Oil Spill - Fly Fishing Forum
Stripers and Coastal Gamefish Stripers, Blues, Inshore tuna!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-29-2003, 06:09 AM
FishHawk FishHawk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,039
Oil Spill

Wonder if the oil spill will effect the migrants? Already oil has washed ashore in Westport and Fairhaven. Let's hope that it is contained. However, while watching CNN I could see a huge oil slick from the aerial shot that they showed. FishHawk With this post I have reached 500 posts.
__________________
FishHawk
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2  
Old 04-29-2003, 08:06 AM
Nick's Avatar
Nick Nick is offline
Shark Bait
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Ahhhlington, MA (Boston)
Posts: 1,146
Send a message via AIM to Nick Send a message via Yahoo to Nick
I'm not sure about the migrant stripers...I have been wondering that myself over the past day. But the effect that is going to have on the shellfish, and other shore animals is devistating. I heard this morning that the last spill in Buzzard's Bay closed shelfishing for 6 years in some parts. Not too mention the lingering drops of oil that are going to break up and wash ashore all over the Cape.

Here's to light NE wind for a week...

Nick
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3  
Old 04-29-2003, 08:18 AM
juro's Avatar
juro juro is offline
Coast2coast Flyfishaholic
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Steelhead country|striper coast|bonefish belt
Posts: 20,593
I believe the problem is lack of accountability. When an oil company causes a spill, accidental or otherwise, they should be responsible for ALL costs associated with controlling the damage and impact on people's lives as well as the resources.

If this means the company is drained to the point of going bankrupt, so be it. In fact the more severe the punishment the better. Once the consequences for oil spills (atlantic salmon escapes, etc) becomes as potentially devastating to the companies as it is to the resources, they will take measures to prevent it. If the price of screwing up is the life of the company, they will take measures. Now it's "just a bunch of ducks, clams, and sand" to them. It should be the do or die of the company for anyone transporting hazardous goods.

Until then, we must pull together class action suits and make them pay for total restoration to the point of setting an example and drawing the line to the oil industry.

Did you read the quote?

"We apologize to the people of Massachusetts"

Accepted when you finish cleaning up the *%&$ mess on your dollar.

Anyone know how to instigate a class action suit?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #4  
Old 04-29-2003, 09:15 AM
Nick's Avatar
Nick Nick is offline
Shark Bait
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Ahhhlington, MA (Boston)
Posts: 1,146
Send a message via AIM to Nick Send a message via Yahoo to Nick
Juro,
I don't know all the facts, but I do know that I depend on Oil. To heat my apt., drive my car, etc.

Making oil companies go bankrupt doesn't seem to be the best option as I'm sure prices will skyrocket.

I do agree that they should be held accountable, but maybe the way to do this is develop/enforce regulations that enable the safer transport of oil?

Like I said, I don't know all of the facts. What I do know is I hate oil in the bay and I would hate having to pay more than we already do for gas.

Nick
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #5  
Old 04-29-2003, 10:44 AM
juro's Avatar
juro juro is offline
Coast2coast Flyfishaholic
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Steelhead country|striper coast|bonefish belt
Posts: 20,593
Nick, et. al. -

Increasing the risk to the corporate solvency does not change the equilibrium of supply vs. demand. It just changes the way business is conducted for the same numbers of gallons involved in commerce transactions.

In other words, the consumer will not have any less oil available just because one company screwed up and is paying the price. In fact, when Kmart went out of business the consumer did not lose access to general merchandise. One could speculate that it was the opposite, the increased availability that was their demise. Walmart might agree.

I admit I was making an extreme statement, but without a fog cutter sometimes people don't react.

My point is simply this - there is simply not enough risk to oil companies (transport companies, etc) for them to worry about oil spills. The attitude today is "whoops! I'm sorry".

The method to the madness is simply to establish a more urgent level of risk for the board to consider in their operational plans for the year. When they vote on investing in better tanker technology, it's a decision of cost vs. returns. If the risk of a spill is "whoops, sorry" then they will all vote "screw it" and spend the money on a new advertising campaign to improve consumer perception "we keep YOU warm", etc.

One line summary: Oil transport entities don't have enough reason to be more careful because the consequences are not dire enough if they screw up.

My suggestion: Make spills the bane of their existence, not just an afterthought.

OK - if not a threat to solvency, what does anyone suggest we do to make oil business more conscientious about their practices?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #6  
Old 04-29-2003, 11:10 AM
bcasey's Avatar
bcasey bcasey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 517
See Juro, There ARE some things we agree on!
__________________
CASE
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #7  
Old 04-29-2003, 11:17 AM
juro's Avatar
juro juro is offline
Coast2coast Flyfishaholic
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Steelhead country|striper coast|bonefish belt
Posts: 20,593
It's all healthy debate even when we don't sing the same tune Case! Sometimes it's hard to see that I might have a big smirk or even laughing mischievously as I post some of this stuff! Trust me I am. At the same a good debate brings things into a light where people reconsider their existing position once in a while, myself included, in any case it's a healthy exchange of ideas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #8  
Old 04-29-2003, 11:31 AM
bcasey's Avatar
bcasey bcasey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 517
Aw! Now you have gone and done it, That's 2 things we agree on! I personally learn more from a good debate than you might think, and I enjoy it. I wish more people would chime in though, this is a great site where you can say what you feel and even if your a little timid, don't worry about it! Nothing should be taken with the feeling that your being kicked or looked down on. This is the only site I have ever seen that maintains an even keel when it comes to the posts and I hope we can keep it that way! So, come on guys and girls, jump in the water is warm and has been for some time!
And Juro, when I see you, in my minds eye, at the keyboard, the picture is most allways wearing a grin!
__________________
CASE
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #9  
Old 04-29-2003, 11:38 AM
BigDave BigDave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: northeast salt chuck
Posts: 1,401
This SUCKS!

Were they able to isolate the slick to any degree or are we going to be reminded of this all summer long as we see the damage done to the shoreline?

I find it comical that they would make a public statment like "we aplogise to the people of massachusetts" That is rich. This is not a new problem for the oil companies. Double-hulled transport does not seem to be cutting the mustard here. Didn't this happen just a year or two ago becuase one of their tanker captains was drunk?

I don't know the whole story here but will be looking into it. Just wanted to voice my displeasure over the situation.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #10  
Old 04-29-2003, 11:49 AM
John Desjardins John Desjardins is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Central MA
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally posted by juro
Nick, et. al. -
OK - if not a threat to solvency, what does anyone suggest we do to make oil business more conscientious about their practices?
Remove the oil industry from the back pocket of the executive branch. Its a simple suggestion, but one that won't happen with either major political party.
__________________
John Desjardins
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #11  
Old 04-29-2003, 11:51 AM
bcasey's Avatar
bcasey bcasey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 517
BigDave, I haven't read about it yet today but I think the barge was of the single hull type and that many are still in use. The dbl hull requirements are currently inplace for all NEW Tankers, which leaves alot of exposure to just this type of incident.
The spill of 1978 was somewhat larger, I think, and we STILL have oil showing from it on some of the beaches along West Falmouth! Believe it or not, but when my kids go swimming and come out with what looks like tar on their feet it's a sad reminder!
__________________
CASE
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #12  
Old 04-29-2003, 12:01 PM
BigDave BigDave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: northeast salt chuck
Posts: 1,401
Case,

I hear ya - it is sad. Just read up on it a bit and apparently a 2'x12' crack in the hull led to the 10-mile slick. Wonder how far they motored before they figured it out?

The thing that kills me is that Bouchard transportation was responsible for the '74 and '78 spills as well. Talk about lack of accountability....these guys wrote the book!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #13  
Old 04-29-2003, 12:38 PM
DFix DFix is offline
Fluff
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salem, MA; Deerfield, NH
Posts: 1,033
Chiming In

Quote: [One line summary: Oil transport entities don't have enough reason to be more careful because the consequences are not dire enough if they screw up]

A: With which I agree completely.
B: Which suggests Federal and State regulations need to be beefed up.
C: Which suggests more dollars need to be funneled to enforcement.
D: Right now, where's the money going to come from ???
(a) Will the Feds ever effectively fund enforcement ?
(b) Will potential funding go to EPA, FEMA, or USCG ?
(c) Will legislation ever be enacted to halt this type of disaster?

I agree with Dave in part; double-hull transport won't cut it if companies don't get strangled to keep up their equipment, or if a grounding incident report isn't mandated - prior to re-inspection and re-deployment of the so-called grounded vessel. But, I think this is reported out as a single-hull coastal barge; shouldn't matter, safety and protection of resources are paramount.

Problem - restraint of trade; whether international or domestic. This vessel, owned by a company known to 'officials', is the same domestic outfit which lost a barge in that NYC detonation, among other incidents. Will it ever be realized that restraint of trade, loss of revenues, whatever, will never meet or exceed the damage an incident like this can cause WITHOUT PROPER, EFFECTIVE AND ENFORCEABLE REGULATORY PROCEDURES ??? (sound familiar ???)

Enact concrete laws and regulations; not some wishy washy crap with all kinds of loopholes to be exonerated through.

Agree with Juro's hand grenade - Make THEM pay to the point of elimination!

Nick - the reports said this oil was #6 crude - the kind of stuff that mirrors the floods in the Kuwaiti desert; the kind of stuff which is refined further, or used as fuel for large, on-line power systems, heater systems or propulsion systems for the giants that carry it back and forth. It doesn't break down easily, as is evidenced by Exxon Valdez and other worse or lesser spills.

That sucker was loaded with industrial fuel; not #2 diesel for your heating system or gas for your four wheeler. Who of us knows where it was headed. We don't want the industry who potentially owned it to suffer with frivolous lawsuits because the transporter screwed up

Yeah, we all depend on fuel, no argument there. We all might just be too altruistic by thinking that protections are strong enough to keep it from happening again and again - obviously we don't have enough controls in place - money buys freedom from compliance just like it does anything else.

What's the answer? Is the answer a "class-action"?; maybe. Is there enough 'juice' (money) and 'pissed-off' (organizations and individuals interested in influencing current SOP) and so forth, collectible from this membership, in concert with and aligned in spirit with other 'memberships' to reach the listening devices of the lawmakers???

What'll be the galvanizing item which causes everybody to get on the same train ? - because if it happens due to this one incident, then it ought to effect a bundle of other things we collectively "care" about.

Yeah, make them pay until they don't exist anymore, and don't let them off any federal or state hook, either.

Apologize, my ass.

P.S. - just saw Dave's comment on the other spills - my point exactly - take the protections away by making the lawmakers answer to the victimized, and worry less about their campaign funds.

0500 hrs news said they were recovering dead birds; loons, coot, etc.

Last edited by DFix; 04-29-2003 at 12:45 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #14  
Old 04-29-2003, 12:48 PM
Nor-Easter Nor-Easter is offline
Recent Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Out of New Bedford to where the Fish Are!
Posts: 4
This whole thing stinks and the more time goes by the more it stinks. Someone is playing cover-up and hide the truth.

I have it on really good reliable source that this affair started around noon on Sunday with a report of a spill or leak in a barge that was NORTH WEST of Cuttyhunk. The Coast Guard supposedly told the Tug/Barge to lay too until cleared for entrance. Two small Coast Guard boats reportedly were sent West and North of Cuttyhunk where they reported a moderate spill with a Sheen report of 4 out of 10, 10 being heaviest and 0 being no oil showing.
The Coast Guard then directed the tug/barge to proceed to Anchorage Area #7 which is North of Woods Hole, some 14 or more miles from the original call to the anchorage area where the Marine Inspection Office came out before sunset on sunday and divers were put down and confirmed a 2X12 foot gash in the bottom of the barge.
If the incident happened North West of Cuttyhunk who is the idiot that told the tug/barge to continue on into the Bay with a leaking Barge? They should have held the tug/barge outside the Bay until they could apply a negative vacumn to the affected tanks, thus stopping the outflow of oil, and then entered to go to the anchorage area.
We now have a 14 mile plus long slick spreading out across the entire freaking Bay area.
The Coast Guard reported they were notified around 1700 on Sunday but the radio VHF reports were heard starting around 1200 noon on Sunday. Who isn't telling the truth and why are the most important questions to be answered.

Sure there is going to be damage from this spill. It was #6 Bunker Oil this time, not the #2 Home Heating Oil like back in 1978. The '78 spill was way up by Cleveland Ledge and the marshes of North Falmouth are still hurting.
How many years do you suspect this spill and it's effects will be around?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #15  
Old 04-29-2003, 01:05 PM
bcasey's Avatar
bcasey bcasey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 517
Nor-Easter,
Thanks for stopping by, good to have you here. I know this is your backyard and how concerned you are about this area and this issue! We will all benefit from your experiances around B-Bay and the Elizabeths. I know I will. WELCOME!
__________________
CASE
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Fly Fishing Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Impact of oil spill on one of the two major menhaden populations that remain today? juro Our Environment 0 06-30-2010 04:07 PM
Oil Spill Eric Our Environment 3 05-20-2010 05:31 PM
Mystic River oil spill contained Dble Haul Our Environment 2 12-28-2005 12:01 PM
Feds Sue MA over Oil Spill Law JimW Our Environment 4 02-13-2005 04:13 PM
Oil Spill in Narragansett Lefty Stripers and Coastal Gamefish 3 07-08-2000 10:03 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:06 AM.



Copyright Flyfishingforum.com (All Rights Reserved)