Pages: 1 2 3 4 … 8

 

2010-06-22 20:30:38
mikkel
Member
+383|6598

JohnG@lt wrote:

mikkel wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/22/federal-judge-blocks-obamas-offshore-drilling-moratorium-gulf-mexico/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Flatest+%28Text+-+Latest+Headlines%29

My brother works for Hornbeck
Curiously, the same judge holds stock in drilling companies.
$15k, out of what I am sure is a multi-million dollar portfolio. Who cares? That's a drop in the bucket.
Where do you get the $15k? His financial disclosures suggest that it's more than that.

I'm not disagreeing with the decision, I'm just highlighting what the article forgot to mention.

Last edited by mikkel (2010-06-22 20:30:58)

2010-06-22 20:30:54
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5355|London, England

mcgid1 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

mcgid1 wrote:

I love this, the court says you can't have a moratorium and the administration tells the court to f' off and issues another one. The only difference seems to be that they are adding the information they presented to the court when the first one was struck down. Link

Attn Obama and co.:  It's called checks and balances.  You aren't Emperor of the United States.  If the court system tells you that you can't do something, you can't do it.  Do not try to circumvent the law or the Constitution because they don't suit your purposes or agenda.
I wonder if he is going to blame BP when Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi all come screaming to DC for a bailout for their respective governments since he just effectively killed their tax revenue for the rest of the year. Since they are red states, I bet he tells them to bugger off.
Probably.  Then he'll also tell us (I'm Texan) that it's all Bush's fault as well and if we'd just join him in his wonderful pipe dream...err, I mean vison...then we'd get the money we need and everything would be fine.

Fortunately for Texas at least, oil only represents about 5% of tax revenues, and offshore drilling is a fraction of that.
Houston and Galveston are pretty heavily dependent on the industry though.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-06-22 20:32:19
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5355|London, England

mikkel wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Curiously, the same judge holds stock in drilling companies.
$15k, out of what I am sure is a multi-million dollar portfolio. Who cares? That's a drop in the bucket.
Where do you get the $15k? His financial disclosures suggest that it's more than that.

I'm not disagreeing with the decision, I'm just highlighting what the article forgot to mention.
"U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman, who abruptly halted President Obama's deep-water drilling moratorium Tuesday, held stock in the company that owned the Deepwater Horizon rig, according to his 2008 disclosure form, the latest available."


The federal judge who overturned Barack Obama's offshore drilling moratorium reported owning stock in numerous companies involved in the offshore oil industry — including Transocean, which leased the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig to BP prior to its April 20 explosion in the Gulf of Mexico — according to 2008 financial disclosure reports.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman issued a preliminary injunction today barring the enforcement of the president's proposed six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling, arguing that the ban is too broad.

According to Feldman's 2008 financial disclosure form, posted online by Judicial Watch [pdf], the judge owned stock in Transocean, as well as five other companies that are either directly or indirectly involved in the offshore drilling business.

It's not surprising that Feldman, who is a judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, has invested in the offshore drilling business — an Associated Press investigation found earlier this month that more than half the federal judges in the districts affected by the BP spill have financial ties to the oil and gas industry.

The report discloses that in 2008, Judge Feldman held less than $15,000 worth of stock in Transocean, as well as similar amounts (federal rules only require that judges report a range of values ) in Hercules Offshore, ATP Oil and Gas, and Parker Drilling. All of those companies offer contract offshore drilling services and operate offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Judge Feldman also owned between $15,000 and $50,000 in notes offered by Ocean Energy, Inc., a company that offers "concept design and manufacturing design of submersible drilling rigs," according to its website. None of the companies were direct parties to the lawsuit seeking to overturn the ban.

Judge Feldman did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/201006...s/ynews_ts2771
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-06-22 20:36:40
mcgid1
Meh...
+129|6714|Austin, TX/San Antonio, TX

JohnG@lt wrote:

mcgid1 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


I wonder if he is going to blame BP when Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi all come screaming to DC for a bailout for their respective governments since he just effectively killed their tax revenue for the rest of the year. Since they are red states, I bet he tells them to bugger off.
Probably.  Then he'll also tell us (I'm Texan) that it's all Bush's fault as well and if we'd just join him in his wonderful pipe dream...err, I mean vision...then we'd get the money we need and everything would be fine.

Fortunately for Texas at least, oil only represents about 5% of tax revenues, and offshore drilling is a fraction of that.
Houston and Galveston are pretty heavily dependent on the industry though.
That's true.  At this point though, I've resigned myself to the fact that Obama is only going to make the whole situation worse and try to blame whatever bad happens on Bush and the Republicans.  And he'll do his best to screw any red state he can in the process.
2010-06-23 05:14:18
nlsme1
Member
+32|5414

JohnG@lt wrote:

mikkel wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06 … adlines%29

My brother works for Hornbeck
Curiously, the same judge holds stock in drilling companies.
$15k, out of what I am sure is a multi-million dollar portfolio. Who cares? That's a drop in the bucket.
It's 15k in ONE company, transocean. He has many differant stocks in his portfolio. Including Halliburton, and a LONG list of oil companies. One dollar in these companies is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. The judge should have backed off the case. His ruling is going to be overturned on that fact alone in the appeal.
2010-06-23 21:17:54
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6402|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Yay! Logic trumps emotion Oil money trumps common sense for once yet again!
Fixed.

Considering the amount of money behind drilling there is, it's not surprising that the courts would side with the industry.

I remember a lot of discussions a few years ago about breaking our addiction to foreign oil by drilling more here.  In hindsight, that's kind of like saying, "You know, my meth addiction is getting to be too much for my health, so to avoid having to buy meth, I'll just start making my own."

The addiction is still there, but we just have it closer to home.  We're just as addicted to oil extraction, refinement, and consumption as we are to the military industrial complex.   The only difference is that military industries are dependent on government spending in a direct sense.

Oil exploration currently receives tax breaks for no real reason.  As we've seen with this spill, it takes government money to clean up after major industrial spills from the oil industry, so while it may not be directly dependent on government spending, the potential for costing all taxpayers loads of money as a repercussion of industrial negligence is very real.

And of course, this isn't even counting the money that all these fishermen will need when they start receiving government benefits since they've lost their businesses due to severely damaged local fish stocks, or the tourism industries that have been negatively affected and will need some help.

So no...  A moratorium would be damage control at this point, but one little spill shouldn't stop us from going full speed ahead.  Keep drilling, keep spilling.   Maybe when we can turn the whole Gulf into one gigantic fish fry, we'll possibly change course.
2010-06-25 12:23:32
Obiwan
Go Cards !!
+196|6692|The Ville
While Obama congratulates the US on a win. Things are getting ugly in the Gulf ounce again.

https://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/062510_stormgulf_20100625_144609.jpg
2010-06-29 22:09:02
mcgid1
Meh...
+129|6714|Austin, TX/San Antonio, TX
So 71 days late the administration decides it's time to make a decision on whether or not to accept help.  I'm trying to think of a word or phrase that can adequately cover the amount of incompentence that has been shown both in the decision to refuse help originally and of the disaster as a whole but words fail me.

Link to the decision to make a decision
2010-06-30 05:32:06
nlsme1
Member
+32|5414
"To be clear, the acceptance of international assistance we announced today did not mean to imply that international help was arriving only now," said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley. "In fact, before today, there were 24 foreign vessels operating in the region and nine countries had provided boom, skimmers and other assistance."

He said as early as May 11, boom arrived from Mexico, Norway and Brazil.

Did you even read the article?
2010-07-02 17:56:10
Deadmonkiefart
Floccinaucinihilipilificator
+177|6703
As a matter of fact, that is one of those doomsday scenarios that I fear most.  There is enough frozen methane at the bottom of the ocean, that if the ocean temperature raised by about 4 more degrees, it would sublimate, cause super-global warming, turn the ocean acidic, and kill all life in the sea and most of the life on land.  It has happened before, after all.
2010-07-05 15:03:39
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6546|San Diego, CA, USA
Day 77
2010-07-05 15:14:38
PureBeef
Member
+3|5079

Obiwan wrote:

While Obama congratulates the US on a win. Things are getting ugly in the Gulf ounce again.

http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_imag … 144609.jpg
Is that a hurricane? Oilcane!!!
2010-07-07 16:00:55
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|5991|Truthistan
Here is the latest that I've heard
Check this video out from CNBC
Nuke the Oil Well?
Two experts seem to agree that demolition of the well is the only option. The one expert is convinced that the well casing was blown out of the well and without it the relief wells won't work. The other expert holds out hope that that didn't happen. The only other option is demolishing the well by explosive.

Now we've been told that BP is drilling two relief wells in case the first one doesn't work. Right? IMO the second hole is for sealing the well by explosive.... are they going to drop a nuke down there?

If you don't think so then look at this article from the New York Times
Along with the kibbitzers, the government has also brought in experts from around the world — including scores of scientists from the Los Alamos National Laboratory and other government labs — to assist in the effort to cap the well. So why the Los Alamos scientists? unless they being tasked with developing a nuke to fit down the well hole.


Going back to my original post... is it possible that this could all go horribly wrong and result in a catastrophic release of methyl hydrates.
This one has me spooked.... I hope we get fair warning if they are going to use a nuke.
2010-07-07 16:51:34
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6127|North Tonawanda, NY

Diesel_dyk wrote:

So why the Los Alamos scientists? unless they being tasked with developing a nuke to fit down the well hole.
Scientists at Los Alamos do more than just nuclear weapon design.  The people there are among the top minds in the nation...so why wouldn't they use that resource?  Not to mention that they are getting scientists from all sorts of labs, not just Los Alamos.
2010-07-07 16:51:48
mcjagdflieger
Champion of Dueling Rectums
+26|6308|South Jersey
I think its safe to assume that our govt, incompetent as it seems, still has all its options and contingency plans in place. They just never fucking pick one, end up diddling themselves around and around. I hope that they wouldn't use a nuke, but hey, if it could be stopped tomorrow and the fallout etc. wouldn't be harmful to us, could it be better than waiting months for a relief well?
2010-07-07 19:58:49
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6672|Canberra, AUS

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Here is the latest that I've heard
Check this video out from CNBC
Nuke the Oil Well?
Two experts seem to agree that demolition of the well is the only option. The one expert is convinced that the well casing was blown out of the well and without it the relief wells won't work. The other expert holds out hope that that didn't happen. The only other option is demolishing the well by explosive.

Now we've been told that BP is drilling two relief wells in case the first one doesn't work. Right? IMO the second hole is for sealing the well by explosive.... are they going to drop a nuke down there?

If you don't think so then look at this article from the New York Times
Along with the kibbitzers, the government has also brought in experts from around the world — including scores of scientists from the Los Alamos National Laboratory and other government labs — to assist in the effort to cap the well. So why the Los Alamos scientists? unless they being tasked with developing a nuke to fit down the well hole.


Going back to my original post... is it possible that this could all go horribly wrong and result in a catastrophic release of methyl hydrates.
This one has me spooked.... I hope we get fair warning if they are going to use a nuke.
Los Alamos is a big, big, big lab. They do more than just nukes.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-07-09 19:52:18
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6546|San Diego, CA, USA
https://img535.imageshack.us/img535/9146/politicalpicturestherew.jpg
2010-07-09 20:13:09
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6535|Long Island, New York

Harmor wrote:

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/9146 … therew.jpg
Who said that Harmor gets all his rhetoric from Drudge?

Good call.

And so much for being small government eh Harmor? You want big bad Obama to fix it all!
2010-07-09 20:17:28
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6546|San Diego, CA, USA
No, I want the Federal Government to get out of the way of the Gulf Governors' way like lifting the Jone's Act, allowing Governors permits into "ecological areas", and having the Coast Guard work with local authorities better.

If we learned anything from Katrina the Federal Government is slow to respond.  We should have learned and we didn't.
2010-07-09 20:20:07
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6535|Long Island, New York
If you were truly for small government, you'd want BP to fix their own mess. I mean, you guys are all about accountability, no?

Guess not!
2010-07-09 20:26:36
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6546|San Diego, CA, USA

Poseidon wrote:

If you were truly for small government, you'd want BP to fix their own mess. I mean, you guys are all about accountability, no?

Guess not!
+1 for snarky comment.  I see what you did there :-P

But if you recall I mentioned to nuke the hole in the Gulf in the first week of the disaster.  The Russians did it before to melt the rock, but our Anti-Energy President refused the idea as "idiotic".

But yeah, when the Federal Government forces the 30% of our Domestic Energy Oil into deeper and deeper and riskier wells then we're bound to have more of this.

Also, did you actually see some of the officials that signed off on the well inspections?  They didn't even READ them.  And who the hell was in charge of this to allow BP to fill out their OWN inspection slips...come on. 

BP may very well go bankrupt.  I think if that happens then that is enough incentive to other companies to not be lax on safety.
2010-07-09 20:28:22
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6535|Long Island, New York

Harmor wrote:

BP may very well go bankrupt.  I think if that happens then that is enough incentive to other companies to not be lax on safety.
Pretty sure they said that about the Valdez disaster too.

Enough time passes and companies begin to not give a shit again.

Stricter regulations are required to stop this from happening ever again.
2010-07-09 20:37:08
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6546|San Diego, CA, USA

Poseidon wrote:

Stricter regulations are required to stop this from happening ever again.
Actually if we just enforce what we already have on the books I would be fine with that.  Let me see if I can find that article with the actual copy of the form that was signed off by a government official with plenty of misspellings and copy-n-paste text from Alaska drill request but for the Gulf Oil Rig.

Why didn't Obama clean up the industry?  I mean he had 18 months...is government so bloated it can't fix this in that amount of time.

This goes back into the Bush administration they were lax on regulating EXISTING laws:

https://img121.imageshack.us/img121/4384/19083.jpg

NYTimes
Inspector General’s Inquiry Faults Regulators
By IAN URBINA
Published: May 24, 2010

WASHINGTON — Federal regulators responsible for oversight of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico allowed industry officials several years ago to fill in their own inspection reports in pencil — and then turned them over to the regulators, who traced over them in pen before submitting the reports to the agency, according to an inspector general’s report to be released this week.
2010-07-09 20:44:38
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6578|the dank(super) side of Oregon

Harmor wrote:

But if you recall I mentioned to nuke the hole in the Gulf in the first week of the disaster.  The Russians did it before to melt the rock, but our Anti-Energy President refused the idea as "idiotic".
There's nothing on the sea floor to nuke.  It's all mud.  The bedrock is a few thousand feet below the floor.  "Nuking the hole" is an idiotic idea.


BP may very well go bankrupt.  I think if that happens then that is enough incentive to other companies to not be lax on safety.
If BP goes bankrupt, it won't be for a lack of money.
2010-07-10 00:05:44
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|5991|Truthistan
When they say nuke it, they don't mean putting a bomb on top of the well like they used to do to blow out fires on rigs on land.

Look at this video... minute 2:00 has a good explanation and a graphic. imo this is what the second "contingency" hole is being drilled for. The first hole is to try to intersect the origial well and plug it. If that fails, then they are going to use the second one to nuke.

All I know is that if they are going to use a nuke, I will want to be far, far inland when it goes off.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 … 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard