Gov't Response Rated Worse than Katrina in Poll

[Pangloss]

Apparently the general public thinks that the federal government is handling the Texas oil spill in a manner that's even worse than its response to Hurricane Katrina. This is politically significant since Katrina is often named as a key factor in the downfall in George W. Bush's poll numbers in his second term. President Obama is up for re-election in 2012, but his party faces a tough mid-term election in less than five months.

 

The article includes a link to a PDF showing charts and questionnaire sample.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Media/poll-bp-oil-spill-rated-worse-katrina-criminal-charges/story?id=10846473

 

In addition to the 7-point difference in negative ratings of the federal response to the oil spill vs. Katrina, there's a 10-point difference in positive ratings – 28 percent for the government's oil spill response, vs. 38 percent for its response to Katrina. That's in part because 59 percent of Republicans rated the response to Katrina positively, while just 40 percent of Democrats say the same about the current oil spill response.

 

All the same, there's far less partisan division in concern about the spill's effects: It's seen as a major environmental disaster by seven in 10 Republicans and three-quarters of Democrats and independents alike.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What exactly was the government supposed to do in response? Send in a carrier battle group to bomb the oil spill?

[Pangloss]

That's how I've always felt about hurricane response ratings, and I suppose the same reasoning applies here. There are legitimate complaints, but given the general mood in the country and its attitude about government in general, it seems clear that during a crisis a poll is always going to show low ratings for whomever is in charge of the response.

 

Where I think the question becomes interesting politically is in how it applies to the question of leverage. Katrina was leveraged by mainstream Democrats in their ongoing anti-Bush efforts -- not just the far left, and not just Louisianans like Donna Brazille and James Carville (the latter of whom has been notably critical of President Obama with regard to the oil spill). These same Democrats, now in control of the country, are now on the receiving end of one of the most significant "turnabout is fair play" moments in recent political history.

 

But in the end the main question is how the public will see it in five months. But unlike Katrina, five months from now the situation in the Gulf of Mexico is likely to be the same or worse than it is now. This does not bode well for the party in power.

 

On the plus side, media attention will shift and tend to focus public ire more on corporate malfeasance than on regulatory shortcomings, so the damage may not, in the end, be insurmountable.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It gets worse, by the way, when you consider the recent allegations, many coming from sources normally friendly to Democrats, that the administration has been playing politics with the disaster, downplaying its response, focusing on blaming BP, and focusing on conservative spill/leakage estimates while their own people were saying that the spill was far worse than they wanted the public to believe.

 

The new issue of Rolling Stone has a hard-hitting investigating piece that just came out on Tuesday with some rather startling accusations, including evidence that the administration deliberately hid worst-case leakage estimates that were thought to be accurate by bother industry experts and independent scientists just days after the crisis. This picture was taken in an official event response room on April 22nd. Note the green writing towards the bottom of the white board, indicating NOAA's worst-case scenario estimate:

 

 

At that time both the administration and BP was talking about 12,000-25,000 barrels/day being the worst-case scenario -- the official estimates were around 1,000 barrels/day (see page 6, halfway down page), with heavy emphasis being placed on this being the most likely. Apparently we need a new definition for the term "worst case scenario".

 

The full article is an interesting read:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965?RS_show_page=0

 

And note this quote below. Again, this is Rolling Stone Magazine, the very epitome of liberal "hipster" progressivism. If Obama can't even get unclouded devotion from an outfit like Rolling Stone, who CAN he get it from?

 

It's tempting to believe that the Gulf spill, like so many disasters inherited by Obama, was the fault of the Texas oilman who preceded him in office. But, though George W. Bush paved the way for the catastrophe, it was Obama who gave BP the green light to drill.

 

"Employees describe being in Interior – not just MMS, but the other agencies – as the third Bush term," says Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which represents federal whistle-blowers. "They're working for the same managers who are implementing the same policies. Why would you expect a different result?"

 

"The third Bush term"??? OUCH!

 

The article also looks at the White House response over the timeline of the post-event period:

 

By that evening, the White House was gearing up for an urgent response. The president convened an emergency meeting in the Oval Office with Adm. Thad Allen, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and top White House deputies Rahm Emanuel, Carol Browner and Larry Summers. Obama forcefully instructed his team that the response to the oil spill should be treated as a "number-one priority."

 

But then the fog of war set in. The following day, the Coast Guard – relying on assurances from BP – declared that the spill appeared to be limited to oil that was stored aboard the sunken rig. With a worst-case crisis seemingly averted, Obama checked out, heading off for a long weekend in Asheville, North Carolina, where he and the first lady would stop for ribs at a barbecue joint called 12 Bones Smokehouse before checking into the Grove Park Inn, a golf resort and spa. Asked whether the spill would hamper the president's offshore drilling agenda, spokesman Gibbs made light of the disaster. "I don't honestly think it opens up a whole new series of questions," he said. "I doubt this is the first accident that has happened, and I doubt it will be the last."

 

You read it right: The estimate was raised, and the President went on vacation.

 

The article goes on to talk about scientific reaction to the White House playing ball with BP:

 

But rather than applying such skepticism to BP's math, the Obama administration has instead attacked scientists who released independent estimates of the spill. When one scientist funded by NOAA released a figure much higher than the government's estimate, he found himself being pressured to retract it by officials at the agency. "Are you sure you want to keep saying this?" they badgered him. Lubchenco, the head of NOAA, even denounced as "misleading" and "premature" reports that scientists aboard the research vessel Pelican had discovered a massive subsea oil plume. Speaking to PBS, she offered a bizarre denial of the obvious. "It's clear that there is something at depth," she said, "but we don't even know that it's oil yet."

 

Scientists were stunned that NOAA, an agency widely respected for its scientific integrity, appeared to have been co-opted by the White House spin machine. "NOAA has actively pushed back on every fact that has ever come out," says one ocean scientist who works with the agency. "They're denying until the facts are so overwhelming, they finally come out and issue an admittance." Others are furious at the agency for criticizing the work of scientists studying the oil plumes rather than leading them. "Why they didn't have vessels there right then and start to gather the scientific data on oil and what the impacts are to different organisms is inexcusable," says a former government marine biologist. "They should have been right on top of that." Only six weeks into the disaster did the agency finally deploy its own research vessel to investigate the plumes.

 

This from an administration that's supposedly friendly towards science.

 

Democrat or Republican doesn't matter at this point. This doesn't play in Peoria.

[jackson33]

What exactly was the government supposed to do in response? Send in a carrier battle group to bomb the oil spill? [/Quote]

 

Maybe that would have better received than indirectly attacking BP and sending Federal Attorneys into Louisiana/Houston Texas shortly after the collapse.

 

Then the Dutch tried to assist with four large skimmers, which could have been there in time to make a very large difference. This in my mind is pure arrogance, on the part of somebody in the Administration and bringing up the 'Jones Act' won't help. This was 'set aside/wavered' all through Katrina, no one cared and a good deal of assistance was granted. By the way to today 8PM ET, no one in the Administration has EVEN requested a waiver.

 

 

Three days after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, the Dutch government offered to help.

 

It was willing to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms, and it proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands

.

The response from the Obama administration and BP, which are coordinating the cleanup: “The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,'” said Geert Visser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston.

 

Now, almost seven weeks later, as the oil spewing from the battered well spreads across the Gulf and soils pristine beaches and coastline, BP and our government have reconsidered.[/Quote]

 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/steffy/7043272.html

 

I watched the Huckabee show this week end, where they had several potential solvents for oil in the ocean, all waiting on approval to go ahead on. Guess it takes government some time to approve any assistance, like nearly two months (hope the White House doesn't catch fire). Anyway one fellow had 1.4 Million tons of a compound that soaked up oil (didn't catch the weight ratio to oil absorbed), but the thing with this product, it did NOT need to be retrieved, Once the oil is absorbed the oil itself dissolves, along with natural toxic's in the ocean. Think I'd have had that stuff on the first oil slick seen. He is still waiting for permission.

 

I have a hard time comparing the two reaction Bush/Obama. Louisiana during Katrina, would not cooperate with Washington, while they have been begging for help over the oil spill for months. In both cases Florida/Mississippi/Alabama/Texas seemed to get all the help needed or is it they just do/did their own thing. If you really want to go to leadership, that's no doubt going to come from a subjected and political personal opinion. I would ask you consider just what Federal Agency was in charge of regulating the weather, in hurricane season or this particular drilling operation?

[CharonY]

Anyway one fellow had 1.4 Million tons of a compound that soaked up oil (didn't catch the weight ratio to oil absorbed), but the thing with this product, it did NOT need to be retrieved, Once the oil is absorbed the oil itself dissolves, along with natural toxic's in the ocean. Think I'd have had that stuff on the first oil slick seen.

I think I know the proposed stuff. If it is the same as I was thinking of then it is some kind of nanomaterial with unknown formulation. The EPA requested the composition which the manufacturer denied to disclose. So far there is only the word of the manufacturer that it is harmless. Considering the fact that nanotoxicology is still quite in its infancy I am not sure whether it would be a good idea to throw that stuff in. For instance it could increase the solubility and hence, bioavailability of the oil.

 

Well and most of the offers from allies during the aftermath of Katrina were declined, too.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042801113.html

Despite waiving the Jones act, unfortunately.

Edited June 14, 2010 by CharonY

[jackson33]

CharonY; Sorry I didn't see this sooner. You could be right, but if so "this stuff" is already being used around current oil operations, as are most of the other stuff shown, to clean up after the well comes in and/or clean up when shut down. Since it's deemed okay for this, I hardly think the EPA is unaware of the content and believe some posters on this forum, could advise the EPA how to determine the content and toxicity of any compound. You might be thinking of the compound BP was using (similar cleaning process) which at the time and probably still not banned by the EPA, but not allowed in some of Europe. The Administration stopped that...

[CharonY]

One would have to determine precisely whether it is the same compound (unfortunately I forgot the name), however for the one in question was untested, and hence the reluctance to use it. IIRC it was not submitted for toxicity analysis and I would be surprised if it was used in anything more than small scale. And of course the benefit of it in relation to risk has not been proven for that scale either. The analysis of toxicity is not trivial, especially the evaluation of ecotoxicity.

 

Edit the nanotech I was thinking about is from a company called green earth technologies. Based on what I know about nanotechnology their claims are highly dubious, especially the proposed micelle size (but then it is hard to evaluate as they do not say what it is). Is it the same you are thinking of? That product was only released in April, and has therefore never been tested in the field afaik.

Edited June 16, 2010 by CharonY

[JohnB]

Perception could be part of the problem too.

 

I'm not trying to downplay what happened but the word "disaster" is bandied about a lot, also "catastrophe". Is it a disaster?

 

A good administration will proceed according to the severity of the problem, not what the public percieves to be the severity.

 

I saw a comment on a blog recently and had a look at the figures. Given a bit of perspective the spill is not going to destroy the fragile ecosystems.

 

From Uboat net.

 

January 1942. (And only looking at loaded tankers sunk near the US coast.)

 

Norness: 12,222 tons of Admiralty fuel oil.

Coimbra: 9000 tons of lubricating oil.

Allan Jackson: 72,870 barrels of crude oil.

Alexandra Høegh: 12,000 tons of crude oil.

Innerøy: 11,000 tons of petrol.

Empire Gem: 10,692 tons of motor spirit.

Varanger: 12,750 tons of fuel oil.

Francis E. Powell: 81,000 barrels of furnace oil and gasoline.

Halo: 64,103 barrels of crude oil.

 

The Halo was sunk just off New Orleans BTW.

Crude oil also floated free forming a layer four inches thick.

 

Those 9 ships out of the 66 hit or sunk during January 1942 amount to a lot of oil. If you start adding in the fuel oil carried by normal merchants and empty tankers to run their engines, there was a lot more dumped in the ocean that month.

 

January 1942 was a slow month with only 66 ships hit or sunk. May had 146, June 145, the figures are quite staggering.

 

Some of these tankers were sunk within sight of the American coastline. There were no skimmers, no dispersants, no action plans and as far as I can see, no lasting ecological impacts either.

 

Again, I'm not trying to downplay the BP spill, but viewed historically it will not be a "catastrophe" with "long lasting ecological damage" either. However we should try to avoid spills and clean them up when they do occur.

 

Given that historical perspective it is better for an Administration to proceed with thought and care rather than run around like headless chooks just so they are seen to be "doing something". It may not suit the public perception, but it is the correct course of action.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[Pangloss]

Aren't those numbers kinda trivial compared with the current situation?

[iNow]

They're also dispersed and not concentrated in one area.

[JohnB]

Pangloss the estimates vary so widely that I don't know if the numbers are trivial or not. I simply put them up for historical comparison.

 

iNow, yes they were less concentrated, but they end up a lot higher and for a much longer time. Those figures were for 1 month.

 

Using the same reference terms;

 

February 1942;

 

W.L. Steed: 65,936 barrels of crude oil.

Corilla: 10,500 tons of aviation fuel.

China Arrow: 81,773 barrels of fuel oil.

India Arrow: 88,369 barrels of diesel fuel.

Opalia: Petrol and paraffin.

Pan Massachusetts: 104,000 barrels of refined petroleum, gasoline, kerosene and diesel oil.

Cities Service Empire: 9,400 tons of crude oil.

Kars: 12,700 tons of aviation spirit and fuel oil.

W.D. Anderson: 133,360 barrels of crude oil.

Mamura: full load of gasoline. (About 9,000 tons)

R.P. Resor: 105,025 barrels of Bunker C fuel oil.

 

(As an aside, more tankers were sunk on the Spanish Main that month than anywhere else.)

 

March 1942;

 

O.A. Knudsen: Petrol and fuel oil. (Around 12,000 tons.)

Gulftrade: 80,000 barrels of bunker C oil.

John D. Gill: 141,981 barrels of crude oil.

Australia: 110,000 barrels of fuel oil.

San Demetrio: 4000 tons of alcohol and 7000 tons of motor spirit.

Ranja: Petroleum. (7,000 tons?)

E.M. Clark: 118,725 barrels of heating oil.

W.E. Hutton: 65,000 barrels of #2 heating oil.

British Prudence: 12,000 tons of fuel oil.

Empire Steel: 11,000 tons of aviation spirit and kerosene.

Narragansett: 14,000 tons of clean petroleum product.

Ocana: fuel oil. (About 7,000 tons.)

Dixie Arrow: 86,136 barrels of crude oil.

Svenør: 11,410 tons of furnace oil.

San Gerardo: 17,000 tons of fuel oil.

 

Roughly half of these vessels were sunk within 60 miles of the North Carolinan coast. With no clean up operation the oil would be a constant attack on the coastal waters and ecology.

 

Don't forget, I'm not saying the BP spill wasn't very bad news, just saying that it might not be a catastrophe.

 

Trying a different example, from jrank.

 

There were 314 attacks on oil tankers during the Iran-Iraq War of 1981–1987, 70% of them by Iraqi forces. The largest individual spill during that war occurred when Iraq damaged five tankers and three production wells at the offshore Nowruz complex, resulting in the spillage of more than 287,000 tons (260,000 metric tons) of petroleum into the Gulf of Arabia.

 

The largest-ever spill of petroleum into the marine environment occurred during the brief Gulf War of 1991. In that incident Iraqi forces deliberately released an estimated 0.6-2.2 million tons (0.5-2 million tons) of petroleum into the Persian Gulf from several tankers and an offshore tanker-loading facility known as the Sea Island Terminal.

 

The Exxon Valdex released only 39,000 tons in comparison and you would have to agree (I think) that the Gulf of Arabia or the Persian Gulfwould classify as rather small and enclosed waterways when compared to the Gulf of Mexico.

[Pangloss]

How much is a "ton", in terms of gallons or barrels?

 

The current estimate for the ongoing gulf oil spill (based on the sensors that the government forced BP to finally install) is 60,000 barrels per day (2.5 million gallons). That's been coming out of the wellhead every day for the last 57 days, suggesting 142.5 million gallons total. Exxon Valdez was 10.8 million gallons total.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Pangloss
corrected my math error!

[jackson33]

Depending on density crude oil weights between 6-8 pounds per gallon, a ton then contains 250 to 333 gallons or a 42 gallon barrel weights 252 to 336 pounds.

 

In these 'spill' conversations, depending on salt seawater content, the average weight per gallon is 8.5 pounds...slightly heavier than fresh water at 8p/g.

 

 

Interesting is what one barrel actually can produce in products, 2 gallons more than the 42 gallon barrel.

 

http://www.txoga.org/articles/308/1/WHAT-A-BARREL-OF-CRUDE-OIL-MAKES

[JohnB]

According to UNEP oil spills get tracked when over 10,000 gallons or 34 tons.

 

Working on that basis, 2.5 million gallons comes in at 8,500 tons, so you are around a WW2 tanker per day and a half. The Exxon Valdex in 4 1/2 days.

 

So definately very bad.

 

Using your 142.5 million barrels, that means 484,500 tons which will make it by far the largest spill in history. More than 60% larger than the Iran/Iraq one.

 

Looks like I was wrong, disaster indeed looks to be an appropriate word, and catastrophe is not unreasonable either.

 

At least, that's what the numbers say to me now.

[Mr Skeptic]

A thought has occurred to me: maybe we should ban people from videotaping disasters -- they make the government look bad, which could interfere with them doing their job.

[navigator]

JohnB:

 

I hope you are right, but I think you are overlooking a couple of things. First, the well casing is made of 2" steel that is being sandblasted with sand and rock and there is already some evidence of casing failure below the ocean floor.

 

BP Well Bore And Casing Integrity May Be Blown, Says Florida’s Sen. Nelson

 

Here is a link to some videos that appear to show oil leaking from the ocean floor.

 

If the well head doesn't give up first, the casing below the ocean floor needs to be up to spec to tap into with the relief wells.

 

Second, the well is tapped into the Tiber oil field which is estimated to hold 4-6 billion barrels of oil and is thought to be a migration field. A "huge" find is usually in the realm of 250 million barrels and under much less pressure due to the depth of the field. This well is 35k' below sea level.

 

Third, your WWII comparison does not include toxic levels of hydrogen sulfide, benzene, methalene chloride and other toxic gases.

 

It may not look like a catastrophe currently, but if they don't plug it soon this oil will end on shores all around the world.

 

Back to the topic, the county I live in is no longer waiting on the fed/BP to even respond, let alone give them the green light. Okaloosa co. commisioners voted unanimously to take whatever action neccessary to protect The Destin Pass, the harbor and Choctawhatchee Bay, even if it meant going to jail.

 

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/okaloosa-30040-public-commission.html

[Mr Skeptic]

By that evening, the White House was gearing up for an urgent response. The president convened an emergency meeting in the Oval Office with Adm. Thad Allen, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and top White House deputies Rahm Emanuel, Carol Browner and Larry Summers. Obama forcefully instructed his team that the response to the oil spill should be treated as a "number-one priority."

 

But then the fog of war set in. The following day, the Coast Guard – relying on assurances from BP – declared that the spill appeared to be limited to oil that was stored aboard the sunken rig. With a worst-case crisis seemingly averted, Obama checked out, heading off for a long weekend in Asheville, North Carolina, where he and the first lady would stop for ribs at a barbecue joint called 12 Bones Smokehouse before checking into the Grove Park Inn, a golf resort and spa. Asked whether the spill would hamper the president's offshore drilling agenda, spokesman Gibbs made light of the disaster. "I don't honestly think it opens up a whole new series of questions," he said. "I doubt this is the first accident that has happened, and I doubt it will be the last."

 

You read it right: The estimate was raised, and the President went on vacation.

 

Wait, what I read was that the estimate was lowered to a negligible level, and the President went on vacation. I must have read it wrong.

[Pangloss]

Maybe not the worst in history. This oil spill in Nigeria has been going on for 50 years, spilling an Exxon Valdez-equivalent every year. That's half a billion gallons, though of course much more spread out over time.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/world/africa/17nigeria.html