• 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!

Seahawk Drilling seeks bankruptcy, to sell assets

It's doing a lot better than when the GOP's Glorious Leader left it on 1/20/2009. And that's despite universal, shrill, and constant obstruction from Republicans. I call that a worthy achievement in two years. Ronald Reagan certainly doesn't match such a record.

Not because of anything that Obama has done. Plus, it's doing no better now, than it was a couple years ago.



The people you elected in 2000 and 2004.

And, what was the unemployment rate when the Republicans were running the show?



Their reputation is well-earned.

How so?



Your reasoning is faulty. The oil industry hurts the economy as a whole over the long-term, which means oil industry jobs actually cost more jobs than they provide. If we were to apply your logic, then an industry that makes money by randomly shooting people on the street and picking their pockets should continue because shutting it down would cost the jobs of its secretaries and file clerks. Common sense dictates that an industry whose net economic impact is negative would better serve the working public by not existing at all than by being perpetually subsidized, as it's been for generations. People should have access to quality jobs and job training service, but then I've seen you oppose such programs as "socialism." The only possible interpretation is that you think the government shouldn't make economic decisions at all, which in turn means you don't think there should even be a government, because that's one of the things governments do - it's written in the Constitution that the government regulates interstate commerce, and no government on the planet abstains from involvement, because that would be moronic and pointless.

Now, there's some faulty reasoning and totally unsupportable with any real facts.

BTW, the unemployment rate in South Dakota is around 3%. Wanna guess why?
 
This administration has provided more funding for clean energy than any in history. It will not happen overnight.

Destroying our number one energy producing industry, not to mention the jobs that th oilfield produces is a stupid assed idea, in the middle of a depression.

You do understand the government can't create wealth, right? That money has to come from the tax payers. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that if you kill a particular industry, that's going to negatively effect tax revenues.


We probably shoudn't have waited 40 years to start you think?

Who waited? Research into alternate energy has been going on for that 40 years. Again, if it's such a great idea, why isn't the private sector dumping millions of dollars in investments into the industry?



Because to big business, short-term profits are paramont to societal needs or the environment, in short, greed.

No matter how much in tax revenues that greed creates. Right?
 
Destroying our number one energy producing industry, not to mention the jobs that th oilfield produces is a stupid assed idea, in the middle of a depression.

What are you talking about? Oil companies are making record profits! Peak oil is hurting jobs and the economy and you ain't seen nothing yet as to how bad it is going to get.

Who waited?

Google Reagan.

Research into alternate energy has been going on for that 40 years.

Not enough evidently.

Again, if it's such a great idea, why isn't the private sector dumping millions of dollars in investments into the industry?

And again, because to big business, short-term profits are paramont to societal needs or the environment, in short, greed.

No matter how much in tax revenues that greed creates. Right?

It started creating less and less when Reagan and Bush slashed the tax rate for the uber-wealthy. All it did was create a wider gap between the uber-wealthy and the middle class.
 
What are you talking about? Oil companies are making record profits!

How is it bad for private companies to make a profit? Or, do you buy into the Obama school of thought that at some point, they've made enough money?


Peak oil is hurting jobs and the economy

No, government regulation is hurting jobs and the economy. Remember, it's the government that isn't issueing drilling permits.


and you ain't seen nothing yet as to how bad it is going to get.

Of course we haven't, because Obama isn't done cokcing things up.

But, he's working on it...

Great News! Obama to Impose New Fees on Energy Companies Who Can’t Drill Anyway « Hot Air



Google Reagan.

Why isn't the private sector jumping all over something that is such an obviously awesome idea????



Not enough evidently.

What's, "enough"?



And again, because to big business, short-term profits are paramont to societal needs or the environment, in short, greed.

So, are you saying that businesses shouldn't be concerned with making money?



It started creating less and less when Reagan and Bush slashed the tax rate for the uber-wealthy. All it did was create a wider gap between the uber-wealthy and the middle class.

Is more class envy the only argument that you really have?

How well do you think the middle class folks along the gulf coast are doing, since Obama started killing their jobs? Is this the, "hope-n-change", we were promised? Fewer jobs? Less money in our own pockets? If it is, then the American people got ripped off. Don't be mad when they finally boil over and do something crazy. Egypt might hit closer to home than you think.

I can't imagine how someone, who supports a president that knwoingly killed jobs, can look at themselves in the mirror. That person must not have a job and can't understand what it's like.
 
How is it bad for private companies to make a profit? Or, do you buy into the Obama school of thought that at some point, they've made enough money?

When we subsidize them both directly and through debt for a war to increase their dwindling product reserves.



This is nothing new. This has been a method of funding regulatory oversight through user fees rather than increasing public taxes. Which do you want? You can't have your cake and eat it too!

What's, "enough"?

How about when war is not required as part of our energy program?

So, are you saying that businesses shouldn't be concerned with making money?

No, I am saying that without sustainable energy, the economy will fail.

How well do you think the middle class folks along the gulf coast are doing, since Obama started killing their jobs?

Peak oil killed their jobs.
 
When we subsidize them both directly and through debt for a war to increase their dwindling product reserves.




This is nothing new. This has been a method of funding regulatory oversight through user fees rather than increasing public taxes. Which do you want? You can't have your cake and eat it too!



How about when war is not required as part of our energy program?



No, I am saying that without sustainable energy, the economy will fail.





None of that makes any since and certainly doesn't come close to reality.

especially this,

Peak oil killed their jobs.

Care to prove that, BTW? I'm betting, no.
 
Catawba;1059289098]What do you expect me to do about it? Carter had set up programs that would have had us independent of foreign oil today if Reagan hadn't scrapped it. If you want to blame someone, that is where the fault lies.

Shruggs shoulders, see this is the problem I have with liberals, rather then talk about fixing the problem, when faced with a direct question, you just go back to the tired old blame game, and that is your solution, it's also the solution of too many in Washington.

Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. I worked in pollution control and safety and environmental impacts feature prominently in the permitting process.

Quite simply that is just pure fabrication on your part, the people that design the plants, submit the drawings, are well aware of what is needed as far as safety goes, the job of the people issuing the permits is to be sure that all safety requirements are in the plans and specs. The permitting process taking 3 to 5 years, is just government red tape, nothing else.

The public, despite warning from both parties in the government, the oil companies themselves, and the military, remain largely ignorant of the coming turmoil resulting from peak oil. A carrot (tax credits) seems more appropriate encouragement than a stick (economic hardship) I believe.

This is just something we will have to disagree on, in your mind your feel the government must take care of people because they can't think for themselves, in my mind people are responsible enough to take care of themselves. If bad choices are made, they they suffer for them, just as they are rewarded for good choices. I'm not weak minded enough that I feel I need cradle to grave care by anyone, including our government.

Democrats, not liberals, control one house of Congress.

-chuckles- well I certainly wouldn't can them conservatives ... would you ?

Doesn't matter as the oil companies say it is not a solution.

I don't recall I ever said it was a solution, but it could be a temporary fix until a solution is found, and you keep side stepping the question, who is it that have closed down the drilling on our own soil, that could do nothing but "help" the situation we are in?


Its not worth risking our largest natural wildlife reserve and global warming for one years worth of oil.
[/QUOTE]

Well then I guess your answer is to just give up, seeing there is no solution in sight on alternate energy, We are down to 4 years of oil even using your conserve strategy, after that just say f**k it, America is done. Great liberal planning …
 
Shruggs shoulders, see this is the problem I have with liberals, rather then talk about fixing the problem, when faced with a direct question, you just go back to the tired old blame game, and that is your solution, it's also the solution of too many in Washington.

If you want to address a problem, it helps to know what caused it. Just sticking your head in the sand over the last 40 years does nothing.

Quite simply that is just pure fabrication on your part, the people that design the plants, submit the drawings, are well aware of what is needed as far as safety goes, the job of the people issuing the permits is to be sure that all safety requirements are in the plans and specs. The permitting process taking 3 to 5 years, is just government red tape, nothing else.

"An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), under United States environmental law, is a document required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for certain actions "significantly affecting the quality of the human environment".[1] An EIS is a tool for decision making. It describes the positive and negative environmental effects of a proposed action, and it usually also lists one or more alternative actions that may be chosen instead of the action described in the EIS."
Environmental impact statement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



This is just something we will have to disagree on.

Agreed. The American public will make the decision in any case.


-chuckles- well I certainly wouldn't can them conservatives ... would you ?

I believe the term for conservative Democrats is blue-dog Democrats.



I don't recall I ever said it was a solution, but it could be a temporary fix until a solution is found, and you keep side stepping the question, who is it that have closed down the drilling on our own soil, that could do nothing but "help" the situation we are in?

The fact of the matter is we can do more through energy conservation than our remaining cheap oil supplies will allow, and we are not adding to GW in the process. We have to think long-term and not continue to choose short-term "fixes" that create worse long-term problems.


Well then I guess your answer is to just give up, seeing there is no solution in sight on alternate energy, We are down to 4 years of oil even using your conserve strategy, after that just say f**k it, America is done. Great liberal planning …

Not at all. We have the capacity to conserve more oil than we get from the ME, which would free up the trillions we are spending on wars to keep the oil flowing that could then be used to help build our clean energy infrastructure. Passive solar design, for example, is not a new concept. The construction of passive solar buildings date back at least as far as our Colonial period. There is much that can be done to conserve our energy needs with known technologies and concepts that are not being done on a wide scale basis. But because, we have been too complacent over the last 40 years, yes, there will be a price to pay. And the longer we wait to act, the more painful the transition will be. You can't ignore a known problem for 40 years and be all surprised by the consequences of your actions when the pain is felt.
 
Last edited:
you mean this Seahawk Drilling?
Seahawk Drilling: Former Value Trap Becoming an Actual Value - Seeking Alpha

"Seahawk was spun out of Pride International (PDE) in 2009 and operates 20 jackup rigs in the Gulf of Mexico (of which 4 are currently working, 1 has a permit pending, 1 is cold stacked/in repairs and contracted for the remainder this year, 3 are actively available and 11 are cold stacked). These rigs are primarily used for shallow water drilling of natural gas in the US Gulf of Mexico (GoM)."

says here the already sucked and had sucked for some time..
"HAWK already carried a fair amount of uncertainty due to the large number of rigs they have cold stacked, the age of their rigs and their quarterly cash burn ... all problems that are largely derived from the decline in utilization since 2008, when the GoM was running on all cylinders with oil and gas at record highs."

looks to me like poor management skills, rather than a hold on deepwater drilling which they apparently are no a part of.

This article completely destorys apdst's arguement, excellent job finding it. Unfortunatly he won't admit any of the other many problems this company had, had anything to do with its current situation and will instead focus on the lack of new permits being issues despite the fact that Seahawk according to that article only has one permit pending.

For a quick background, Seahawk was spun out of Pride International (PDE) in 2009 and operates 20 jackup rigs in the Gulf of Mexico (of which 4 are currently working, 1 has a permit pending, 1 is cold stacked/in repairs and contracted for the remainder this year, 3 are actively available and 11 are cold stacked). These rigs are primarily used for shallow water drilling of natural gas in the US Gulf of Mexico (GoM).

See its not the fact that only 4 of 20 are working, or that 11 of 20 are non-operating, its that 1 out of 20 which is obviously the killer of this company. If only they had that one rig they could prop up all the shortcomings of the other 20 which obviously haven't produced enough profits to save this company. Yes, 1 rig will provide enough profit to save another 20.
 
This article completely destorys apdst's arguement, excellent job finding it. Unfortunatly he won't admit any of the other many problems this company had, had anything to do with its current situation and will instead focus on the lack of new permits being issues despite the fact that Seahawk according to that article only has one permit pending.



See its not the fact that only 4 of 20 are working, or that 11 of 20 are non-operating, its that 1 out of 20 which is obviously the killer of this company. If only they had that one rig they could prop up all the shortcomings of the other 20 which obviously haven't produced enough profits to save this company. Yes, 1 rig will provide enough profit to save another 20.

Did you even bother to look at the date of the article?
 
Did you even bother to look at the date of the article?

September 15th 2010. Whats your point that its information is outdated? You're article just says its been hurt by the slowdown in drilling since the oil spill, it doesn't say that if it were not for that slowdown that Seahawk drilling would not be declaring bankruptcy. And in light of the information from the other article I think its clear that the company was probably going under anyway.
 
September 15th 2010. Whats your point that its information is outdated? You're article just says its been hurt by the slowdown in drilling since the oil spill, it doesn't say that if it were not for that slowdown that Seahawk drilling would not be declaring bankruptcy. And in light of the information from the other article I think its clear that the company was probably going under anyway.

It's obvious, that if not for the moratorium, the company would have survived.
 
It's obvious, that if not for the moratorium, the company would have survived.

O its obvious is it? Despite less than a quarter of their rigs being operational and only one permit pending its obvious? Well you really believe that than by all means don't back it up.
 
O its obvious is it? Despite less than a quarter of their rigs being operational and only one permit pending its obvious? Well you really believe that than by all means don't back it up.

You just backed it up, for me. 'Preciate ya'!
 
You just backed it up, for me. 'Preciate ya'!

O good lord are you going to explain anything or just yell and scream, shut youre ears and try to shout over reality?
 
O good lord are you going to explain anything or just yell and scream, shut youre ears and try to shout over reality?

As you so kindly pointed out, only a quarter of their rigs are operational and they only have one permit pending. If the moratorium wasn't in effect, they would have permits issued and more operational rigs.

Ya see, the way it works in a business, with rolling stock, is that equipment has to be working and making money, so as to put more equipment into the field, to work and make more money. It ain't clock surgery.
 
As you so kindly pointed out, only a quarter of their rigs are operational and they only have one permit pending. If the moratorium wasn't in effect, they would have permits issued and more operational rigs.

Ya see, the way it works in a business, with rolling stock, is that equipment has to be working and making money, so as to put more equipment into the field, to work and make more money. It ain't clock surgery.

Except:
1) You have no idea if that permit would not been approved anyway. The oil spill certainly has made it more difficult to get new permits however you are assuming Seahawk's permit is good enough to have passed a pre-oil spill check, you are simply assuming it would have been approved.
2) You assume that one new permit would have saved this company. It is possible that given the amount of time required after getting a permit to actually put a rig into place it wouldn't have made a difference, and its possible that even if that rig could have been in place and pumping instantly after approval that it would have produced enough to save the company. You assume both that SeaHawk had enough financial health to stay alive long enough to place its new rig in place and you assume that once the rig was in place its earnings would save the entire company.

You must prove those assumptions and if you do I will wholeheartedly agree with you.
 
Except:
1) You have no idea if that permit would not been approved anyway. The oil spill certainly has made it more difficult to get new permits however you are assuming Seahawk's permit is good enough to have passed a pre-oil spill check, you are simply assuming it would have been approved.
2) You assume that one new permit would have saved this company. It is possible that given the amount of time required after getting a permit to actually put a rig into place it wouldn't have made a difference, and its possible that even if that rig could have been in place and pumping instantly after approval that it would have produced enough to save the company. You assume both that SeaHawk had enough financial health to stay alive long enough to place its new rig in place and you assume that once the rig was in place its earnings would save the entire company.

You must prove those assumptions and if you do I will wholeheartedly agree with you.

There have only been 6 drilling permits issued, since Obama officially lifted the drilling moratorium. You do the math.
 
There have only been 6 drilling permits issued, since Obama officially lifted the drilling moratorium. You do the math.

Ok now seriously do you really believe that addresses any point I made or are you just too embarrassed to admit you don't know necessary information to justify your opinion?
 
Catawba;1059291855]If you want to address a problem, it helps to know what caused it. Just sticking your head in the sand over the last 40 years does nothing.

I personally think most people know what the problem is, and when it started, but sticking your head in the sand now, and worrying about the past does nothing to solve the problem today.


"An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), under United States environmental law, is a document required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for certain actions "significantly affecting the quality of the human environment".[1] An EIS is a tool for decision making. It describes the positive and negative environmental effects of a proposed action, and it usually also lists one or more alternative actions that may be chosen instead of the action described in the EIS."
Environmental impact statement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All that information is passed on to the group doing the design work, before drawings are ever submitted for approval. The job of the permitting office is to confirm that what they had been given is already in their drawings and specs. It's as simple as that. 3 to 5 years to obtain a permitt is just plain politics, and nothing else.


Agreed. The American public will make the decision in any case.

agreed



I believe the term for conservative Democrats is blue-dog Democrats.

and I believe an awful lot of them were voted out in the 2010 elections were they not ?

The fact of the matter is we can do more through energy conservation than our remaining cheap oil supplies will allow, and we are not adding to GW in the process. We have to think long-term and not continue to choose short-term "fixes" that create worse long-term problems.

Again let me make it clear, I'm not arguing against conserving, that is a good thing, the only point I'm trying to make, is that by drilling and using our own oil, while conserving, and while furthering our research into an affordable alternate, can't do any harm, and in the short term do nothing but good. In my opinion, it would beat running out of oil, and shutting down our economy for however long it took to find that alternate fuel. Also any money it saves being shipped out to the middle east is just a plus. Again it's not the solution, most I know agree with that, but it's a way to lessen our need of imported oil, create jobs, and keep the cost of oil somewhat reasonable while the search for our alternate fuel continues.

Not at all. We have the capacity to conserve more oil than we get from the ME, which would free up the trillions we are spending on wars to keep the oil flowing that could then be used to help build our clean energy infrastructure. Passive solar design, for example, is not a new concept. The construction of passive solar buildings date back at least as far as our Colonial period. There is much that can be done to conserve our energy needs with known technologies and concepts that are not being done on a wide scale basis. But because, we have been too complacent over the last 40 years, yes, there will be a price to pay. And the longer we wait to act, the more painful the transition will be. You can't ignore a known problem for 40 years and be all surprised by the consequences of your actions when the pain is felt.

The problem with many of the things we have now, like solar panels, is they just aren't affordable, I personally looked at switching to solar for my own home, and the price range was around $50,000. Wind altho price wise is rather cheap, I think many will have the same complaints as they do oil, and that is what it does to the landscape, those wind turbines 3 stories tall and 20 to 30 of them on a 40 acre plot are no more appealing then one oil well pumping away on the same 40 acres.
This is why I say, that anything that is remotely going to replace oil, is still years out. The quickest that I'm aware of for our autos is going to be natural gas, and again personally I have no idea what the hold up on that is.

I don't think we are really that far apart on many things, and I agree that we should have been doing some of this stuff after the gas shortages of the 70's. We didn't however, and it does no good to look back and place blame, there is enough of that to go around on all sides. We need to look for solutions now, not who is to blame, or why we didn't take action sooner, that is history, and can't be changed.
 
Last edited:
All that information is passed on to the group doing the design work, before drawings are ever submitted for approval. The job of the permitting office is to confirm that what they had been given is already in their drawings and specs. It's as simple as that. 3 to 5 years to obtain a permitt is just plain politics, and nothing else.

Thanks for your opinion. However, "The law, a foundation of environmental policy enacted after a 1969 oil spill off Santa Barbara, Calif., requires federal agencies to complete a detailed environmental assessment before approving any potentially damaging project like an offshore oil well."

"The waiver granted to BP in April 2009, as part of the permitting process for the doomed well, was based on the company’s claim that a blowout was unlikely and that if a spill did occur, it would cause minimal damage."

"The Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service, recently renamed the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, issued hundreds of these exemptions in recent years to reduce the paperwork burden for oil companies seeking new wells and for government workers. As a result, there was no meaningful plan in place to cope with the BP spill and its impact on aquatic life and gulf shorelines."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/science/earth/17drill.html

Again let me make it clear, I'm not arguing against conserving, that is a good thing, the only point I'm trying to make, is that by drilling and using our own oil, while conserving, and while furthering our research into an affordable alternate, can't do any harm, and in the short term do nothing but good. In my opinion, it would beat running out of oil, and shutting down our economy for however long it took to find that alternate fuel. Also any money it saves being shipped out to the middle east is just a plus. Again it's not the solution, most I know agree with that, but it's a way to lessen our need of imported oil, create jobs, and keep the cost of oil somewhat reasonable while the search for our alternate fuel continues.

And I have no objections to drilling as long as the proper safety, health, and environmental impacts are assessed to avoid future oil spills like the historic one in the Gulf. But, like the oil companies themselves, I understand it will have minimal impact our our supply and therefore is likely to have little effect on oil prices or the shock to our economy caused by peak oil.


The problem with many of the things we have now, like solar panels, is they just aren't affordable, I personally looked at switching to solar for my own home, and the price range was around $50,000.

You need to do some more shopping around. I purchased a 1.5 Kw solar panel system for less than $10,000. Projected payback due to savings on electric bill expected to be about 6 years. Passive solar design requires no new technlology, we have know how to do it for centuries and it can reduce energy needs for heating and cooling buildings by by 50 - 60%


Wind altho price wise is rather cheap, I think many will have the same complaints as they do oil, and that is what it does to the landscape, those wind turbines 3 stories tall and 20 to 30 of them on a 40 acre plot are no more appealing then one oil well pumping away on the same 40 acres.

Wind is renewable, while oil is a finite resource. We haven't produced as much oil as we consune since 1971. We have to use all of our alternatives.

This is why I say, that anything that is remotely going to replace oil, is still years out.

Yes, I know that's what you've said and I've shown you there is much we can do right now and are not doing.

The quickest that I'm aware of for our autos is going to be natural gas, and again personally I have no idea what the hold up on that is.

Could it be that natural gas is not the affordable solution you think it is?

I don't think we are really that far apart on many things, and I agree that we should have been doing some of this stuff after the gas shortages of the 70's. We didn't however, and it does no good to look back and place blame, there is enough of that to go around on all sides. We need to look for solutions now, not who is to blame, or why we didn't take action sooner, that is history, and can't be changed.

It is important to be aware of history so that the same mistakes aren't made over and over again. Our wasteful practices for the last 40 years brought us to where we are. Until that realization is made we cannot make the kind of conservation efforts that need to be made. We cannot sustain using 25% of the planets resources, so we continue on the path to a bad economy due to high energy costs.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom