|04-02-2004 07:20 PM|
I don't think there would be any noticable impact on the migration. This spill, although semi- sizable, should be a warning of what could really happen. I'm not saying it was no big deal, but I think we all lucked out in that it could have been ALOT WORSE with just a couple of differances, ie; try getting that much oil right up at the bottleneck of the canal, I know some may say the cleanup might have been easier, I doubt it. The current would have made it spread much faster and the concentration for fish in this area would have a much more profound affect. The shoreline would certainly have take a harder hit. I believe that much of the spill is still on the bottom, in globs. I suspect that they got maybe 5 to 10 percent, tops! And this was NOT a very large spill on scale. how much were they carrying?
Please, ground the capt., mate and the company for their history SUCKS!
SAVE OUR BUZZARDS BAY, not to mention all other waters and marine life!
|04-02-2004 04:19 PM|
I second that......
Any word as to what effects they think the spill will have on striper migration/holding patterns in Buzzard's Bay, or is it a "wait and see" situation?
|04-02-2004 01:57 PM|
|juro||Brian, that's definitely the way to handle it because it creates incentive in both directions!|
|04-02-2004 01:42 PM|
|bcasey||How 'bout a system that rewards the guys with the good records and hammers the ones that screw up OUR enviroment? You know, kinda like the safe driver points we have on our auto insurance. If a system like this were in place, Bouchard would not be able to stay in business by now. And some other, more reputable company would be doing the deliveries. Were gonna pay no matter who does the delivery when the dbl hulls are put into service, but I would like to see both the power company (purchaser of the oil) as well as the transportation companies step up to the plate and do the right thing. Of course this means we will have to do the right thing as well and cough up the added costs! Well worth it, IMHO!|
|03-31-2004 05:09 PM|
I realize that double hulls have been possible for a long time,
but as you point out they're not being used, at least not very
much, and outside of the biology engineering folks, there does
not seem to be much impetus to develop and use other
technologies to avoid or mitigate disasters.
|03-30-2004 06:52 PM|
I believe the vessels and technology are available. Double hulls have been around for a longtime.
Trouble is there is no incentive to retire/replace the 'old junk' with state of the art.
I hope we don't have to wait until it all sinks, fully laden before things start to improve.
|03-30-2004 05:39 PM|
|Greg Pavlov||I agree, but at the same time I think that given the ever-increasing quantities of oil being shipped across oceans, along shorelines, etc, safer and more robust vessels are long overdue.|
|03-30-2004 11:57 AM|
$10 million can not equal
... the damage created by the negligence of Bouchard Transportation in Buzzards Bay. But at least the courts held them accountable and they pleaded guilty.
IMHO we should enact laws that would be so severe and monitor them so heavily that these corporations would invest in better equipment and adopt processes to avoid persecution, thus achieving protection for our shores.
Would they pass cost on to the consumers? Like they aren't already screwing us anyway? I don't think the difference between what we have today and a higher level of prevention would make a drop of difference in the overall fuel cost fluctuations based on season, overseas supply, world politics, etc.