• 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!

Off shore drilling

Would you trade another thirty years of drilling for the rest of the gulf coast?

  • yes

    Votes: 7 33.3%

  • no

    Votes: 14 66.7%

  • hell yes I'm in the oil business

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I would trade the chesapeake bay for 30 years of drilling

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    21
  • Poll closed .
LiberalAvenger

LiberalAvenger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
16,881
Reaction score
2,980
Location
virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Most of the pro oil people are saying that "well, we only had one accident in 30 years" (which I believe is an outright lie).

Wouldn't it be a lot better and cheaper to seek safer energy sources?
 
Being a scuba diver in Florida, I can honestly say no.

Until someone has the technology to stop something from happening on this level. I would rather suffer high fuel prices and anything else for that matter.

We are still to this day cleaning up the Exxon Valdez. This is much MUCH worse.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Most of the pro oil people are saying that "well, we only had one accident in 30 years" (which I believe is an outright lie).

Wouldn't it be a lot better and cheaper to seek safer energy sources?
Click to expand...

Ummmm this is the only oil rig spill in the last 30 years? How is that a lie?

My problem is with the scope of this thing. The entire coastal gulf region is being threatened by this disaster.
 
Last edited:
LiberalAvenger said:
Most of the pro oil people are saying that "well, we only had one accident in 30 years" (which I believe is an outright lie).

Wouldn't it be a lot better and cheaper to seek safer energy sources?
Click to expand...
Like... what?
What cheaper and safer energy sources pack a comparble energy density?

Aside from that... false dichotomy.
No reason to not explore for and use oil for however long we can.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Most of the pro oil people are saying that "well, we only had one accident in 30 years" (which I believe is an outright lie).

Wouldn't it be a lot better and cheaper to seek safer energy sources?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be better to simply install the necessary safety gear this rig lacked so the preventable accident will be prevented next time, and thus restore access to safe and cheap oil?
 
Intelligent men must determine if drilling is truly economically feasible, this applies to everything.
Do we have any intelligent people who cannot be corrupted ?
For instance, this accident may have an end cost of a trillion dollars, guess who pays for this?
We need more rules and regulations, if the oil companies refuse to obey, then they should be forced out of business and all the CEO and executives fined into permanent poverty. Or, we could force the executives and CEOs to clean up their mess using a toothbrush....
Of course, I still favor off-shore and wilderness drilling, but with different people doing it.
We still need comprehensive energy reform; the Dems must do this.
Forget the GOP.
BP is out.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Wouldn't it be better to simply install the necessary safety gear this rig lacked so the preventable accident will be prevented next time, and thus restore access to safe and cheap oil?
Click to expand...
Common sense, I agree.
But, this can be expensive and may not be totally effective....
Motorcyclists are forced to wear helmets, car drivers the harness, the off-shore oil drillers - full back up systems to prevent this from recurring... ..If this cannot be done, then no more drilling until a good system can be designed.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Wouldn't it be a lot better and cheaper to seek safer energy sources?
Click to expand...

Not currently, you have to put the research in first. Which is happening on some scale. Less we want to be moving towards nuclear power (and we should), as it is the cleanest, most efficient form of energy we currently have. But we're never going to get completely away from oil, it's used for everything. And I bet dollars to donuts that most of the people who sit there and bitch about this use their fair share of oil and oil based products. We can reduce what we use, and we should. We should look for alternate energy sources and where we can put them. The human race has accomplished nothing through stagnation; we've always pushed forward. But oil is going to be necessary for a good long while still, and will likely never completely go away.
 
Blackdog said:
Being a scuba diver in Florida, I can honestly say no.

Until someone has the technology to stop something from happening on this level. I would rather suffer high fuel prices and anything else for that matter.

We are still to this day cleaning up the Exxon Valdez. This is much MUCH worse.
Click to expand...



They have the technology, they say had the booms been in place 95% of the spilll could have been contained.
 
Goobieman said:
Like... what?
What cheaper and safer energy sources pack a comparable energy density?

Aside from that... false dichotomy.
No reason to not explore for and use oil for however long we can.
Click to expand...
A fail safe system may boost the oil cost to $1,000 per barrel...I can say this as the clean up cost is unknown, it may run into the trillions of $$$$$$$$$$$.
Solar and wind energy are now feasible when oil is more than, I'd guess, $50 per barrel..
Nuclear energy is still inexpensive, why would Europe be using so much of this??
I have never seen any energy costs that I trust, so I'll guess..
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Ummmm this is the only oil rig spill in the last 30 years? How is that a lie?

My problem is with the scope of this thing. The entire coastal gulf region is being threatened by this disaster.
Click to expand...

Well, If you could have seen some of the oil globs in my shrim:mrgreen:ping days that I caught in my trawl nets then you would know.
 
Goobieman said:
Like... what?
What cheaper and safer energy sources pack a comparble energy density?

Aside from that... false dichotomy.
No reason to not explore for and use oil for however long we can.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you could call it a false dichotomy when it has already happened.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Wouldn't it be better to simply install the necessary safety gear this rig lacked so the preventable accident will be prevented next time, and thus restore access to safe and cheap oil?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Now a question for you. Would you trust the oil companies anymore?
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Well, If you could have seen some of the oil globs in my shrim:mrgreen:ping days that I caught in my trawl nets then you would know.
Click to expand...
These oil globs -had- to come from oil rig spills, and could not have had any other source, including natural seepage from the sea floor?
How do you know?
 
Last edited:
LiberalAvenger said:
I don't know how you could call it a false dichotomy when it has already happened.
Click to expand...
Its a false dichotomy in that you are offering two only choices when there are more than those two choices you offered.

And, you didnt answer my question.
 
Ikari said:
Not currently, you have to put the research in first. Which is happening on some scale. Less we want to be moving towards nuclear power (and we should), as it is the cleanest, most efficient form of energy we currently have. But we're never going to get completely away from oil, it's used for everything. And I bet dollars to donuts that most of the people who sit there and bitch about this use their fair share of oil and oil based products. We can reduce what we use, and we should. We should look for alternate energy sources and where we can put them. The human race has accomplished nothing through stagnation; we've always pushed forward. But oil is going to be necessary for a good long while still, and will likely never completely go away.
Click to expand...

I don't like nuclear because they make profitable targets for terrorist. Another thing, the storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel are lacking and ultra expensive.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
They have the technology, they say had the booms been in place 95% of the spilll could have been contained.
Click to expand...

with all due respect, good reverend, if a frog had wings he would not bump his ass when landing.:roll:
 
Goobieman said:
These oil globs -had- to come from oil rig spills, and could not have had any other source, including natural seepage from the sea floor?
How do you know?
Click to expand...

fI caught the oil blobsd outside the houston ship channel near the galveston jetties.

I know the gulf of mexico like my right hand having navigated there for years

Do you have any idea how many drilling platforms are in the gulf. The numbers are staggering.
 
Goobieman said:
Its a false dichotomy in that you are offering two only choices when there are more than those two choices you offered.

And, you didnt answer my question.
Click to expand...

I thought I offered four choices.

But, you are welcome to say other if you wish. I have no preoblem with that unlike some polls here on the forum.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
fI caught the oil blobsd outside the houston ship channel near the galveston jetties.

I know the gulf of mexico like my right hand having navigated there for years

Do you have any idea how many drilling platforms are in the gulf. The numbers are staggering.
Click to expand...
Ok... and... this means that the oil you saw -had- to come from a rig and -could not have- come from somwhere else... how?
 
earthworm said:
A fail safe system may boost the oil cost to $1,000 per barrel...I can say this as the clean up cost is unknown, it may run into the trillions of $$$$$$$$$$$.
Click to expand...


A failsafe system won't boost the cost of oil much at all, if any, because the oil companies make enough money to offset the costs. Shortages will boost the cost of oil. We don't produce much of what we use. We do refine much of what we use. The damages here (and this is catastrophic imo) will be to the fishing industry, the restaurant industry, the loss of sea life, the loss of beaches and tourism, and probably in the Gulf coast real estate/business sectors. That being said, if I ran or owned an oil drilling or refining company, you can be damn sure I would take every safeguard possible.

earthworm said:
ASolar and wind energy are now feasible when oil is more than, I'd guess, $50 per barrel..
Click to expand...

The problem with solar and wind is that you can't drive cars powered this way, and automobiles are the largest single user of oil resources in this country (last I read).

earthworm said:
Nuclear energy is still inexpensive, why would Europe be using so much of this??
Click to expand...

Europe does because they know it's a viable resource, and they don't seem to have as many people opposed to nuclear as we have here. People hear the word nuclear in this country, and they get a little freaked out (for whatever reason). The biggest problem with nuclear is waste storage.

I'm all for clean and alternative, but it will not be less expensive, and it won't be more efficient. If we ever really truly go clean and green, regular people like you and me will have to accept a less luxurious and more sensible lifestyle. The problem with Americans is that we want to have everything, but we don't want to give up anything. I can. Can you?
 
Last edited:
LiberalAvenger said:
I thought I offered four choices.

But, you are welcome to say other if you wish. I have no preoblem with that unlike some polls here on the forum.
Click to expand...

And, you didnt answer my question.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Wouldn't it be a lot better and cheaper to seek safer energy sources?
Click to expand...

That would be nice, but it's not reality. There's two problems we are going to come up against with this idea. 1) It's not cheap, and it's not convertible to using for transportation (yet). 2) Our government makes a sh*tload of money off the oil industry.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
I don't like nuclear because they make profitable targets for terrorist.
Click to expand...

Ya see? That's the problem. Everyone wants to bitch and moan about energy, but they don't want to pay the price, either with their money or with their lifestyles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom