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

reply to post by sumgai


go back to page 1, read the OP, all your answers are there.

The real conspiracy questions are why the ship is being held up from assisting along with the US based skimmers.

It is already shown that by the Jones Act this vessel would be exempt from that regulation, any goods would be unloaded/transferred either ship to ship or local port US based, no US to foreign or port to port transfer.
Jones Act and Maritime Law allow the vessel to be used temporarily to assist in Oil Cleanup; Both can no longer be used as an excuse.

BP made the mess, they should pay for the cleanup, since they have dropped the ball on this issue, outside help should be allowed in with BP picking up the tab.


The only lingering resolution, with no real answer until the ship has attempted to skim; is how much residue will be left mixed in with the water to be returned to the GOM after skimming. It would still have to be better than what is currently in the GOM.

reply to post by justadood


Would you be this laid back if this happened on a Republicans watch? Not to beat a dead horse, but what do you think the press would be doing if President Bush were in office during this? Think they'd have him nailed to a cross?
Now lets switch back to now. All obama has to do is set the law aside till the spill is cleaned, congress an the senate would back it. But obama won't do that, it'd screw up his push for cap & tax.

Originally posted by Pappa_Bear

It is already shown that by the Jones Act this vessel would be exempt from that regulation, any goods would be unloaded/transferred either ship to ship or local port US based, no US to foreign or port to port transfer.

But would maritime law allow for a foriegn flagged and operated vessel to transfer goods reclaimed in US waters to a US flagged and operated vessel?

reply to post by Pappa_Bear


Oops. Sorry about that.

I only looked that the video without scrolling down and reading the article.


Well in that case I say:

Screw the regulations, laws and contracts, take the oil and sell it back to BP (or someone else).

However, would they still be able to skim the 'dispersed' oil?

reply to post by Chance321


I have no partisan stake in this, and have made no insinuation that i do.

I am just curious what specific laws are in place, are being referenced, etc. I see a lot of conflicting info, a lot of opinions, but not much clarity.

Is it really merely the 'jones act' that is being cited as a hold-up? is it really that easy to put aside?

I have no problem believing "Obama" would perpetuate this 'crises' for his own political gain. thats not my point. I want EVIDENCE, not speculation.

All i have seen so far is speculation and opinion. Just because someone asks for specifics doesnt automatically make them a shill. In fcat, i would speculate that those spreading wild-eyed theories with no real proof are the ones muddying the water, not the person asking useful questions.

reply to post by In nothing we trust


I, too, would like an answer.

They wont answer. They hav a pre-determined opinion, and think those of us who want to actually SEE what the law is are somehow "Obambots"

Originally posted by Whine Flu
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...

Not at all. NOT AT ALL. How many tiimes do i have to say that??

I'm saying that the POTUS setting aside laws sets a dangerous precedent that should set off people's warning alarms. Its funny to me that the SAME people who call Obama a "Dictator" criticize him fro not acting like one.

...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.

ahh, yes, the emotion-based argument. Good luck with that in a court of law.

sigh// very well, ignore my point and call me an obamabot, regardless of everything ive actually typed.

Wow, talk about quotes taken out of context.

You do no good furthering your agenda or persuading others when you take quotes so far out of context. You just end up sounding like a moron.

Stop the fear mongering, get a life...

It will help, but what about the oil that is underwater and broken up into small blobs thanks to the Corexit and other dispersants? What about the massive amounts of these oil blobs that have sunk to the ocean floor? I feel like BP is purposefully using dispersants, as they say "to make cleanup easier" more like to make cleanup LOOK easier...in reality BP will only clean up what is on the surface and there will be oil/tar blobs littering the ocean floor for decades...decimating shrimp/crab/oyster fishing

Originally posted by Oneolddude
Well,the vindictive Obama administration feels that the 5 Republican led gulf states have not been punished enough just yet.

Maybe in a month or so after more citizens are sick,more commit suicide and more are employed cleaning this up.

Then they can claim all the jobs created on their jobs created numbers and how the economy is rebounding.

You know, sometimes I just like reading what you have to say. I don't agree with everything you say but sometimes I see a great deal of wisdom come from you.

I know they've completely destroyed any job growth credibility. I saw that report on the news several months back about all the "jobs" being created and the journalists were just tearing it up. Most of [the jobs created] were seasonal/temporary jobs and/or mostly in US territories.

And then all the noise with census jobs...these guys are just unbelievable.

The artificiality is becoming noxious.

reply to post by Stormdancer777

That's a big ol` ship. We need about 1000 of those. They need built in refineries to make fuel out of the captured oil. That way they never have to refuel.

Just spacing out a little, sorry.

can this thing sink??? is it even possible to remove 90% of the oil from the ocean??

alot of questions raising.

Hi, Guys and Girls

This is my 2nd post, good thread just wanted to add,

I have a feeling they are taking there time to fix this issue as this is what the NWO wants obviously relating back to the NWO cards where i saw the oil platoon covering the earth, I watched the youtube video and once finished i had a look what else was going on and found a solution that is avilable now, without the use of Nukes, these bigs ships would work a little bit if they used more than 1.

www.youtube.com...#!

this clip shows how microbs can be used to eat oil , I suggest you try and get the PTB use this technique the only viable one I can see.

I hope this gives all of us a bit of hope. I understand they are going to try and evaucate you from your homes, this is the alternative. what would you choose? fix the problem or walk way.

kind regards, RB

Something isn't adding up here.....You have this huge ship able to collect oil plus all the other international help turned away with the FDA claiming 99% oil needs to be collected while Kevin Costners machines don't collect that figure and BP purchased 30 of them.

So you look who has the most to gain from this disaster continuing and that would be the Obama administration running on a bankrupt budget. The plan is going to be an increase in fuel tax so that the national debt can be payed.....or it's something deeper, genocide????Whatever it could be the american people are foolish letting this play out any longer.

reply to post by justadood




...first off, this oil-cleanup boat situation is new info to me & I know little or nothing of shipping or the related laws. I confess!...
...having said that...
...Am I missing the mark in saying, according to common sense, there's an emergency situation here that doesn't need to be restated. Given that, do you not bypass the 'petty laws' and do what must be done to patch up the emergency???

That is to say: if a person is dying of a heart attack in a no-stopping-anytime zone, do you not stop there anyway to get the person to a hospital???

...I mean, the facts are so obvious! I know you don't think that delaying the cleanup is right, but you could be misinterpreted that way, easily. Those laws must be there for a reason, but this situation is not it.

If the oil is in international waters, why does that new skimming ship need permission? I just don't get it.
Why on earth didn't that ship just head straight for the gulf?

reply to post by Stormdancer777


I am sorry I forgot to post why I believe that US will take the help but as usual at the last minute like always, unless our government really doesn't give a crap about what a hurricane could do in the gulf with all the oil in the water.

reply to post by justadood


I hope this'll help. The Jones Act can and has been set aside. President Bush did it three days after Katrina, so the question to ask is why isn't obama? santamariatimes.com...

Originally posted by sumgai
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]

The "A-Whale" is a S.Korean 6month old oil tanker. She has just been fitted with 12, 16-foot-long intake vents on the sides of its bow designed to skim oil off surface waters. The coversion took place in the wake of the oil spill.

www.youtube.com...

More info on A Whale, no approval yet,