Um, unlike this post, I simply pointed out the source was obvious and "attacked" no one. Twist it any way you like, all I was stating is that the source was patently obvious.
Obvious – no. Personal - yes. If you care to look at the photo again there are several boats in the picture and as Clarkii explained already the currents and tides could influence how the slick moved. I am not sure if those CCG employees (not politicians) on the ground at the time were looking at photos like the one you posted. What we do know is that from their point of view it was not obvious at the time – no spin, it’s the truth. Do you really think if they knew where the source was that early they wouldn’t do everything possible to contain quickly? As for your statement,
“And if you can't figure out the source......you're willfully blind or just plain stupid”, if you can’t figure out how inflammatory that is when you could have approached it much differently and still made your point then you have much larger issues. I will leave it at that.
No, but if I was in charge, crews would have been deployed directly after the call.Do they not have chopper to access for this type of incident for observation from the air?
Again, read the timeline of events:
http://beaconenergynews.ca/markham/dear-gregor-robertson-so-what-does-a-world-class-oil-spill-response-look-like/As the author states, the CCG was diligent enough (those employees on the water, not the politicians) to take the report as real. However, I don’t see any of you critics giving any credit there because it could have been a much worse situation. The source of the spill needed to be found first. What are you going to put booms around if you are not sure where the oil is coming from? Personally, I feel like those employees of the CCG that day have been raked over the coals very unfairly by the public. I am not sure if they use helicopters at that point or not because it is not my area of expertise. I trust that those CCG employees know how to do their jobs and understand what protocols they need to follow. Take the hint please.
I'm pretty well sure that deployment was not in the hands of the boots to the ground crews, but left to someone who missed the mark by a wide margin.
If you feel like it was not in the hands of the boots on the ground, then who? The CCG can get many calls from the public daily about pollution, boating, etc. Do you think that every call or most of them are directed to some “political hack” in Ottawa(?) who has to time to review, investigate and direct (or micro-manage) employees across the county what to do? With this particular incident, do you think that the “boots on the ground” phoned some senior bureaucrat or politician back east at night (9:00pm ET) for direction on deployment? Those CCG employees have a hard enough time trying to communicate and get responses with officials back east regarding daily administration issues. You seem pretty sure and of course that is your opinion, but you have no facts of this phantom person pulling the puppet strings that day from unknown location.
You think those CCG employees on the ground had time to get direction from this mystery person considering the timeline? You don’t believe they have supervisors on the ground that are qualified enough and trusted enough to respond to these incidents? Think about what you are trying to sell me. And you talk about not wanting to be fed bull#$%t. As for someone missing the mark by a wide margin that is not supported by the facts so far as most of the surface oil has been contained nor does it show any appreciation for the fact that the decision by the CCG to disagree with the Port’s initial assessment was the right call.
That's not what I said or inferred. Those are your words, not mine. You can take ownership of that statement.
That’s right – those are my words. In my opinion, when you refer to the response as “pathetic” that is definitely an insult to those crews on the ground. Again, it’s the employees on the ground carrying out the work. Can only do what the chain of command says? Well, I imagine there has to be some command structure in place, but who is this “talking head”, “political hack” or “stuffed shirt” that directed the response that day, did such a horrible job and refused to admit they blew it? Those words in quotes are yours, NB.
What is “pathetic” is when armchair critics become experts in oil spill management overnight while disrespecting those on the ground with the actual experience. Some critics should put the boots on sometime and shadow some of these employees and see what they do before judging their performance as “pathetic”.
Who made the cuts that led to this in the first place? There used to be a boom and equipment at the shuttered Kits base, but the bean counters decided that you can respond just as quickly from Richmond. Geographically impossible
Apparently not impossible in this case considering the timeline and the success so far by the crews involved. Not saying that the Kits base closure was great but one should be fair and objective about if this closure impacted the response. If the base was still open would that really have made the response that much better? Keep in mind that the observation would still have to be confirmed and the source still needed to be found. In addition, the leak could have been going on many hours before the initial call came in. It was not as if the ship clearly ran aground on the rocks in English Bay and it was obviously leaking bunker fuel. Hindsight is great.
Why the personal attack Steve? I simply have a different opinion than yours and in no way, other than to post my views, did I attack you or insult you, but you choose to come out swinging.Why?
Personal attack from me…lol? Yeah, right. Nice try. I have no problems with other opinions, but there was no need to insinuate that I was being wilfully blind or just plain stupid.
Author
Topic: Oil spill English bay/Burrard Inlet (Read 43947 times)