• Welcome!
    |
    ||
    Logout|My Dashboard

Oil spill aftermath: Q&A: What happened and what’s next - The Galveston County Daily News : Local News

December 19, 2014

Oil spill aftermath: Q&A: What happened and what’s next

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.

3 comments:

    You must be a subscribed user to comment on this story.

  • miceal o'laochdha posted at 7:16 am on Mon, Apr 28, 2014.

    miceal o'laochdha Posts: 566

    A good story, with the differentiation between "responsible party" according to law for the spill be clearly explained as not necessarily the actual party responsible for the Incident , taken as whole and including the initial cause: the allision.

    One point I would like to pursue is this statement: :" After the spill, the Coast Guard decontaminated ships affected by the spill to keep the oil from spreading."

    The news media, as a whole, never fails to report the work done by the Coast Guard, as usually to do so inaccurately since the USCG does not typically do any actual work to clean a spill. Could you kindly confirm or revise this statement? To wit: did USCG personnel decontaminate these vessels, or did they in fact simply monitor and approve the decontamination work conducted by professional contractors?

    Contractors (MSRP?, T&T, O'Brien, perhaps?) who not paid by the taxpayers (USCG personnel) but paid, initially at least, by the "responsible party" (Kirby), who will in turn be reimbursed by their underwriters? Reporting the entities who actually clean up spills and decontaminate vessels, rather than says the Coast Guard did it, helps the general public to understand accurately how these evolutions are really conducted and to know who, especially local contractors, are really trained, certified and out there doing this type of work.

     
  • gecroix posted at 11:34 am on Sun, Apr 27, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 3262

    Yes, a good pre-plan with good coordination and materials availability, acted on almost immediately, and with help from the best cleaner of all, Ma Nature, and without the undue incumbrance and interference of politicians and protesters and TV hoggers, usually results in a good outcome.
    I await, though, the claims of those who've been 'iirreparably harmed', have 'nightmares', have 'loss of consortium', and a host of other ailments and afflictions.
    Especially interesting will be the ones from Austin, or Lubbock...[wink]

     
  • Jake Buckner posted at 11:07 am on Sun, Apr 27, 2014.

    Jake Buckner Posts: 1767

    Nice story. Surely the cleanup cost Galveston a lot more than $7,900. Some zeroes missing?

    Friday I spent some time walking the far east end of the Island, between Seawall Blvd and the Coast Guard Station. There are still a few skirts here and there but, like the articles says, it's about done.

    And man, how clean it is! The workers did an amazing job of remediating what must have been a tough stretch of coastline to deal with -- basically a mile of rocks fronting shallow tidal pools and lagoons. Most excellent!