punked Posted May 1, 2010 Report Posted May 1, 2010 Lets not forget who's fault this is. Bush deregulated the rules for these rigs in his first term. Another Bush legacy. Quote
Shady Posted May 1, 2010 Report Posted May 1, 2010 Lets not forget who's fault this is. Bush deregulated the rules for these rigs in his first term. Another Bush legacy. Of course. An oil rig built 20 years ago is somehow Bush's fault. BDS. Quote
Jack Weber Posted May 1, 2010 Report Posted May 1, 2010 Of course. An oil rig built 20 years ago is somehow Bush's fault. BDS. Hmmm... 20 years ago.... Who was in the White house and what party did he belong to??? Hmmmm... It was'nt the party that fell in line lock,stock,and,barrel with the Friedmanite theories of laissez-faire attitudes towards regulation of business and industry,would it? Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
punked Posted May 1, 2010 Report Posted May 1, 2010 Of course. An oil rig built 20 years ago is somehow Bush's fault. BDS. You might not know this but in 2002 they did tests on off shore Oil Rigs to see if their emergency shut off valves worked Shady. Only about 50% of them did, faced with he decision of asking many oil companies or Big Bush donors to spend close to 500,000 per rig to fix them Bush instead deregulated the rules for off shore oil Rigs. BUSHES FAULT. This rig built 20 years ago had a shut off because those were the rules at the time, however it was never tested to see if worked BECAUSE BUSH CHANGED THE RULES! Bushs Fault Shady you blind partisan you. Quote
BubberMiley Posted May 1, 2010 Report Posted May 1, 2010 Yeah, just like Bill Maher! MAHER: "So, why isn't Barack Obama getting more shit for this? I think he should." You must be completely flabbergasted by people who think for themselves and don't just mindlessly follow the party line. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
punked Posted May 1, 2010 Report Posted May 1, 2010 I would also point out the Democrats started hearings in congress 2 months ago to try and put those rules that Bush got rid of back in place. They were right on the money when Republicans were dead wrong. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/04/gulf-oil-spill-the-halliburton-connection.html Quote
Shady Posted May 1, 2010 Report Posted May 1, 2010 I would also point out the Democrats started hearings in congress 2 months ago to try and put those rules that Bush got rid of back in place. They were right on the money when Republicans were dead wrong. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/04/gulf-oil-spill-the-halliburton-connection.html you're talking out of your ass punked. Nothing what you've posted references even an ounce of what you're commenting on. Quote
WIP Posted May 1, 2010 Report Posted May 1, 2010 Yeah, just like Bill Maher! MAHER: "So, why isn't Barack Obama getting more shit for this? I think he should." http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=Xd6U4znzQu Maher is right about that stupid offshore drilling compromise that was offered a couple of weeks ago. This is one time when looking for that political middleground came back to bite him in the ass. That said, offshore drilling is dead and buried in the U.S., and I don't think even another oil candidate like George Bush will be able to revive it. A lot of liberals and Democratic Party supporters in the U.S. wish that Obama was what the Republicans and Teabaggers fear, instead of being a leader who appears to be risk-averse and always looking for the easiest option: the dogs' breakfast results of healthcare reform and proposed financial reform, for example. There are enough economic, political and environmental reasons to make serious efforts at bringing the oil age to an end, and Obama should have been making that case, rather than looking for a compromise with oil backers. Obama is just lucky that this disaster happened early, before new oil drilling platforms were added. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
WIP Posted May 1, 2010 Report Posted May 1, 2010 (edited) 'Drill Baby Drill' is still the best short term answer. And drilling doesn't necessarily mean only offshore. It means on land as well. Except for ANWAR it is mostly offshore where the U.S. has oil reserves left. But as far as Alaska goes, after seeing how BP has lied and misled the public, along with coopting regulators that are supposed to be the public's watchdog, should the public trust Exxon/Mobil any more than they trusted British Petroleum's promises? FLASHBACK: BP exec testified that offshore drilling is ‘safe and protective of the environment.’ Back in the 70's there was a serious attempt to reduce oil consumption and develop alternative energy sources, now that the oil is running, we are facing a climate crisis, and finding new oil requires going to the riskiest and dirtiest sources (Tar Sands for example) it's time to bring the oil age to an end before it's the end of civilization...or worse. Edited May 1, 2010 by WIP Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 1, 2010 Report Posted May 1, 2010 ....Back in the 70's there was a serious attempt to reduce oil consumption and develop alternative energy sources, now that the oil is running, we are facing a climate crisis, and finding new oil requires going to the riskiest and dirtiest sources (Tar Sands for example) it's time to bring the oil age to an end before it's the end of civilization...or worse. It wasn't very serious at all, as any conservation was far outpaced by growth in existing and developing markets. Transitioning away from a hydrocarbon based economy will take at least as long as it took to create it. Talk of the end for civilization is just hyperbole as few would go back to a pre-petroleum "paradise". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Jack Weber Posted May 1, 2010 Report Posted May 1, 2010 (edited) You might not know this but in 2002 they did tests on off shore Oil Rigs to see if their emergency shut off valves worked Shady. Only about 50% of them did, faced with he decision of asking many oil companies or Big Bush donors to spend close to 500,000 per rig to fix them Bush instead deregulated the rules for off shore oil Rigs. BUSHES FAULT. This rig built 20 years ago had a shut off because those were the rules at the time, however it was never tested to see if worked BECAUSE BUSH CHANGED THE RULES! Bushs Fault Shady you blind partisan you. [/quote Friedman sycophants involved in corporate deregulation of industry is bad for all of us??? I wonder how those coal miners in West VA feel about this issue?Or coal miners in Kentucky? Gotta love RTW and safety deregulation.... Edited May 1, 2010 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 1, 2010 Report Posted May 1, 2010 ...I wonder how thoise coal miners in West VA feel about this issue?Or coal miners in Kentucky? Or miners in deadly Canadian owned mining operations around the world? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Jack Weber Posted May 1, 2010 Report Posted May 1, 2010 Silence is great..... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
GostHacked Posted May 2, 2010 Report Posted May 2, 2010 So a half a million dollar acoustic valve, ( some failsafe mechanism to kill the flow of oil) was never installed on this rig. Others in US waters could potentially see the same thing if something catastrophic fails on another rig. BP has to have these valves installed on any other oil rig on the planet due to a country's rules/regulations. If they were trying to save money, they failed. The cost of the clean up will be unreal along with the cost to many fishing industries in the gulf. I'd hope this means those valves will be inspected and if not installed, they will be or should be fined out the ass. How long did it take to clean up the mess of the Exxon Valdez? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill Experts expect the effects to last 30 years. 20 Years have past and there is still a lot of oil affecting the area. Almost 20 years after the spill, a team of scientists at the University of North Carolina found that the effects are lasting far longer than expected.[14] The team estimates some shoreline Arctic habitats may take up to 30 years to recover.[4] Exxon Mobil denies any concerns over this, stating that they anticipated a remaining fraction that they assert will not cause any long-term ecological impacts, according to the conclusions of 350 peer-reviewed studies.[15] However, a study from scientists from the NOAA concluded that this contamination can produce chronic low-level exposure, discourage subsistence where the contamination is heavy, and decrease the "wilderness character" of the area.[11] We can expect the impact to the gulf eco systems to last just as long. Exxon spent close to 3 billion dollars, 4 years, for the clean up efforts. Covered an area of about 1300 square miles. The gulf is going to take up to a decade to clean. I just hope this leads to closer inspection and such for existing and new oil rigs. The impact is to great to just let this slide. Quote Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser ohm on soundcloud.com
msj Posted May 2, 2010 Report Posted May 2, 2010 I just hope this leads to closer inspection and such for existing and new oil rigs. The impact is to great to just let this slide. Personally, I hope BP goes broke because of this - but it won't happen. Too many politicians in their back pocket, I'm sure. As for the costs of this - well, I no longer support oil rigs off the coast of BC because of this although I doubt I would ever take that to the extent of voting for the BC NDP. But, then, voting for a different party than the Campbell Liberals may be enough to make a point to them (if they even survive this HST thing). The private sector can't be trusted to do what is right and the government can't be trusted to properly regulate so to hell with it - let us all pay higher costs for oil through less supply and maybe we will have an incentive to conserve, reduce, and find alternative sources of energy. I am already moving closer to my urban centre in order to walk/bike more and I'm glad for it. Between the money I pay that goes to shady Arabs, shady Calgarians, shady BP executives - I'm very glad to reduce that cash trail. Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
Smallc Posted May 2, 2010 Report Posted May 2, 2010 Rigs of the coast of BC would be worrying. There aren't the CCG or naval resources there that exist on the east coast. Quote
msj Posted May 2, 2010 Report Posted May 2, 2010 Rigs of the coast of BC would be worrying. There aren't the CCG or naval resources there that exist on the east coast. Given that the US doesn't seem to have the resources to contain this one I don't have any hope for either of Canada's coasts. Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
Smallc Posted May 2, 2010 Report Posted May 2, 2010 Given that the US doesn't seem to have the resources to contain this one I don't have any hope for either of Canada's coasts. Well, there are pretty massive coast guard resources on the east coast, probablhy very similar to what the US has in the gulf when you take into account the bases in Halifax, St. John's, Charlottetown (or wherever it moves to) and Quebec City. Quote
sharkman Posted May 2, 2010 Report Posted May 2, 2010 The private sector can't be trusted to do what is right and the government can't be trusted to properly regulate so to hell with it - let us all pay higher costs for oil through less supply and maybe we will have an incentive to conserve, reduce, and find alternative sources of energy. I am already moving closer to my urban centre in order to walk/bike more and I'm glad for it. Between the money I pay that goes to shady Arabs, shady Calgarians, shady BP executives - I'm very glad to reduce that cash trail. Maybe you should consider the money you pay that goes to shady farmers, shady politicians, shady profiteers, shady... So an rig accident occurs 3 or so thousand miles south of Canada and we should all swear off oil? Isn't that overdoing it a little bit? Does anyone know if Canadian regulations are better than American ones in the oil industry? Our farming industries have stiffer regulations, our trucking industry, business sector and natural resource harvesting all have stiffer regulations, but I really don't know about our oil industry. However, since we have so little offshore drilling compared to the US, I don't think we need to panic. Quote
eyeball Posted May 2, 2010 Report Posted May 2, 2010 Rigs of the coast of BC would be worrying. There aren't the CCG or naval resources there that exist on the east coast. The war against spills are mostly over the moment the oil is spilled. It just doesn't matter how many resources you have available. I recall when the Nestucca oil spill of 5000 barrels hit the west coast of Vancouver Island in Dec 1988. The weather was quite cold and the seas were relatively calm. It was really thick heavy oil and it landed in great flat pancake like blobs 6 inches or more deep and up to 20 feet wide on Long Beach. The first thing locals suggested was that backhoes and excavators start rolling up the pancakes into dump trucks and pack them off the beach to somewhere safer. No no no no said the authorities who were paralyzed with indecision and aghast at the thought of trucks and machinery on 'their' precious National Park reserve. The cold weather which was causing the oil to remain congealed held for about a week and about the time a decision was made to start doing something a pineapple express started pounding the coast which quickly reduced our 20 foot wide blobs into blobs the size of a dime. Trying to clean this up was just about impossible but it sure created a fair bit of employment. The wind and waves dispersed this everywhere along the beaches and there's still oil in places to this day. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Sir Bandelot Posted May 2, 2010 Report Posted May 2, 2010 Expect another taxpeyer funded bailout, coming soon to a pocketbook near you. Quote
JerrySeinfeld Posted May 2, 2010 Report Posted May 2, 2010 Accidents happen. Godspeed on containment efforts. Quote
Shady Posted May 2, 2010 Report Posted May 2, 2010 Just to put things in proper perspective. There are 3500+ oil rigs in operation along the US coasts and the gulf of Mexico. Quote
punked Posted May 2, 2010 Report Posted May 2, 2010 Just to put things in proper perspective. There are 3500+ oil rigs in operation along the US coasts and the gulf of Mexico. And how many barrels of Oil have been leaked into the Ocean so far? Quote
GostHacked Posted May 2, 2010 Report Posted May 2, 2010 Just to put things in proper perspective. There are 3500+ oil rigs in operation along the US coasts and the gulf of Mexico. But we now see the huge environmental disaster resulting in one single oil rig. No matter how many oil rigs are in US waters , once is too many. Quote Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser ohm on soundcloud.com
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.