Welcome to PatsFans.com

Feds halt Sand Berm Dredging efforts in LA

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patriot_in_NY, Jun 23, 2010.

  1. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,525
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Swell.......

    So much for being at war with the spill. On to more important news, anyone know when Obama's next round of Golf is? :rolleyes:
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2010
  2. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,851
    Likes Received:
    90
    Ratings:
    +151 / 3 / -19

    This has been bantered around quite a bit, believe it has to do with making things worse.. i.e. unintended consequences..
  3. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,525
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Can you explain? What are the unintended consequences if that is the reason?
  4. JackBauer

    JackBauer On the Roster

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    15,645
    Likes Received:
    161
    Ratings:
    +297 / 6 / -5

    Pretty tough to judge based on that article.

    I read somewhere that the berms would take six months to construct. So, in other words, totally useless.
  5. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,525
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Actually, I was under the impression they were already helping.
  6. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,851
    Likes Received:
    90
    Ratings:
    +151 / 3 / -19

    I think it is a quick fix... and may actually make things worse, have read about it before, but at this stage of the game have forgotten more than I can remember..

    Scientist Warns Sand Berms Won't Last : NPR

  7. JackBauer

    JackBauer On the Roster

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    15,645
    Likes Received:
    161
    Ratings:
    +297 / 6 / -5

    The question is far more complicated than you had presented it.

    Gulf Oil Spill: Can Sand Berms Save the Louisiana Coast? - TIME
  8. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,525
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Environmentalists and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers β€” as well as BP :confused:

    Ummmmm, you do realize 2 out of the three listed have NO BUSINESS being part of the decision. Certainly BP.
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2010
  9. Leave No Doubt

    Leave No Doubt PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    My understanding is that Maine (I believe) had many at the ready, Jindl asked for 6, and the govt allowed him one.
  10. JackBauer

    JackBauer On the Roster

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    15,645
    Likes Received:
    161
    Ratings:
    +297 / 6 / -5

    What on earth are you talking about?
  11. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,240
    Likes Received:
    227
    Ratings:
    +317 / 8 / -3

    #12 Jersey

    Turns out the Feds were right after all and it was a gigantic waste of money spent pacifying the hysterics of Jindal and Co., wasting money and manpower and doing virtually nothing at all to help fix the situation.

    Obama's just as bad - once again he caved to Republican pressure and accusation. He should have stuck with his original "No."

    In this report, staffers found that the "sand berms"-- which Louisiana officials had touted as an essential shield against the spill-- only trapped about 1,000 barrels of oil, out of the nearly 5 million barrels spilled.

    For that, the report said, BP paid about $220 million. That, together with the $140 million more that BP has committed to pay, amounts to one-third of all the money the oil company has paid to federal or state governments to help respond to the spill.

    Paying "$220 million for a spill response measure that trapped not much more than 1,000 barrels of oil is not a compelling cost-benefit trade-off," the report said.

    The report does not dwell on the motivations or decisions of the Louisiana officials who were pressing for the islands, despite scientists' objections.

    But it says that Allen's decision to green-light them was influenced by political pressure, including President Obama's request for another review of the idea.

    "The decision did not result from a conviction that berms were an effective oil spill response measure worthy of their cost," the report said. "Ultimately, pressure to build the berms overwhelmed the analysis."

    The sand berms were one of the stranger chapters of this summer's spill: scientists said that they would be too small, and too slow to appear, to do much good against the spill. But Louisiana officials made an emotional case for them, and blasted the federal government for not slowing them down.

    "It makes so much sense. It's so obvious. We've got to do it," Jindal said in May, flying in a military helicopter over the oily gulf.


    Sand islands off Louisiana stopped little oil in gulf spill, commission finds
  12. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,731
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2

    I love when people talk about government spending, waste, and cost benefit analysis. Now, if we could only get those same people to use that same line of thinking on all aspects of gubmit, we'd be getting somewhere.


    If the berms are a waste of lute, which I personally don't know if they are or not, then why waste money on them? It's stupid to spend millions and millions of dollars on something, that is going to provide a bare minimum in tangiable benefit.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>