|
|
Post by uwaztec on Jun 1, 2010 10:57:37 GMT -8
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. I have no idea Win. I have plenty of friends who worked on the biological assessment of the Valdez accident... but a lot of that was inter-tidal work and not sub-tidal. This is a very complex issue that has surface impacts, water column and bottom impacts, salt marsh impacts and so on. The use of dispersant further complicates the impacts issues regarding plankton, plankton feeders, forage fish and predators, turtles, birds etc. Certainly, you would have to have a workable (reliable) plan in place to mitigate a blow-out of this magnitude...otherwise, you do not issue the permit. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 1, 2010 11:19:37 GMT -8
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. I have no idea Win. I have plenty of friends who worked on the biological assessment of the Valdez accident... but a lot of that was inter-tidal work and not sub-tidal. This is a very complex issue that has surface impacts, water column and bottom impacts, salt marsh impacts and so on. The use of dispersant further complicates the impacts issues regarding plankton, plankton feeders, forage fish and predators, turtles, birds etc. Certainly, you would have to have a workable (reliable) plan in place to mitigate a blow-out of this magnitude...otherwise, you do not issue the permit. Do you think that this might be the Mother of all SNAFU's? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Jun 1, 2010 12:33:59 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? I think Congress is responsible for this mess. They are the controlling authority who determines where the oil wells go, they forced oil companies to drill in risky deep water fields and now they are going to have some kind of commission to assign blame. Of course we will never see them admit that they are actually responsible. It looks to me like it will be several weeks before the leak is plugged. The Gulf Coast will be fragged up for several generations. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jun 1, 2010 13:39:31 GMT -8
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. Since when can rich Republicans not also be NIMBY libs? I made no mention of party affiliation. I believe that this type of disaster could have been more easily controlled in shallower water. Meanwhile, what of my observation about Mexico and Venezuela drilling in the Gulf? I think Mexico had a situation just like this one a few years back. Worse in fact. And I understand that other countries from as far away as Asia are negotiating with Cuba for drilling rights. So, do we just quit our own drilling, and keep our fingers crossed that the other countries won't have future problems like this, and we keep buying their oil? Maybe we should force the closure of all drilling in the Gulf via military force? |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Jun 1, 2010 14:04:52 GMT -8
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. Since when can rich Republicans not also be NIMBY libs? I made no mention of party affiliation. I believe that this type of disaster could have been more easily controlled in shallower water. Meanwhile, what of my observation about Mexico and Venezuela drilling in the Gulf? I think Mexico had a situation just like this one a few years back. Worse in fact. And I understand that other countries from as far away as Asia are negotiating with Cuba for drilling rights. So, do we just quit our own drilling, and keep our fingers crossed that the other countries won't have future problems like this, and we keep buying their oil? Maybe we should force the closure of all drilling in the Gulf via military force? Never advocated for shutting down the Gulf. Just wanted to get the facts straight regarding who other than "environmental wackos" (Florida resort & hotel operators for example) have lobbied to nix more rigs close to the coast. As to other nations adding facilities to the Gulf, let's just say I would not want to be a commercial fisherman or resort operator in a Gulf state for the long run. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 5, 2010 8:01:04 GMT -8
Since when can rich Republicans not also be NIMBY libs? I made no mention of party affiliation. I believe that this type of disaster could have been more easily controlled in shallower water. Meanwhile, what of my observation about Mexico and Venezuela drilling in the Gulf? I think Mexico had a situation just like this one a few years back. Worse in fact. And I understand that other countries from as far away as Asia are negotiating with Cuba for drilling rights. So, do we just quit our own drilling, and keep our fingers crossed that the other countries won't have future problems like this, and we keep buying their oil? Maybe we should force the closure of all drilling in the Gulf via military force? Never advocated for shutting down the Gulf. Just wanted to get the facts straight regarding who other than "environmental wackos" (Florida resort & hotel operators for example) have lobbied to nix more rigs close to the coast. As to other nations adding facilities to the Gulf, let's just say I would not want to be a commercial fisherman or resort operator in a Gulf state for the long run. Would this be a solution to this and other problems as well as being the answer for offshore drilling fears here off the coast of California and in Alaska? www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWjclziL-D4&feature=player_embedded |
|
