• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Offshore Oil Moratorium not Focused on Depth

I have made steps to reduce the use of fossil fuels in my family. We have a fuel efficent car and we don't drive nearly as much as we used to. We also bike much more. For you to tell me I haven't made steps is just laughable because last I checked you don't know anything about me.

and of course I realize we can't just drop fossil fuels in a matter of days. Still it doesn't even look like we are trying to ween ourselves of off it. In 1984 the average mpg in a vehicle was 20, fast forward to 2004 and your looking at 20.4! A .4 increase! I'll be damned, internet was created along with the modern computer and cell phones yet we still hadn't figure out how to use less fuel.

You have a car, you can't use a car, it uses the oil we suck out of the gulf. You can't bike either, the tires are made of rubber which is a petroleum product.

You haven't done much at all. Truth be told, I've done more than you and LIVE almost on the gulf coast.

Wow, you are a lib. You can't see the forest for the trees. The average horsepower of a vehicle in 1980 was somewhere around 160. Now you have little cars leaving the factory pushing 240 with the same mileage. While the mileage hasn't increased much, the horsepower has increased dramatically. People don't want to drive around rinky dink cars. As long as thats the case, with the likes of Barbara Boxer flying around in her Learjet, we will always need fossil fuels. In 1984 how many options were out there that got the same mileage as a Prius?

If you don't reduce the need to zero you haven't done any good because we would STILL need to drill for oil! So congrats for not doing any good!
 
Last edited:
You have a car, you can't use a car, it uses the oil we suck out of the gulf. You can't bike either, the tires are made of rubber which is a petroleum product.

You haven't done much at all. Truth be told, I've done more than you and LIVE almost on the gulf coast.

Wow, you are a lib. You can't see the forest for the trees. The average horsepower of a vehicle in 1980 was somewhere around 160. Now you have little cars leaving the factory pushing 240 with the same mileage. While the mileage hasn't increased much, the horsepower has increased dramatically. People don't want to drive around rinky dink cars. As long as thats the case, with the likes of Barbara Boxer flying around in her Learjet, we will always need fossil fuels.

If you don't reduce the need to zero you haven't done any good because we would STILL need to drill for oil! So congrats for not doing any good!

didn't you say I hadn't done anything though...congratulations on taking more steps to use less fossil fuels then me, at least we our both making steps. And since you and I live on the gulf I think we can attest to the sheer amounts of people driving big gas guzziling trucks for no apparent reason other than to help a relative move from time to time, cars have more horsepower now but for what point!
 
No, a beach isn't a resource, the sand is as are the fish in that water, the water itself once you process it, even the grass. But the beach itself has no utility other than a nice relaxing day. No, the gulf is a resource rich area, everything contained within it are resources. They are not "ours", they are "theirs" until "they" sell the resources to "individuals".

i don't want to argue semantics. the fact is tourism supports many areas in the south, as does fishing, none of which would be around if not for the water and the beach. i don't think it at all unreasonable to stand back and take a moment to reassess our options.
 
also not to mention the general lack of a recycling program down here, I can't speak for everybody but in the general vicinity where I live which encompasses a lot of people there is no recycling. Also my family in southern Louisiana has no recycling either.

Hmmm, when I lived up north they all had recycling programs that came along with the Garbage truck. Just wondering why the south in general hasn't jumped aboard yet.
 
i don't want to argue semantics. the fact is tourism supports many areas in the south, as does fishing, none of which would be around if not for the water and the beach. i don't think it at all unreasonable to stand back and take a moment to reassess our options.

Well, shuck out a half million dollars a day and you can take as many moments as you want to reassess your options. If you're not willing to pay the cost of waiting, then I advise you to not say we should wait.

PEOPLE, THIS HAS HAPPENED ONE TIME IN 60 YEARS!!!!! You act like it happens once a week!!!! If airplanes crashed once every 60 years would it make sense to ground the whole god damn fleet of planes to reaccess the safety of flight? C'mon people, use your brains!
 
Well, shuck out a half million dollars a day and you can take as many moments as you want to reassess your options. If you're not willing to pay the cost of waiting, then I advise you to not say we should wait.

PEOPLE, THIS HAS HAPPENED ONE TIME IN 60 YEARS!!!!! You act like it happens once a week!!!! If airplanes crashed once every 60 years would it make sense to ground the whole god damn fleet of planes to reaccess the safety of flight? C'mon people, use your brains!

it has not happened ONE TIME in 60 years. good lord........oil spills are not infrequent.
 
i don't want to argue semantics.
This isn't semantics, there are resources and then there are their locations. A beach in itself cannot be a resource.
the fact is tourism supports many areas in the south, as does fishing, none of which would be around if not for the water and the beach.
And again, without resources the beach would have no utility, it would be a pile of sand with an intemperate body of water.
i don't think it at all unreasonable to stand back and take a moment to reassess our options.
And again, the moratorium was found to be outside of the executive's power, the court issued that decree and the mother ****er still did it, that is what this thread is about. As well "stepping back" and assessing is not required at this time, one well blew and it's a tragedy, 1 out of hundreds and this is over decades, not days/weeks/months, this isn't exactly an everyday occurance.
 
Last edited:
it has not happened ONE TIME in 60 years. good lord........oil spills are not infrequent.
Twice in 30 and only once in U.S. waters. Still quite infrequent.
 
the Ixtoc in the Gulf of Mexico spilled out a brutal 140 million gallons in 1980. The blowout preventer also failed on that well, the methods they used to try and cap it were nearly identical to what they are doing today.
 
the Ixtoc in the Gulf of Mexico spilled out a brutal 140 million gallons in 1980. The blowout preventer also failed on that well, the methods they used to try and cap it were nearly identical to what they are doing today.
That is correct, it was a bad spill. Again though, two in thirty years and this is comparitively the rarest of industrial accidents. No one is saying it's a good thing, but the moratorium has been found to be illegitimate and ill-advised and we all use oil, all economics are tied to it, and the subject is that the administration is going to go about getting it's way regardless. This is what the hangers on need to remember when discussing Obama.
 
That is correct, it was a bad spill. Again though, two in thirty years and this is comparitively the rarest of industrial accidents. No one is saying it's a good thing, but the moratorium has been found to be illegitimate and ill-advised and we all use oil, all economics are tied to it, and the subject is that the administration is going to go about getting it's way regardless. This is what the hangers on need to remember when discussing Obama.

We can just look to Nigeria for a firm example of what happens when **** hits the fan - and the government doesn't have the strength or resources to do anything about it.
 
We can just look to Nigeria for a firm example of what happens when **** hits the fan - and the government doesn't have the strength or resources to do anything about it.
Nigeria doesn't care, they want the money and yes it is an environmental worst case. Our situation is much more tenable but it isn't business friendly and that is a problem. This can't be said enough, the moratorium was beaten in court because it was found to be out of the power of the executive branch, the reason for the second one is not related to the legal issue in that they are claiming a depth of drilling argument and this speaks to how weak of a case the administration is willing to provide to impose their own will on the market. The spill is horrid but the politics are the truly disturbing aspect of this.
 
This is the first time in 60 years that a spill of this magnitude has occured in US waters.
 
I might be mistaken but didn't a report come out not too long ago showing just how many oil rigs could be at risk of the same fate as the BP rig? I think it was in the 1,000s.



I'm purdy sure you're mistaken. There aren't thousands of drilling rigs in the GOM.

Obviously there is no proven plan of action if a blowout preventer fails, why not just chill and get some revised safety regulations and plans enacted before we start drilling again? I thought it was a wise move.

Because there'll be hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, that's why. Not to mention billions of precious tax dollars that Obama believes is so important to economic stimulus.

I guess jobs weren't Obama's top priority, afterall. His agenda is his top priority.
 
We can just look to Nigeria for a firm example of what happens when **** hits the fan - and the government doesn't have the strength or resources to do anything about it.

Now that billions od dollars in taxes have been flushed down the toilet, our government is going to have a damn hard time dealing with these situations.
 
That is correct, it was a bad spill. Again though, two in thirty years and this is comparitively the rarest of industrial accidents. No one is saying it's a good thing, but the moratorium has been found to be illegitimate and ill-advised and we all use oil, all economics are tied to it, and the subject is that the administration is going to go about getting it's way regardless. This is what the hangers on need to remember when discussing Obama.

Ixtoc was in the Bay of Campeche in Mexican waters and under Mexican administration...
 
Ixtoc was in the Bay of Campeche in Mexican waters and under Mexican administration...
I know that much. It was a response to the people saying there was more than one disaster in the gulf, that's true, it just wasn't in our own federal waters.
 
And in 60 years of drilling in the gulf, this is the first time a blowout and oil leak of this magnitude has happened. I think playing chicken little this quickly is a little bit jumping the gun.

The lies need to stop here.

1) First of all, deep water drilling is new. You cannot compare deep water drilling to shallow water drilling. They are 2 completely different animals.

2) But since you decided to lump deep water and shallow water drilling into the same category, then you cannot forget the Ixtoc I disaster in the 1970's, which until this year was the largest spill in the Gulf, and ruined the economy of parts of Mexico for years. South Texas was also affected, but for a much shorter period of time. Impact on business from Corpus Christi to Brownsville, after this spill, averaged 40-60%, but in some cases was as much as 80%*. Ixtoc I is now the second largest Gulf spill in history.

3) The Ocean Ranger incident off of Newfoundland in 1982 killed 84 members when this semi-submersible drilling platform sank. That was also an accident, and it is also something I don't see mentioned. Luckily, it was still drilling, and had not struck oil yet, when it sank in a storm. The investigation found that the crew was not properly trained, was not provided with proper equipment, and that there were design flaws in the rig.

4) OK, back to the Gulf, and a little trivia. There have been 2 other incidents, in addition to Deepwater Horizon and Ixtoc I, in which significant quantities of oil were spilled. These both involved tankers. In 1979, the Burmah Agate, with its cargo of Nigerian oil, collided with another ship, and beaches from Galveston to Corpus Christi were fouled. And, in 1990, 100,000 barrels of oil were spilled into the Gulf, just off the coast of Galveston, when an explosion occurred aboard the Mega Borg.

Just showing here that the drilling and transportation of oil is not the perfectly safe venture that the GlennBecksters are attempting to make it out to be. In context, the record is not that bad, considering the thousands of rigs in operation, but with the lack of regulation (due to regulations being gutted), safety procedures not being properly followed, poor training, defective equipment, and other issues, a moratorium on the deep wells (there are only 36 of them), until these issues are worked out over about a 6 month period, is not only the prudent thing to do, but is perfectly logical, considering that we cannot handle another spill like this, if it happens. What are the chances, you say? From the other incidents I posted above, I would say the odds are high enough not to be trifled with, considering the extent of unsafe practices in place at the present time.

* Environmental impact study of Ixtoc I disaster, released by MMS in 1982, page 86.
 
Last edited:
The lies need to stop here.

1) First of all, deep water drilling is new. You cannot compare deep water drilling to shallow water drilling. They are 2 completely different animals.

2) But since you decided to lump deep water and shallow water drilling into the same category, then you cannot forget the Ixtoc I disaster in the 1970's, which until this year was the largest spill in the Gulf, and ruined the economy of parts of Mexico for years. South Texas was also affected, but for a much shorter period of time. Impact on business from Corpus Christi to Brownsville, after this spill was as much as 80%*. Ixtoc I is now the second largest Gulf spill in history.

3) The Ocean Ranger incident off of Newfoundland in 1982 killed 84 members when this semi-submersible drilling platform sank. That was also an accident, and it is also something I don't see mentioned. Luckily, it was still drilling, and had not struck oil yet, when it sank in a storm. The investigation found that the crew was not properly trained, was not provided with proper equipment, and that there were design flaws in the rig.

4) OK, back to the Gulf, and a little trivia. There have been 2 other incidents, in addition to Deepwater Horizon and Ixtoc I, in which significant quantities of oil were spilled. These both involved tankers. In 1979, the Burmah Agate, with its cargo of Nigerian oil, collided with another ship, and beaches from Galveston to Corpus Christi were fouled. And, in 1990, 100,000 barrels of oil were spilled into the Gulf, just off the coast of Galveston, when an explosion occurred aboard the Mega Borg.

Just showing here that the drilling and transportation of oil is not the perfectly safe venture that the GlennBecksters are attempting to make it out to be. In context, the record is not that bad, considering the thousands of rigs in operation, but with the lack of regulation (due to regulations being gutted), safety procedures not being properly followed, poor training, defective equipment, and other issues, a moratorium on the deep wells (there are only 36 of them), until these issues are worked out over about a 6 month period, is not only the prudent thing to do, but is perfectly logical, considering that we cannot handle another spill like this, if it happens. What are the chances, you say? From the other incidents I posted above, I would say the odds are high enough not to be trifled with, considering the extent of unsafe practices in place at the present time.

* Environmental impact study of Ixtoc I disaster, released by MMS in 1982, page 86.
Disagree completely Dan. These spills are relatively few, I had forgotten about a few of the ones you mentioned, but there is absolutely no reason to shut the industry down for six months and cause an economic catastrophe that could possibly rival the damage from this blowout.

Secondly, it's no secret that Ken Salazar is an enviro-nut and wants to kill the oil industry which is the primary reason not to trust him in this. But as well, the reason that the moratorium lost in court was not the depth of water, it was a jurisdictional matter which was not cleared up in the second moratorium. This leads me to believe that these things are just going to keep getting issued until either criminal proceedings or full on impeachments are held against the executive and at that point it will economically be too late.
 
My prediction? This one will stick. The affected companies haven't resumed their efforts yet, and with this most will give up on the GoM and do their thing in friendlier waters. This certainly isn't going to help the economy down there, but hey... it's Obama.
 
Disagree completely Dan. These spills are relatively few, I had forgotten about a few of the ones you mentioned, but there is absolutely no reason to shut the industry down for six months and cause an economic catastrophe that could possibly rival the damage from this blowout.

Secondly, it's no secret that Ken Salazar is an enviro-nut and wants to kill the oil industry which is the primary reason not to trust him in this. But as well, the reason that the moratorium lost in court was not the depth of water, it was a jurisdictional matter which was not cleared up in the second moratorium. This leads me to believe that these things are just going to keep getting issued until either criminal proceedings or full on impeachments are held against the executive and at that point it will economically be too late.

You know, my friend, if they were following the book, I would agree with you, but they aren't, and that is the problem.
 
You know, my friend, if they were following the book, I would agree with you, but they aren't, and that is the problem.
And to think it was one middle manager. At least that's what a lot of people are telling me here, one guy(don't know if it's valid or not) said he was on the rig for it's first "burp" and got the hell out. I agree that everything needs to be addressed, the government needs to hash out why the inspectors turned away, BP needs to figure out why it's rig had a multiple system failure, and we need to figure out......to quote the president "who's ass to kick". I don't know about a complete industry shutdown though, too economically risky, I can see why we need to have around the clock discussions of what the fix is though.
 
And to think it was one middle manager. At least that's what a lot of people are telling me here, one guy(don't know if it's valid or not) said he was on the rig for it's first "burp" and got the hell out. I agree that everything needs to be addressed, the government needs to hash out why the inspectors turned away, BP needs to figure out why it's rig had a multiple system failure, and we need to figure out......to quote the president "who's ass to kick". I don't know about a complete industry shutdown though, too economically risky, I can see why we need to have around the clock discussions of what the fix is though.

But it's only 36 wells, out of the thousands that are already out there. At least that is what it was in the first order. To be honest, I have not had a chance to see the new order, and understand the impact of the few words that were changed. IMHO, 36 wells out for a relatively short period of time, then put back into operation, is not too much to ask for, if it results in some regulations with teeth. Between you and me, though, I believe that the head of MMS needs to be fired and replaced, and inspectors who allowed industry officials to rubber stamp fake inspections, without really inspecting the wells need to be brought up on criminal charges, especially the ones who took gifts from these officials. People need to be doing time over this. Problem is that the Obama administration is no better than the Bush administration in this area, and could actually even be worse, since he promised to clean up corruption in government. He sure the hell lied about that, didn't he? I think he needs to pay the piper too, in the next election.
 
Last edited:
But it's only 36 wells, out of the thousands that are already out there. At least that is what it was in the first order. To be honest, I have not had a chance to see the new order, and understand the impact of the few words that were changed. IMHO, 36 wells out for a relatively short period of time, then put back into operation, is not too much to ask for, if it results in some regulations with teeth.
I'd like to say 36 isn't that bad but if they want this shutdown for 6 months they're going to have to cite specific concerns or otherwise get out of the way. But even if we talk about only 36 wells the divers, support crews, and deckhands of those deepwater wells are going to take severe pay hits over those months, that's going to get back to all other aspects of the economy especially considering the deeper drilling jobs pay an obscene amount more than shallower ones .
Between you and me, though, I believe that the head of MMS needs to be fired and replaced, and inspectors who allowed industry officials to rubber stamp fake inspections, without really inspecting the wells need to be brought up on criminal charges, especially the ones who took gifts from these officials. People need to be doing time over this.
You'll get no argument from me here.
Problem is that the Obama administration is no better than the Bush administration in this area, and could actually even be worse, since he promised to clean up corruption in government. He sure the hell lied about that, didn't he? I think he needs to pay the piper too, in the next election.
Looks prime for exactly that, but I'm more concerned about the well being stifled right now and the mid-terms. One step at a time here.
 
Back
Top Bottom