|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 14, 2010 8:14:34 GMT -8
In keeping with their desire not to let a crisis go to waste, the Left is using the Gulf oil spill to support their desire to kill all off-shore drilling. The environmental concerns are certainly not frivolous. Who would want millions of gallons of crude oil flowing only his shores? Nobody, of course. Well, let's see. If the risk of oil spills is serious, let's do something about it. I know, how about just outlawing ALL offshore drilling. Just shut it down anywhere it is now operating. And, while we are at it, since the world is about to end due to carbon dioxide (didn't Al Gore tell say so?) how about simply outlawing all use of carbon based fuels? The sooner the better; why not outlaw it starting next week? Alright, I am obviously not serious about that. Even the most glassy-eyed enviro understands that we cannot stop using carbon based fuels next week. Our economy would collapse overnight into a crisis that would make the Fall of the Roman Empire look like a cloudy afternoon. Okay, if we can't get off carbon based fuels next week, how about next month? Nope. Next year? Forget about it. Next decade? Well . . . no. Maybe next decade we will have cut our usage a bit, perhaps even enough to lower the price of crude a few dollars a barrel. But get off carbon based fuels next decade? No. Alright, how about by 2020. Sorry, that's not going to happen either. By 2030? The answer is still no, though by that time we might see a significantly lower percentage (10% less? 20% less? Who knows?) of our energy coming from carbon based fuels. 2040? No, not even by then. The fact is that we are going to be dependent on oil, coal, and natural gas, not for decades, but for generations. Maybe by 2060 or 2070 those sources of energy will comprise only a trivial percentage of what we use. I certainly hope so, but I'm not prepared to bet that such will be the case even by then. And, let's not forget, there are plenty of uses for petroleum that have nothing to do with energy production. What many on the Left cannot bring themselves to admit is that (a) we will need lots and lots of oil for a long time (To his credit, Obama has admitted that himself) and that (b) there are other powerful considerations that require us to take some risks in the area of acquiring fuel. I refer to the geo-political situation in which we are dependent on nations that are not only hostile to us but who are actually, through use of money we send them, killing Americans and citizens of our allies. This article, though it is needlessly partisan, does lay out some of the major features of today's political argument over what to do about energy. Of special interest is the discussion of nuclear energy and how some unlikely people are now in favor of it. nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/65903/AzWm PS: One of the problems facing those who are trying to plug the Gulf leak is that they are working in mile deep water. That is, partly, because there has been such vehement opposition to drilling in coastal waters, waters that are much shallower. No doubt the risk of an accident has been made greater by forcing drilling into deeper waters. I guess the opponents to off-shore drilling thought that if they could not actually see the drilling platforms all would be well. We can now see how that theory has worked out. |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on May 14, 2010 9:49:36 GMT -8
This is actually a classic thread. It's the environmentalists fault!!  Something that gets lost in all of this stale argument is the fact that the "give and pull" between industry and the biologists/environmentalists/opposition (rich people who may be right wingers with an ocean view) is what has made the industry relatively clean! This accident is a terribly unfortunate thing that re-enforces the importance of overview and ...yes the most dreaded word for the Right.. "Regulations". How do you think the air in L.A. got cleaned up William?.. from the goodness of heart by industry to make things right...or extreme pressure from the hated environmentalists? The oil spill really only strikes home for a lot on the Right when people lose money from job loss, loss of tourism etc... while a bunch of dead turtles and dolphins doesn't resonate that much (fish versus people). Its just a reminder to be careful....... and regulations and oversight DO matter. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 14, 2010 11:28:18 GMT -8
I am only asking that we try to weigh carefully the various competing interests in this area. For instance, banning drilling near coastlines probably has made this disaster worse. I don't think of banning near-shore drilling as regulation, exactly. It was a political decision.
Regulation would be more like setting safety standards and making sure that industry adheres to those standards.
If this terrible accident is used to decrease domestic production, there will definitely be a price to be paid. And part of that price will be the human lives lost in terrorist attacks made possible in large part by money paid to countries who are not so squeamish about such things as possible blown wells.
Also, it's important to keep in mind that other countries, including China, are going to be drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, regardless of how much American environmentalists oppose such drilling. This reminds me of the history of the tuna fishing industry. Those of us who back to the fifties and sixties, and even later, will remember the San Diego tuna fleet. Well, all that fishing has gone to other countries, nations with much less regard for the safety of dolphins.
My point is this; we must do everything possible to prevent this kind of accident. But we must also not be so averse to oil drilling that we fail to exploit our own resources. And don't forget, oil tankers have accidents, too. The more we rely on foreign oil, the more tankers will be waiting for accidents to happen.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on May 14, 2010 11:56:45 GMT -8
I am only asking that we try to weigh carefully the various competing interests in this area. For instance, banning drilling near coastlines probably has made this disaster worse. I don't think of banning near-shore drilling as regulation, exactly. It was a political decision. Regulation would be more like setting safety standards and making sure that industry adheres to those standards. If this terrible accident is used to decrease domestic production, there will definitely be a price to be paid. And part of that price will be the human lives lost in terrorist attacks made possible in large part by money paid to countries who are not so squeamish about such things as possible blown wells. Also, it's important to keep in mind that other countries, including China, are going to be drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, regardless of how much American environmentalists oppose such drilling. This reminds me of the history of the tuna fishing industry. Those of us who back to the fifties ans sixties, and even later, will remember the San Diego tuna fleet. Well, all that fishing has gone to other countries, nations with much less regard for the safety of dolphins. My point is this; we must do everything possible to prevent this kind of accident. But we must also not be so averse to oil drilling that we fail to exploit our own resources. And don't forget, oil tankers have a accidents, too. The more we rely on foreign oil, the more tankers will be waiting for accidents to happen. AzWm Certainly things to consider. I'll stay away from the subjects of China and Tuna.... I would get carried away. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on May 17, 2010 16:52:47 GMT -8
I am only asking that we try to weigh carefully the various competing interests in this area. For instance, banning drilling near coastlines probably has made this disaster worse. AzWm What evidence do you have to prove that statement? =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 17, 2010 17:59:44 GMT -8
I am only asking that we try to weigh carefully the various competing interests in this area. For instance, banning drilling near coastlines probably has made this disaster worse. AzWm What evidence do you have to prove that statement? =Bob Did he say probably or not? What he says makes sense of course but your challenge does not. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on May 18, 2010 12:48:54 GMT -8
I am only asking that we try to weigh carefully the various competing interests in this area. For instance, banning drilling near coastlines probably has made this disaster worse. AzWm What evidence do you have to prove that statement? =Bob I'll hazard a guess that drilling in shallow water would have made plugging the leak a bit less difficult. FWIW.  |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on May 18, 2010 18:33:18 GMT -8
What evidence do you have to prove that statement? =Bob Did he say probably or not? What he says makes sense of course but your challenge does not. I asked you for evidence, bonehead. Offer some or get off the pot. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 19, 2010 13:56:04 GMT -8
Did he say probably or not? What he says makes sense of course but your challenge does not. I asked you for evidence, bonehead. Offer some or get off the pot. =Bob Another post that points our your inability to read. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 19, 2010 14:37:08 GMT -8
Did he say probably or not? What he says makes sense of course but your challenge does not. I asked you for evidence, bonehead. Offer some or get off the pot. =Bob Bob, it has been mentioned in TV reports that there never has been an attempt to repair a leak like this in such deep water. It would take some pretty persuasive argument to convince me that responding to a crisis like this in water 800 or 900 feet deep would not be a lot less problematic than in water 5,000 feet deep. But additional drilling near shore has been outlawed on grounds there are, though understandable emotionally, essentially political. Come on, Bob! I'm glad to have to participating again, but really, this is the wrong argument on which to be a contrarian. Now, if you want to argue that drilling offshore is bad no matter where, okay, let's have that argument. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 31, 2010 6:00:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 31, 2010 13:44:15 GMT -8
I was just poking around in the Dept of Energy's web site. They have a $38 Billion budget. From what I can see, they accomplish nothing. Could this be a place where a small think tank to keep Congress pointed in a good direction and to advise the Dept of Justice would be a huge saving? This is who should have the lead in coping with the current disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, but they are doing nothing and seem to have no direction.
|
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on May 31, 2010 14:07:02 GMT -8
I asked you for evidence, bonehead. Offer some or get off the pot. =Bob Bob, it has been mentioned in TV reports that there never has been an attempt to repair a leak like this in such deep water. It would take some pretty persuasive argument to convince me that responding to a crisis like this in water 800 or 900 feet deep would not be a lot less problematic than in water 5,000 feet deep. But additional drilling near shore has been outlawed on grounds there are, though understandable emotionally, essentially political. Come on, Bob! I'm glad to have to participating again, but really, this is the wrong argument on which to be a contrarian. Now, if you want to argue that drilling offshore is bad no matter where, okay, let's have that argument. AzWm If you can't fix a blow-out in 5,000 feet of water...you should have never gotten a permit to drill in 5,000 feet of water. Somebody from the gas and oil industry lobbied the politicos to get them to issue a permit for this...they were not forced to drill out there...they drill where they can make money. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecTom on May 31, 2010 14:41:36 GMT -8
He hasn't acted on anything while in office. He has proven all he could do good was speak in public and he still needs teleprompter to do that. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on May 31, 2010 15:53:59 GMT -8
Bob, it has been mentioned in TV reports that there never has been an attempt to repair a leak like this in such deep water. It would take some pretty persuasive argument to convince me that responding to a crisis like this in water 800 or 900 feet deep would not be a lot less problematic than in water 5,000 feet deep. But additional drilling near shore has been outlawed on grounds there are, though understandable emotionally, essentially political. Come on, Bob! I'm glad to have to participating again, but really, this is the wrong argument on which to be a contrarian. Now, if you want to argue that drilling offshore is bad no matter where, okay, let's have that argument. AzWm If you can't fix a blow-out in 5,000 feet of water...you should have never gotten a permit to drill in 5,000 feet of water. Somebody from the gas and oil industry lobbied the politicos to get them to issue a permit for this...they were not forced to drill out there...they drill where they can make money. I think they WERE forced to drill out there. Permits are allowed only where the libs can't see the rigs. Just like the wind farms off of Massachusetts. Great idea, but NIMBY for the libs. Meanwhile, every swinging dick in the region is drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico... Venezuela, Mexico being the most prolific. Whatcha gonna do? Pull their permits? |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on May 31, 2010 18:55:18 GMT -8
If you can't fix a blow-out in 5,000 feet of water...you should have never gotten a permit to drill in 5,000 feet of water. Somebody from the gas and oil industry lobbied the politicos to get them to issue a permit for this...they were not forced to drill out there...they drill where they can make money. I think they WERE forced to drill out there. Permits are allowed only where the libs can't see the rigs. Just like the wind farms off of Massachusetts. Great idea, but NIMBY for the libs. Meanwhile, every swinging dick in the region is drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico... Venezuela, Mexico being the most prolific. Whatcha gonna do? Pull their permits? Where do you get this stuff.. "the Libs" Davesid? You really think it was the "Libs" that killed the additional rigs off of Santa Barbara...or the rich Republicans with an ocean view? When that stuff rolls up on Limbaugh's beach in Florida, he'll become an instant environmentalist. If you were a commercial fisherman in Louisiana right now..you'ed be crying big time... no matter what your politics were. I used to work in Regulatory Sid...and I can guarantee you that "NIMBY" does not come with a political perspective... I could give you a thousand examples. |
|
|
|
Post by sdtosf on May 31, 2010 19:56:13 GMT -8
Perhaps we should go with Sarah Palin's idea and make the Gulf "Oil National Park" and do whatever we want to do with this wasteland...
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 1, 2010 4:47:00 GMT -8
Bob, it has been mentioned in TV reports that there never has been an attempt to repair a leak like this in such deep water. It would take some pretty persuasive argument to convince me that responding to a crisis like this in water 800 or 900 feet deep would not be a lot less problematic than in water 5,000 feet deep. But additional drilling near shore has been outlawed on grounds there are, though understandable emotionally, essentially political. Come on, Bob! I'm glad to have to participating again, but really, this is the wrong argument on which to be a contrarian. Now, if you want to argue that drilling offshore is bad no matter where, okay, let's have that argument. AzWm If you can't fix a blow-out in 5,000 feet of water...you should have never gotten a permit to drill in 5,000 feet of water. Somebody from the gas and oil industry lobbied the politicos to get them to issue a permit for this...they were not forced to drill out there...they drill where they can make money. I was wondering where you were when this disaster of huge consequence was unfolding. Politics aside, this is going to be a long ugly incident in all respects. |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Jun 1, 2010 7:02:44 GMT -8
If you can't fix a blow-out in 5,000 feet of water...you should have never gotten a permit to drill in 5,000 feet of water. Somebody from the gas and oil industry lobbied the politicos to get them to issue a permit for this...they were not forced to drill out there...they drill where they can make money. I was wondering where you were when this disaster of huge consequence was unfolding. Politics aside, this is going to be a long ugly incident in all respects. Here is the thing Win. If we can get past this argument that somehow its the "environmental wackos" and "Libs" that kept additional rigs (after the Santa Barbara event) away from our coast, then we can have a discussion. Have you seen a map of the rigs in the Gulf? There are hundreds. I know guys like William and Davesid are smart, but their arguments are intellectually dishonest. One tiny (and I mean tiny) example is this. In the late 70's a committee was formed to keep drilling off the San Diego coast. A major player on that committee was Roger Hedgecock. Over the years, please find me one rich Republican with an ocean view who showed up to a hearing arguing for more drilling (answer..you won't find one). They just showed up to the hearings fighting against drilling. In general...and I mean in general... the "libs" care about dead turtles and fish floating up on the beach.... and the right wingers care about their property values. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 1, 2010 10:27:47 GMT -8
I was wondering where you were when this disaster of huge consequence was unfolding. Politics aside, this is going to be a long ugly incident in all respects. Here is the thing Win. If we can get past this argument that somehow its the "environmental wackos" and "Libs" that kept additional rigs (after the Santa Barbara event) away from our coast, then we can have a discussion. Have you seen a map of the rigs in the Gulf? There are hundreds. I know guys like William and Davesid are smart, but their arguments are intellectually dishonest. One tiny (and I mean tiny) example is this. In the late 70's a committee was formed to keep drilling off the San Diego coast. A major player on that committee was Roger Hedgecock. Over the years, please find me one rich Republican with an ocean view who showed up to a hearing arguing for more drilling (answer..you won't find one). They just showed up to the hearings fighting against drilling. In general...and I mean in general... the "libs" care about dead turtles and fish floating up on the beach.... and the right wingers care about their property values. What you have just said is the kind of thing I would like to get past and hope that folks look for a solution to this current disaster and a way to drill in the future that will have a much higher level of confidence in the safety. After this is fixed and the cleanup is in place, we can look to "pin the tail on the donkey". An example is that Attorney General Holder is down there looking to start a criminal investigation. There will be plenty of time to do that when the crisis is over. I don't know if I want BP looking to fix the problem or do I want their internal efforts to be focused on looking at how to protect their "six o'clock". I will even say that I heard Carol Browner, Obama's Energy Czar saying that the Administration has been in charge from the beginning and that BP's involvement has been using their equipment and work force to do what the government tells them to do. That sounds like the kind of talk that could let BP off the hook for the cost of the cleanup and put that burden on the tax-payers. BP has said they will pay, but is the Obama Administration making a blunder that will let them off? I had hoped that your input would be about how we can fix the damage and limit further damage rather than talk about past actions of Dems and Repubs here in California. |
|
Something that gets lost in all of this stale argument is the fact that the "give and pull" between industry and the biologists/environmentalists/opposition (rich people who may be right wingers with an ocean view) is what has made the industry relatively clean! This accident is a terribly unfortunate thing that re-enforces the importance of overview and ...yes the most dreaded word for the Right.. "Regulations". How do you think the air in L.A. got cleaned up William?.. from the goodness of heart by industry to make things right...or extreme pressure from the hated environmentalists? The oil spill really only strikes home for a lot on the Right when people lose money from job loss, loss of tourism etc... while a bunch of dead turtles and dolphins doesn't resonate that much (fish versus people). Its just a reminder to be careful....... and regulations and oversight DO matter. 
