, as Armey suggests he should have, the same crowd likely would have accused him of sacrificing national security for the environment and a chance to export jobs to his European socialist friends.

Nope, Obama really can't win on this one.

QUESTION: There are many people who say that the best dredgers and skimmers in the world come from countries like the Netherlands and France, and that they can't get in, or not being asked to come in because of the Jones Act.

Is that the case, and why not get around that, suspend that and bring that other technology in?

ALLEN: First of all, those are source countries. That's correct, they're available but we are using them. We are dealing with folks like Norway, the Netherlands, Canada, and other places. Any place that's got skimming capability that's available, we're willing to talk to them. And we actually have, in some cases, have actually transferred the equipment down, and we'll continue to do that.

It gets to the point where the Jones Act waiver required, we're willing to do that, too. Nobody's come to me with the request for a Jones Act waiver. But any skimming capability we can bring in, we're looking for.

QUESTION: So, are the actual boats being brought in, or just the equipment?

ALLEN: In some cases it's the skimmer itself. In some cases the skimming equipment is organic to the vessel itself. It depends on what you're talking about. To my knowledge what we've brought in is actually skimming equipment rather than the vessels themselves. But we can give you a detailed listing.

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/201006110023

Sounds like the Jones act has been overblown by Faux News and elsewhere.

[MKSheppard]

Declare a state of emergency. Shep, or J posted a number of pages back that the Jones Act has a provision to allow it to be waved anyways.

George W. Bush waived the Jones Act several times during Katrina in 2005, to allow foreign hulls and crews to rush critical aid in.

But shhhhh....Obama is supposed to be all cool, calculating -- not a complete moron.

[aerius]

Here's the problem:

ALLEN: First of all, those are source countries. That's correct, they're available but we are using them. We are dealing with folks like Norway, the Netherlands, Canada, and other places. Any place that's got skimming capability that's available, we're willing to talk to them. And we actually have, in some cases, have actually transferred the equipment down, and we'll continue to do that.

It gets to the point where the Jones Act waiver required, we're willing to do that, too. Nobody's come to me with the request for a Jones Act waiver. But any skimming capability we can bring in, we're looking for.

QUESTION: So, are the actual boats being brought in, or just the equipment?

ALLEN: In some cases it's the skimmer itself. In some cases the skimming equipment is organic to the vessel itself. It depends on what you're talking about. To my knowledge what we've brought in is actually skimming equipment rather than the vessels themselves. But we can give you a detailed listing.

What they've actually brought in after all the negotiations and crap is a small fraction of what's been offered up for use by other countries, and it's clearly not enough since there's giant pools of oil all over the place that are going uncontained. The proper course of action is to bring in EVERYTHING that's available and put it all to work, if there's extras then you can use them as backup or thank the countries that sent'em and send the equipment back.

What the US is doing now just pisses off all the countries which have offered to help, let's negotiate and bring the shit in if we think we need it. Um, yeah, there's a giant fucking oil spill that's getting bigger by the hour, and the US thinks it's got shit under control and doesn't need all the help it can get. Are you kidding me?

Oh yeah, and he manages to contradict himself nicely. "Any skimming capability we can bring in we're looking for" followed by "only the actual skimming equipment, not the vessels". Frankly I trust him about as I trust Turbotax Timmy's tax returns.

[MKSheppard]

To Wit:

link

Jones Act waivers are in the news because of the Gulf oil spill. I would like to contribute to that discussion by sharing my experiences coordinating the Jones Act waivers for President Bush in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In 2005 I served as the Deputy at the White House National Economic Council.

I’ll begin with a quick definition.

cabotage (n): navigation or trade along the coast

The Merchant Marine Act of 1920, aka the Jones Act, precludes a foreign-flagged ship from operating near the U.S. coast. As I understand it, outside of three miles it’s fine. I am most used to it in the context of it precluding foreign-flagged ships from transporting stuff from one U.S. port to another.

The Jones Act can be waived “in the interest of national defense.” Since the Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Homeland Security actually issues the waiver. The law says the Secretary shall waive it “upon the request of the Secretary of Defense to the extent deemed necessary in the interest of national defense by the Secretary of Defense.” The Secretary may waive it “either upon his own initiative or upon the written recommendation of the head of any other Government agency, whenever he deems that such action is necessary in the interest of national defense.”

Obviously this means that to waive the Jones Act now, the Obama Administration would have to make an argument that doing so was in in the interest of national defense.

Waivers can be granted on a case-by-case basis or a blanket waiver can be granted. The blanket waivers we did in 2005 were limited to particular purposes and for a fairly short timeframe.

I cannot speak to the particular needs in the current situation, but I imagine the most pressing need might be for oil skimmers that could operate near Gulf state coastlines.

Code: Select all

Update:  Commenter Scott points out that another section of law (45 U.S.C. 55113) specifically covers oil spill cleanup.  Here is the text:

§ 55113. Use of foreign documented oil spill response vesselsNotwithstanding 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. 
It would seem that (1) involves an easier test than the national security test in the Jones Act.  I don’t know, however, whether (2) binds in any particular cases.  Do other countries that have oil spill cleanup equipment that could be used have similar provisions in their law?  If so, then this would seem to be an easy way to get their equipment here.  If not, then this section of law doesn’t help us.

Note also that if the two conditions are met, this overrules the relevant sections of the Jones Act, because of the language “Notwithstanding any other provision of law.”

In case it’s helpful, here’s what we did in 2005.

Round 1 – Katrina

•August 29, 2005 – Landfall of Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana.

•September 1, 2005 – President Bush announces that his Administration is waiving the Jones Act temporarily “for the transportation of petroleum and refined petroleum products.” This was an 18-day waiver.

•Here is the text of the waiver by Secretary Chertoff. You can see that he justified it in terms of national security, and did so “in consultation with and upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Energy.”

•The waiver covered gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and “other refined products.” He also waived it “for the transportation of petroleum released from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.”

•This waiver allowed foreign-flagged short haul ships to transport these liquids between ports on the Gulf Coast, and (I think) even from Louisiana and Texas to the Eastern Seabord. The pipelines that normally supply fuel to the entire Southeastern U.S. were without power, and we were concerned about fuel supply shortages. The waiver did not increase the total amount of fuel within the U.S., but it provided flexibility for that fuel to move as rapidly and efficiently as possibly to where it was most needed.

•September 19, 2005 – First waiver expires.

Round 2 – Rita

September 24, 2005 – Landfall of Hurricane Rita.

•September 26, 2005 – At President Bush’s direction, Secretary Chertoff again waives the Jones Act with the same limitations as before. This waiver is for 30 days.

•October 25, 2005 – Second waiver expires, and we shift to case-by-case consideration of waiver requests.

I learned a few things from coordinating this process for President Bush.

•The direct benefits of a waiver were, in this case, small and diffuse. Waivers allowed 50K barrels per day here, and 100K barrels there, to arrive several days earlier than they would have otherwise. The waiver resulted in handfuls of short-term arrangements that moved fuel more expeditiously to where it was needed in the Southeastern United States.

•The fuel situation was so dire that every little bit helped. The direct benefits were small but still worth doing. We were in a situation where every little bit counted and was worth doing.

•Even more than the added shipping capacity, the waivers’ principal benefits were that they added speed and flexibility to the transportation of fuel.

•There was no short-term policy cost to the waivers. This made it an easy call for the President.

•If you’re a supporter of protecting U.S. shippers, shipbuilders, and maritime workers from foreign competition, then there is a long-term policy cost to a waiver. I think this cost was small, but I’m not in that industry. Those in the affected U.S. industries regarded these waivers as hugely important, and they lobbied the Administration hard.

•The pushback was not just from maritime unions, but also from the U.S.-flagged shipping industry, including shippers and shipbuilders, and including R’s and D’s on Capitol Hill who were close to the industry.

•Industry lobbied against the waivers. They lobbied for shorter timeframes, and for narrower scopes. Once the waivers were granted, they pressured Customs and Border Patrol on enforcement.

•They lobbied at all levels, including trying to make their case to me. They were most effective pushing on the Cabinet and sub-Cabinet.

•Even some Cabinet officials in a Republican Administration were affected by the political pressure brought to bear by the industry.

•In both waivers, the President ultimately made the decision. I think it was an easy choice for him – he wanted to do everything possible to help solve the pressing short-term problems in the Gulf region. Long-term policy arguments from U.S. industries seeking protection from foreign competition were less important, and political pushback irrelevant.
Without a strong lean from President Bush on his Cabinet to “do everything we can,” the waivers would not have happened. Given the intense pushback from the narrow interest groups, Presidential leadership was required to make this happen. The benefits were small but, in my mind, easily worth it. When things are really bad in the Gulf, you do everything you possibly can, even if it’s small.

At the time the debate sounded like this:

•A: We have found N foreign-flagged ships that can help us get this done.

•B: We have American ships and crews you can use.

•A: Maybe, but the foreign-flagged ships are better/faster/more flexible/ready now.

•B: But we have American ships and crews you can use, and the marginal improvement in speed or flexibility is small.

•A: Sure it’s small, but every little bit helps.

The Deputy Administrator of the Maritime Administration (MARAD) has confirmed that one foreign-flagged skimmer has made a Jones Act waiver request. Yesterday, Dallas businessman Fred McAllister announced that “he has immediate access to 12 foreign ships and could pull in another 13 vessels in the next month.”

Before these recent developments I had frequently read and heard the Administration argue “We don’t have any requests.” This is reminiscent of the house on Halloween with no lights on and an angry pit bull tied to a tree in the front yard. When asked why they don’t hand out candy to trick-or-treaters, they reply that they haven’t had any requests.

In my experience government officials in crisis management sometimes focus too much on what the government will do, and not enough on the incentive effects of what the government says to the private sector. A blanket waiver combined with a strong encouraging signal from government officials could, I think, spur significant private help, including from friends around the world. We’ll never know unless the President tries.

Recommendation

•I recommend the President waive the Jones Act for all purposes related to the oil spill and oil spill cleanup. I recommend a 75-day waiver to take us through the end of August (when the relief well is supposed to be done?). I assume a 30-day waiver with the possibility of extension is more practically feasible.

•I recommend the President announce that he is directing Secretary Napolitano to issue the waiver, so that it is a Presidential decision. He would be signaling his willingness to do everything possible to help clean up the Gulf Spill, even if it ticks off certain domestic economic interests.

•I further recommend the President have his press secretary announce, at the podium, that the United States has waived the Jones Act, and that we are asking owners of foreign-flagged ships, wherever they might be in the world, to send those ships to the Gulf of Mexico to help clean up the spill. The State Department would reinforce this message through diplomatic channels.

Code: Select all

Update:  Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) is the Ranking Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Jones Act.  Friday morning she introduced S. 3512, a bill to legislatively suspend the Jones Act for the Gulf spill cleanup.  Here is the relevant text of the bill:

SEC. 2. WAIVERS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, section 12112 and chapter 551 of title 46, United States Code, shall not apply to any vessel documented under the laws of a foreign country while that vessel is engaged in containment, remediation, or associated activities in the Gulf of Mexico in connection with the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Kudos to Sen. Hutchison, as well as to Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) and Sen. LeMieux (R-FL) who have already cosponsored it.  I hope that others do as well.  I also hope Sen. Hutchison presses the point by forcing the Senate to either pass this bill, or for one of her colleagues to object to its passage and to explain why.

[Broomstick]

Is it even possible for the President to ignore the Jones act? Or any of these acts for the matter? Is there any legal system to ignore these laws to get stuff done?

He doesn't have to ignore - if I recall, the Jones Act already has a provision for either waivers or suspension if it is in the national interest (i.e. for an emergency). Waivers have been issured in the past including, as mentioned, after Hurricane Katrina.

It is entirely within the power of the Federal Government to grant a waiver. Yet it does not....

Or yeah, what Shep said, but this one is for those who decided Shep's post fell into TLDR - if you want the details back up a post.

[Temujin]

It'll be intersting to see if he manages another term after this. We can't be the only ones who realize how pathethic this is.

It depends on who the opposition is. The way the GOP is going even an incompetent Obama is better than another Bush, or worse.