• 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!

Coast Guard bans reporters from oil cleanup sites

oh my.. the truthiness is almost overwhelming.

If you had the choice between one of two sources of income, OR taking BOTH sources of income, what would you pick?
 
If you had the choice between one of two sources of income, OR taking BOTH sources of income, what would you pick?

im probably not the person to ask, as im certainly not the greedy type and ive no shareholders to answer too.
not that i could present any undisputable proof of my claims, but ill say that i would be ok with "enough to feed me and mine".
 
Drilling in shallow water: Profitable.
Drilling in deep water: Profitable.

Drilling Both: More Profit! Underlined Italic Bold and RED! UNDENIABLE!

Yeah! We want a country where companies don't make profits. That'll work!!
 
Yeah! We want a country where companies don't make profits. That'll work!!

The point of all that, because you seem to have missed it, is that the oil companies weren't "forced" into deep waters. They were going there anyway, because drilling in deep water is profitable.
 
If you had the choice between one of two sources of income, OR taking BOTH sources of income, what would you pick?




This is silly. if i can put x number of rigs in place, i would put them where the costs are low. ie shallow water.
 
The point of all that, because you seem to have missed it, is that the oil companies weren't "forced" into deep waters. They were going there anyway, because drilling in deep water is profitable.




this is highly innaccurate, you can back up your claims anytime. :thumbs:
 
This is silly. if i can put x number of rigs in place, i would put them where the costs are low. ie shallow water.

You think oil companies are limited in cash and credit to the point where they can't put up wells in both deep and shallow waters?
 
You think oil companies are limited in cash and credit to the point where they can't put up wells in both deep and shallow waters?



I think federal government limits leases and deems where they can drill... you are speculating with no basis in reality. I've asked you for proof, thus far I have been left wanting.
 
It's inaccurate that these companies were drilling in deep water because it is profitable? you so silly, HH. LMFAO!




please shorty, you think you can get that one by on this awesomeness? :pimpdaddy:




It is innaccurate to suggest that the fedgov didn't forced them to drill deep, not shallow.
 
It is innaccurate to suggest that the fedgov didn't forced them to drill deep, not shallow.

How exactly did the federal government force private companies to drill in deep water? Did they hold a gun to their heads? No. These companies elected to drill in deep water...BY CHOICE...to maximize profits.

I think you are misunderstanding the term "force."
 
How exactly did the federal government force private companies to drill in deep water? Did they hold a gun to their heads? No. These companies elected to drill in deep water...BY CHOICE...to maximize profits.

I think you are misunderstanding the term "force."



"we want to drill on the continental shelf"


"no you must drill past it"


:shrug:
 
"we want to drill on the continental shelf"


"no you must drill past it"


:shrug:

I'm guessing you don't understand the concept of force. Force is when someone points a gun at you, and you have no other alternative but to comply.

Is that what happened here? Were these companies FORCED by the federal government to drill in certain areas? No. They CHOSE to do so in order to continue to access oil reserves and make money. THAT ISN'T FORCE, HH.
 
I'm guessing you don't understand the concept of force. Force is when someone points a gun at you, and you have no other alternative but to comply.

Is that what happened here? Were these companies FORCED by the federal government to drill in certain areas? No. They CHOSE to do so in order to continue to access oil reserves and make money. THAT ISN'T FORCE, HH.



so we are not forced to pay taxes?


we are not forced to stop at stop signs?

Not forced to not remove mattress tags unless we are the consumer?


Interesting......:ssst:
 
so we are not forced to pay taxes?


we are not forced to stop at stop signs?

Not forced to not remove mattress tags unless we are the consumer?


Interesting......:ssst:

what federal consequences did BP face if it failed to drill in deep water?
 
what federal consequences did BP face if it failed to drill in deep water?




This kind of misses the point.


bp was told they could not drill in the shallow water, they must drill in the deep water...


the government and the enviornmentalists play part of the reason for this mess... unintended consequences...


And if they didn't drill there, there are tons of other oil co's willing to do so, so Im not sure of the point.,
 
This kind of misses the point.


bp was told they could not drill in the shallow water, they must drill in the deep water...


the government and the enviornmentalists play part of the reason for this mess... unintended consequences...


And if they didn't drill there, there are tons of other oil co's willing to do so, so Im not sure of the point.,

The point is that they CHOSE to drill there in hopes of making money, not because they were forced to do so. It was a purely voluntary decision. Businesses weigh risks all the time and pass up opportunities because the risks are too great.
 
what federal consequences did BP face if it failed to drill in deep water?

They wouldn't make money. We all know how Libbos just hate it when companies make money.
 
Yet another abuse of "safety" in order to quell the rights of the press.

What do they have to hide that they want to block the media from seeing?

Maybe they had insufficient life preservers and fire extinguishers.
 
Back
Top Bottom