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