In case you missed this...

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Whell, your clear implication was that a main problem with this situation is that regulations cause oil companies to drill farther off shore.

Yes, "a" problem, but not the main problem. The problem is the distance and depth. Would BP be out that far absent the regulatory environment? If there's oil there that's economically feasible to obtain, then yes, they would likely be. However, the price of oil needs to rise to a pretty fair level to make such risk and expense attractive.

Originally Posted by d-ray657

You further implied that this environmental accident will create the possibility of further regulation following congressional hearings.

No i didn't. I said that the lack of BP's involvement in the "natural" release of methane cited in the previous thread wouldn't provide the spectacle for Dems of committee hearings, etc. that might otherwise be the case. I never said that "this" environmental accident would result in hearings.

Originally Posted by d-ray657

You were not specific, however, about what regulations you found intrusive, leaving you open to a general response to the theory underlying your implied argument.

Regards,

D-Ray

Gee, Don. I'll try to be better in the future.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Whell, your clear implication was that a main problem with this situation is that regulations cause oil companies to drill farther off shore. You further implied that this environmental accident will create the possibility of further regulation following congressional hearings. You were not specific, however, about what regulations you found intrusive, leaving you open to a general response to the theory underlying your implied argument.

Regards,

D-Ray

Dave

[d-ray657]

Just trying to put some flesh on the straw man.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Oerets]

Right, less regulation would solve this problem and keep it from happening!

Try that on your kids and see how well it works!

Barney

[Rajoo]

One of the reasons that drilling platforms are that far out is to minimize the contamination that occurs from washing ashore. Yes oil leaks minimally all the time along with other contaminants and pollutants and they wash ashore, and this will cause major damage to the land and marine life.

So sure, bring the wells in but make sure people have abandoned the shore and kiss marine life in that area good bye and yes, Drill baby Drill.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

One of the reasons that drilling platforms are that far out is to minimize the contamination that occurs from washing ashore. Yes oil leaks minimally all the time along with other contaminants and pollutants and they wash ashore, and this will cause major damage to the land and marine life.

So sure, bring the wells in but make sure people have abandoned the shore and kiss marine life in that area good bye and yes, Drill baby Drill.

Indeed. An oft-cited fundamental truism of environmental science is "the best solution to pollution is dilution."

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Indeed. An oft-cited fundamental truism of environmental science is "the best solution to pollution is dilution."

Interesting you say that. One of my prof's in Grad school often used to say that the only answer to pollution is "don't do it". Avoidance, control or cleanup, in that order in terms of cost. In case of off shore drilling, a fourth option; keep it out of sight and depend on dilution and evaporation?

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Indeed. An oft-cited fundamental truism of environmental science is "the best solution to pollution is dilution."

Like putting ice cubes in Buffalo Trace? Works for me.

[Dondilion]

The Swiss will put you on trial if you drill and cause earthquakes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8414795.stm

[piece-itpete]

The problem is there's no such thing as foolproof. As long as we need oil spills will happen.

Pete