In case you missed this...
 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...0,149537.story

Yeh, sure....drilling is safe using current practices in the Gulf of Mexico. Now, where have we heard that one before?:rolleyes:

And the spokesperson Blackmon is spewing the usual bullshit. Here is a statement. "Blackmon said the environmental impact of the leak had been minimal at this point because what was leaking was "dry natural gas" that evaporated instead of contaminating the air and water."

So natural gas is leaking somewhere underneath, bubbling up to the surface and quietly evaporating? So it's nor harm, no foul.

It is leaking through several hundred feet of sea water as it rises up and it is dry and clean? Not contaminating the water on it's way up and air when it surfaces? OK. So the only risk is don't light a match anywhere near it. :rolleyes:

http://www.trbimg.com/img-51f08645/t...g-20130724/600

Pretty intense picture of the blow out and it's raining benzene condensate onto the surface of the ocean. They'll be drilling a relief well which will take weeks to accomplish, by some estimates.

Pretty much the same stuff we heard about a couple years ago. When the regulatory environment is such that underwater drilling activity / equipment gets pushed 55 miles off shore, it severely complicates the process and makes recovery from accidents / malfunctions that much more complicated.

Mother nature releases this type of gas into the environment periodically all by herself, as we saw in this thread: http://www.politicalchat.org/showthread.php?t=6044 The biggest difference between the two scenarios is that their no BP or Halliburton attached to mother nature's release, so there's no one for the lawyers to sue to the Dems to haul before some stupid committee to testify.

Yes, of course the answer to exploding oil and gas wells is less government oversight and more "freedom" for large corporations to create even bigger disasters. To some people that's the answer to everything.

Speaking of "same old songs".............:rolleyes:

Zzzzzzz, Zzzzzzz, Zzzzzzz.............................

Dave

Didn't say that, Dave. I did say that drilling wells 55 miles off shore, where such distance and depth creates its own set of hazards, is a stupid thing to do, however.

Speaking of same old, tired debate tactics: creating a straw dog so you can get your kicks from knocking it down. ZZZZZZZZZ, ZZZZZZZZZZZ, ZZZZZZZZ.....

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

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.

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.

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

;)

Dave

Just trying to put some flesh on the straw man.

Regards,

D-Ray

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

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

Barney

Did you actually read the link posted in the thread you are referencing, Mike?

There's nothing natural about the Artic becoming ice free during the summer.
Check out the thread "Greenland is Melting" in this forum.

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. :rolleyes:

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?

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

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

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

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

Pete

Was there anything natural about it any of the other times it's happened?

This warming trend is the first where we are having an impact.

Good argument for wind, solar and other minimally polluting alternative energy sources! Thanks, Pete.:)

We only need viability and we're good to go ;)

Pete

Add a better accounting of the cost of oil to the environment and stop corporate welfare to the petro industry and solar/wind alone will sprout up on every rooftop. De-nutting the Koch Bros like male hogs appeals to my sense of justice but then I'm just a liberty lovin' lefty.;)

If the rich folks pay 50% of taxes, aren't government subsides to fuel helping the poor?

;)

Pete

Living off grid is nothing new. People have done it for thousands of years.

Hell, the Black Hats still do it around here. It's kind of a brutal existence, and I've noticed more than a few horse and buggies showing up at the free food distribution.

Now it can be done right, and relatively inexpensively as well...but most people just aren't ready for it.

Chas

Probably more like to help the administrators who disburse the funds to the poor.

I still say the poor are a commodity...to be subsidized, regulated, and controlled by those who make a living doing so.

Chas

No.

And: To whose benefit?

Dave

You don't see the poor as a commodity?

Now there are some people which you can never help. But by creating a bureaucracy of relatively well paid administrators disbursing just enough funds to create a level of existence welfare which perpetuates itself, should we not rethink our tactics?

My point is, there is more money in keeping the poor people poor, or the right people rich, as in helping the poor to escape poverty.

Kind of like looking through the prism backwards...perhaps our efforts to free them only insure to enslave them further.


Chas

Hmmm, I think I better get out my chest waders and float tube...Didn't the Prez just come out for a reduction in the corporate tax rate? I believe 28% is the number I heard.:)

I believe you are correct.

What does he ask in concessions?

Chas

Beats me, jobs programs and close up some loopholes is all I've heard. Specifics forthcoming, I guess. Two to one odds says the Repubs crap all over it and demand 20%.

Maybe he just expects them to actually pay?



Barney

They came up with their usual answer - nope

Yep, they did. I have to wonder Rob, when is the average voter going to wise up and toss these Ayn Rand acolytes out on their collective ear?

When pigs fly, I guess.:(