You're missing the point. Disasters of this magnitude destroy entire ecosystems. It's not a matter of careers -- it's a matter of being able to fish at all in an area.Mekstizzle wrote:
The way the media put it when they say fishermen and shit it's like these people are subsistence farming and will die if they can't fish, no these guys make six figures and shit... they can handle a bad season or two
Making it seem like it's hit a proper third world area where it means life or death for the locals (or packing up and moving to a refugee camp) or some shit like that.
Oh boo hoo, the big bad oil companies had an accident and it doesn't even effect your life. You're as bad as the california tree huggers acting like every environmental disaster happens in their back yard.Turquoise wrote:
Permanently destroying a local fish market is a bit more costly in the long run. Besides, I thought you market types were always praising the resiliency of the market. Is a brief moratorium so bad? I thought they could adapt their economies over time.JohnG@lt wrote:
Fishing - 5% of Louisiana's revenue.Turquoise wrote:
Fuck the oil lobby vs. fuck the environment, local fishermen, and tourism.
Pick your poison.
Oil - 40% of Louisiana's revenue.
Tough fucking choice.
We're talking thousands of people out of work in the middle of a recession/depression (including my brother here shortly) and you view this as a victory? You're just as short sighted and moronic as anyone in the current administration. You're letting your personal agenda get in the way of reality. You, like many morons, feel that this is the perfect opportunity for us to move away from carbon based fuels. The situation hasn't changed in the past six months, there is STILL no replacement available. You'd have the entire economy screech to a grinding halt with $10 a gallon fuel prices just so you could claim some moral victory. Get off your high horse.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
Yes, it's going to be a wasteland forever The resiliency of nature might astound you. The lack of fishing this year will undoubtedly cause a spike in the overall number of fish/shrimp and everything else in that area with a commensurate spike in the secondary wildlife that feeds on them. We're talking one of the most overfished fishery's in the world here. It was near collapse before the spill and this might just be what saves it.Turquoise wrote:
You're missing the point. Disasters of this magnitude destroy entire ecosystems. It's not a matter of careers -- it's a matter of being able to fish at all in an area.Mekstizzle wrote:
The way the media put it when they say fishermen and shit it's like these people are subsistence farming and will die if they can't fish, no these guys make six figures and shit... they can handle a bad season or two
Making it seem like it's hit a proper third world area where it means life or death for the locals (or packing up and moving to a refugee camp) or some shit like that.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
Well, I must admit that I've never seen tarballs wash up on Wilmington's beaches, nor have we had tides of oil or countless oil covered creatures wash ashore.JohnG@lt wrote:
Oh boo hoo, the big bad oil companies had an accident and it doesn't even effect your life. You're as bad as the california tree huggers acting like every environmental disaster happens in their back yard.
Maybe it's one of those "don't knock it until you try it" things, right? I bet the smell is wonderful.
Yes, John, I view it as a victory. I also love the terrorists too.JohnG@lt wrote:
We're talking thousands of people out of work in the middle of a recession/depression (including my brother here shortly) and you view this as a victory? You're just as short sighted and moronic as anyone in the current administration. You're letting your personal agenda get in the way of reality. You, like many morons, feel that this is the perfect opportunity for us to move away from carbon based fuels. The situation hasn't changed in the past six months, there is STILL no replacement available. You'd have the entire economy screech to a grinding halt with $10 a gallon fuel prices just so you could claim some moral victory. Get off your high horse.
All those who favor alternative energy forms like nuclear power are evil, but don't blame us, it's only our nature.
Ah, see, you view it as a victory too. I knew we had something in common.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yes, it's going to be a wasteland forever The resiliency of nature might astound you. The lack of fishing this year will undoubtedly cause a spike in the overall number of fish/shrimp and everything else in that area with a commensurate spike in the secondary wildlife that feeds on them. We're talking one of the most overfished fishery's in the world here. It was near collapse before the spill and this might just be what saves it.Turquoise wrote:
You're missing the point. Disasters of this magnitude destroy entire ecosystems. It's not a matter of careers -- it's a matter of being able to fish at all in an area.Mekstizzle wrote:
The way the media put it when they say fishermen and shit it's like these people are subsistence farming and will die if they can't fish, no these guys make six figures and shit... they can handle a bad season or two
Making it seem like it's hit a proper third world area where it means life or death for the locals (or packing up and moving to a refugee camp) or some shit like that.
NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBYTurquoise wrote:
Well, I must admit that I've never seen tarballs wash up on Wilmington's beaches, nor have we had tides of oil or countless oil covered creatures wash ashore.JohnG@lt wrote:
Oh boo hoo, the big bad oil companies had an accident and it doesn't even effect your life. You're as bad as the california tree huggers acting like every environmental disaster happens in their back yard.
Maybe it's one of those "don't knock it until you try it" things, right? I bet the smell is wonderful.Yes, John, I view it as a victory. I also love the terrorists too.JohnG@lt wrote:
We're talking thousands of people out of work in the middle of a recession/depression (including my brother here shortly) and you view this as a victory? You're just as short sighted and moronic as anyone in the current administration. You're letting your personal agenda get in the way of reality. You, like many morons, feel that this is the perfect opportunity for us to move away from carbon based fuels. The situation hasn't changed in the past six months, there is STILL no replacement available. You'd have the entire economy screech to a grinding halt with $10 a gallon fuel prices just so you could claim some moral victory. Get off your high horse.
All those who favor alternative energy forms like nuclear power are evil, but don't blame us, it's only our nature.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-07-21 12:17:20)
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
You left out a NIMBY.
Part of the D's strategy for Florida was to get a "No Drilling Ban-constitutional amendment" item on the ballot. This would make sure to get the hippie ecomentalists out to the ballot. While at the ballot though they might as well vote for the D's and reward the Indy that 'had the balls' to stand up to the evil repugs and do what was right. However the R's weren't playing the D's/Gov's game. The House convened and immediately moved to sine die -fuck the governor. In turn the Gov slams them and makes them look like they don't want to get anything done. This oil catastrophe was the best thing that could happen to this Governor. He's got a free spotlight on a national stage. Won't see any adverts from Rubio's corner as it would be a waste of money right now... Charlie did sell his soul.Turquoise wrote:
Just like fighting a moratorium is a good way to win votes in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi -- well, except among the local fishermen and their own tourism industries.Pug wrote:
It's called "I hope to win Florida in the next election".
Since Florida does not allow drilling around their dick-shaped state, this legislation does not have a large impact on their economy.
They don't allow drilling because of the tourism industry. But they have realized they have to expand their protection area to protect the tourism industry.
Since Florida is hotly contested...guess what one of the factors is when issuing such a moratorium?
Single item vote issues isn't a new trick to get certain people out to the ballots. The 'gay marriage' ban vote was used in FL during the last Presidential election. The hope behind that was to get the religious right out and into the booth. It didn't really works as that issues doesn't follow certain demographics or party lines.
*edit:
Do you know how hard it is to get an oyster from Apalachee Bay (90% of FL oysters are from there)??? It's about impossible -yet they can still fish it.... Wha???? Apparently some of these effected individuals have figured out it is easier to just collect a check from bp and sit on their asses.
Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2010-07-21 12:25:41)
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
So, are you going to pay for everyone in America to switch over to electric vehicles out of your own pocket? Do you have billions of dollars sitting around to build new nuclear power plants to cover everyone in advance of the switchover? Are you going to pay the billions of dollars to retrain and move the people who currently work in the oil industry? No? So isn't your support of the moratorium based on nothing more than what would be called a moral stance? Try some reality before taking up stupid untenable positions.Turquoise wrote:
You left out a NIMBY.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
Pffft.Turquoise wrote:
Just like fighting a moratorium is a good way to win votes in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi -- well, except among the local fishermen and their own tourism industries.Pug wrote:
It's called "I hope to win Florida in the next election".
Since Florida does not allow drilling around their dick-shaped state, this legislation does not have a large impact on their economy.
They don't allow drilling because of the tourism industry. But they have realized they have to expand their protection area to protect the tourism industry.
Since Florida is hotly contested...guess what one of the factors is when issuing such a moratorium?
It doesn't matter if Obama FOUGHT the moratorium. Obama isn't winning Texas. The dems haven't won the state since 1980 or something like that.
But Florida...
Read my previous post on the governmental costs of cleaning up oil disasters. Your little insurance fantasy of the private sector handling all repercussions of the offshore drilling is rather untenable in its own right.JohnG@lt wrote:
So, are you going to pay for everyone in America to switch over to electric vehicles out of your own pocket? Do you have billions of dollars sitting around to build new nuclear power plants to cover everyone in advance of the switchover? Are you going to pay the billions of dollars to retrain and move the people who currently work in the oil industry? No? So isn't your support of the moratorium based on nothing more than what would be called a moral stance? Try some reality before taking up stupid untenable positions.Turquoise wrote:
You left out a NIMBY.
This isn't really about morals -- it's about having foresight beyond fossil fuel dependency. That's something you clearly don't have.
For president, no. For local offices, it's still competitive in some areas. Texas has 12 Democrat House members. Also, southern Texas is becoming more liberal with time.Pug wrote:
Pffft.Turquoise wrote:
Just like fighting a moratorium is a good way to win votes in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi -- well, except among the local fishermen and their own tourism industries.Pug wrote:
It's called "I hope to win Florida in the next election".
Since Florida does not allow drilling around their dick-shaped state, this legislation does not have a large impact on their economy.
They don't allow drilling because of the tourism industry. But they have realized they have to expand their protection area to protect the tourism industry.
Since Florida is hotly contested...guess what one of the factors is when issuing such a moratorium?
It doesn't matter if Obama FOUGHT the moratorium. Obama isn't winning Texas. The dems haven't won the state since 1980 or something like that.
But Florida...
Yeah, and I live in south texas which has always been democratic. But also oil is the 2nd leading industry in town here. I'm pretty much guaranteeing oil first...
but go on, I'm sure you know more about where I live then I do
but go on, I'm sure you know more about where I live then I do
Last edited by Pug (2010-07-21 13:33:10)
That wasn't my argument, Pug. In fact, I was suggesting that Democrats in Texas would most likely fight a moratorium to remain competitive in Texas.Pug wrote:
but go on, I'm sure you know more about where I live then I do
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-07-21 13:42:24)
Ahh...just a reminder then.
Local offices = people who have no influence on presidential campaigns no?
I think my point was Florida is a swing state.
So, what are you exactly saying?
Local offices = people who have no influence on presidential campaigns no?
I think my point was Florida is a swing state.
So, what are you exactly saying?
You were making a point about doing what's politically expedient in terms of the presidency. I was making one regarding a more limited constituency. The logic is the same, but the realm is different.Pug wrote:
Ahh...just a reminder then.
Local offices = people who have no influence on presidential campaigns no?
I think my point was Florida is a swing state.
So, what are you exactly saying?
I think you are missing my point...ONE of the factors in making the moratorium is the current sitting president (whether democrat or republican) is that Florida is a swing state and Texas is not.
IF you are arguing "building the democratic base for future elections way, way in the future", then:
"Oil Friendly" = republican virtue
"Oil moratorium" = democrat virtue
I don't think that's true. The last election proved neither candidate "out greened" the other.
IF you are arguing "building the democratic base for future elections way, way in the future", then:
"Oil Friendly" = republican virtue
"Oil moratorium" = democrat virtue
I don't think that's true. The last election proved neither candidate "out greened" the other.
Where did I dispute that?Pug wrote:
I think you are missing my point...ONE of the factors in making the moratorium is the current sitting president (whether democrat or republican) is that Florida is a swing state and Texas is not.
They'll have to do it when the oil runs out.JohnG@lt wrote:
So, are you going to pay for everyone in America to switch over to electric vehicles out of your own pocket? Do you have billions of dollars sitting around to build new nuclear power plants to cover everyone in advance of the switchover? Are you going to pay the billions of dollars to retrain and move the people who currently work in the oil industry? No? So isn't your support of the moratorium based on nothing more than what would be called a moral stance? Try some reality before taking up stupid untenable positions.Turquoise wrote:
You left out a NIMBY.
Having millions of tonnes of txic sludge dumped in their backyard does piss people off.NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY
Still, the oil companies have woken up.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines … 5895437900
Should be better than trial and error - which was the plan up to now.FOUR of the world's largest oil companies are creating a strike force to staunch oil spills in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
The billion-dollar plan is designed to regain the confidence of the White House in the wake of the BP disaster.
Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell and ConocoPhillips are expected to announce today that they are forming a joint venture to design, build and operate a rapid-response system to capture and contain up to 100,000 barrels of oil flowing 3000 metres below the surface of the sea.
BP's Deepwater Horizon well had been leaking up to 60,000 barrels per day 1500m below the surface.
The new system, consisting of several oil-collection ships and an array of subsurface containment equipment, resembles the one developed by BP during three months of trial and error after its leased rig exploded April 20, unleashing the worst offshore oil spill in US history.
But the companies say it will be ready to go at all times and can be used on the wide variety of equipment found in the deepwater Gulf.
BP, which is still engaged in its prolonged effort to permanently stop the resulting oil spill and clean it up, wasn't asked to join the strike-force consortium.
"We don't want to distract them at all," said Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon, which is leading the system's engineering and construction.
But BP, along with other companies operating in the Gulf, may be able to use the strike force.
The companies will evenly split an initial investment of $US1 billion in the non-profit venture, which they are calling the Marine Well Containment Company. But the tab to build the system and have crews on alert for years could run in the billions of dollars.
The containment system will be designed to deal with well blowouts and is expected to be ready within 18 months, Exxon said.
The response team should be able to start mobilising within 24 hours of an oil spill, and be fully in place within weeks, said Sara Ortwein, vice president of engineering for Exxon Mobil Development Company.
The oil companies hope the plan will placate the intense official and public criticism of the oil industry.
Despite major technological breakthroughs that led to the exploitation of oil and gas trapped far below sea level, the industry was caught without an effective response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Last June, the chief executives of Exxon, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and BP were grilled by lawmakers who accused them of using "cookie cutter" plans for responding to large-scale oil spills.
Mr Tillerson acknowledged that the industry had been caught unprepared for a disaster.
And maybe they shouldn't be douchebags and invite BP to join, considering BP was unlucky to be their Guinea pig when it could just as easliy have been one of them, and they are still 18 months away from having a response team ready.
Until then the moratorium should stay.
If the oil majors had thought one step ahead they'd have had this in place before the BP disaster, and we wouldn't have people crying about not being able to drill.The oil giants' joint-venture is modelled after the Marine Spill Response Corporation, a national oil spill response company funded by the oil and shipping industry in 1990, after the Exxon Valdez oil spill prompted a major overhaul in petroleum pollution legislation. That entity still exists and can work in conjunction with the oil firms' new system.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-07-21 20:48:01)
Fuck Israel
foresight means shit without putting it to practice.Turquoise wrote:
Read my previous post on the governmental costs of cleaning up oil disasters. Your little insurance fantasy of the private sector handling all repercussions of the offshore drilling is rather untenable in its own right.JohnG@lt wrote:
So, are you going to pay for everyone in America to switch over to electric vehicles out of your own pocket? Do you have billions of dollars sitting around to build new nuclear power plants to cover everyone in advance of the switchover? Are you going to pay the billions of dollars to retrain and move the people who currently work in the oil industry? No? So isn't your support of the moratorium based on nothing more than what would be called a moral stance? Try some reality before taking up stupid untenable positions.Turquoise wrote:
You left out a NIMBY.
This isn't really about morals -- it's about having foresight beyond fossil fuel dependency. That's something you clearly don't have.
I've been saying from day 1 that they would learn a lesson from this. Cleanup costs are expensive, insurance costs will skyrocket, the public relations hit is ginormous etc. The Obama administration is irrelevant in this, they would've taken it upon themselves to prepare in case of another big blowout (and made sure that their plans hit all the major media networks too). It's just common sense.Dilbert_X wrote:
Should be better than trial and error - which was the plan up to now.
and maybe they should be douchebags and invite BP to join, considering BP was unlucky to be their Guinea pig when it could just as easliy have been one of them, and they are still 18 months away from having a response team ready.
Until then the moratorium should stay.
And no, the moratorium shouldn't stand because the chances of another blowout occurring in the next six months is infinitesimally small.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
Its common sense now and its going to take 18 months to get ready, if they'd had some foresight they wouldn't need to cry so hard now.JohnG@lt wrote:
I've been saying from day 1 that they would learn a lesson from this. Cleanup costs are expensive, insurance costs will skyrocket, the public relations hit is ginormous etc. The Obama administration is irrelevant in this, they would've taken it upon themselves to prepare in case of another big blowout (and made sure that their plans hit all the major media networks too). It's just common sense.Dilbert_X wrote:
Should be better than trial and error - which was the plan up to now.
and maybe they should be douchebags and invite BP to join, considering BP was unlucky to be their Guinea pig when it could just as easliy have been one of them, and they are still 18 months away from having a response team ready.
Until then the moratorium should stay.
The 'solution' still doesn't address the potential problem of a subsurface pipe crack - there is still no plan B for that - maybe they'd like to triple drill every well in future?
But they aren't zero.And no, the moratorium shouldn't stand because the chances of another blowout occurring in the next six months is infinitesimally small.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-07-21 19:34:11)
Fuck Israel
As demonstrated by BP.... and our government... and the oil industry in general.11 Bravo wrote:
foresight means shit without putting it to practice.Turquoise wrote:
Read my previous post on the governmental costs of cleaning up oil disasters. Your little insurance fantasy of the private sector handling all repercussions of the offshore drilling is rather untenable in its own right.JohnG@lt wrote:
So, are you going to pay for everyone in America to switch over to electric vehicles out of your own pocket? Do you have billions of dollars sitting around to build new nuclear power plants to cover everyone in advance of the switchover? Are you going to pay the billions of dollars to retrain and move the people who currently work in the oil industry? No? So isn't your support of the moratorium based on nothing more than what would be called a moral stance? Try some reality before taking up stupid untenable positions.
This isn't really about morals -- it's about having foresight beyond fossil fuel dependency. That's something you clearly don't have.
The chances of being killed by terrorists on a plane are pretty low too, but we still have safety policies in place that are designed to prevent hijackings.JohnG@lt wrote:
And no, the moratorium shouldn't stand because the chances of another blowout occurring in the next six months is infinitesimally small.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-07-21 19:56:51)
Yeah, a bunch of fat angry slobs making minimum wage who get a boner at the very thought of body scanners is both highly effective and a fantastic deterrent.Turquoise wrote:
The chances of being killed by terrorists on a plane are pretty low too, but we still have safety policies in place that are designed to prevent hijackings.JohnG@lt wrote:
And no, the moratorium shouldn't stand because the chances of another blowout occurring in the next six months is infinitesimally small.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat