• 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!

Letting Shell drill in Arctic could lead to catastrophic oil spill, experts warn

flogger said:
I seriously doubt you actually mean that given the tenor of the rest of your input here
Click to expand...

My tenor is opposed to dirty fossil fuels, not people making money on their investments. Again flogger, as usual, talking with you is a big fat waste of time. :2wave:
 
Montecresto said:
My tenor is opposed to dirty fossil fuels, not people making money on their investments. Again flogger, as usual, talking with you is a big fat waste of time. :2wave:
Click to expand...

But the new gas fracking technologies are much cleaner do you oppose those ? Instead of wasting billions on useless renewables making our existing fossil fueled generation cleaner and more efficient must be a more productive use of taxpayer funds than the fiscal black hole that renewable energy represents ?
 
Anomalism said:
Oil wins every time.

Letting Shell drill in Arctic could lead to catastrophic oil spill, experts warn | Environment | The Guardian

"Environmental groups and experts hit out at the US government on Tuesday following its announcement that the Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell would be allowed to resume offshore exploration and drilling in the Arctic’s American waters. Unforgiving conditions in the Arctic’s icy waters not only make the chances of a spill likely, the complete lack of infrastructure in place to deal with a potential disaster means the consequences of the move could be calamitous, environmental activists and experts say.

According to a study published in February by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the same regulatory governmental agency that yesterday issued its approval of Shell’s Chukchi Sea exploration plan, the chances of one or more oil spills occurring as a result of drilling in the Arctic over the next 77 years are 75%. In open water or broken ice, the same study says that between 44% and 62% of crude oil resulting from a spill would stay put – neither dispersing nor evaporating – after 30 days. “Yesterday’s announcement is inconsistent with the federal government’s commitment for stewardship of the Arctic Ocean, it is inconsistent with President Obama’s commitment to combat climate change, and it is a clear prioritization of Shell’s needs ahead of the protection of one of our most important natural resources,” said Michael LeVine, Oceana’s Pacific senior counsel."
Click to expand...

Truly tragic are the big oil poop-poopers. Are you aware your boy Obama signed on for this? Are you aware a portion of the water California uses for their crops comes from Chevron waste water and now California is looking to other oil companies to join in? Are you aware someone riding a bicycle will be killed to day? Are you aware someone will fall down and die today?
 
"Letting Shell drill in Arctic could lead to catastrophic oil spill, experts warn | Environment | The Guardian"

Hard to imagine how it would be any more or less catastrophic than in the Gulf of Mexico.
 
The whole point of the created global warming debate is so that enough ocean levels will rise, melting the arctic. Why? Because there is an INSANE amount of oil under there.

Keep people dependent upon oil, get the arctic melted/melting, and hit their jackpot. Money at the expense of our planet. I guess we have no problem with that.
 
sookster said:
The whole point of the created global warming debate is so that enough ocean levels will rise, melting the arctic. Why? Because there is an INSANE amount of oil under there.

Keep people dependent upon oil, get the arctic melted/melting, and hit their jackpot. Money at the expense of our planet. I guess we have no problem with that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the horror. More oil becomes available at a time when liberals howl about "peak oil." I imagine the rain on that parade must be perplexing.
 
fmw said:
"Letting Shell drill in Arctic could lead to catastrophic oil spill, experts warn | Environment | The Guardian"

Hard to imagine how it would be any more or less catastrophic than in the Gulf of Mexico.
Click to expand...

Well, wasn't that bad enough?
 
flogger said:
But the new gas fracking technologies are much cleaner do you oppose those ? Instead of wasting billions on useless renewables making our existing fossil fueled generation cleaner and more efficient must be a more productive use of taxpayer funds than the fiscal black hole that renewable energy represents ?
Click to expand...

Yes, I support any measures that are cleaner in the interim. And dismiss your opinion of renewables as a black hole. There's still opportunities to develop new renewables. With the proper dillegence, the US has done it before. We just need an American president to do what Kennedy did.
 
calamity said:
Yeah, the horror. More oil becomes available at a time when liberals howl about "peak oil." I imagine the rain on that parade must be perplexing.
Click to expand...

Would it bother you that the oil companies knew they were warming the planet, and it was their design to create the debate? That way oil could still be consumed, leaving the arctic bare to exploit.
 
sookster said:
Would it bother you that the oil companies knew they were warming the planet, and it was their design to create the debate? That way oil could still be consumed, leaving the arctic bare to exploit.
Click to expand...

No it would not because oil is something the world depends on to function. You heat your home. Correct? Would you forgo heating your house with anything fossil fuel related this winter to make a political statement?
 
Anomalism said:
It's kind of discouraging to know some people actually think this way.
Click to expand...
Until we have a viable replacement, ready to be distributed and used like modern fuel products,
Oil is the only thing keeping about 80 % of the Humans alive on this planet.
So while calamity's statement might be discouraging to you, that does not make it factually incorrect.
We simply cannot feed everyone without oil products!
 
longview said:
Until we have a viable replacement, ready to be distributed and used like modern fuel products,
Oil is the only thing keeping about 80 % of the Humans alive on this planet.
So while calamity's statement might be discouraging to you, that does not make it factually incorrect.
We simply cannot feed everyone without oil products!
Click to expand...

The right is fighting against alternative energy at every turn.
 
Anomalism said:
It's kind of discouraging to know some people actually think this way.
Click to expand...

Would you rather save an ecosystem no one lives near or see about 3 billion people die and or starve?
 
Anomalism said:
The right is fighting against alternative energy at every turn.
Click to expand...

THere is no viable alternative to oil and other fossil fuels right now. Are you a fan of nuclear reactors?
 
calamity said:
Would you rather save an ecosystem no one lives near or see about 3 billion people die and or starve?
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be one or the other. There is no dire need to extract oil from the Arctic.
 
Anomalism said:
The right is fighting against alternative energy at every turn.
Click to expand...
Please point out the alternative energy proposed that would allow the planting of a 200 acre field....tomorrow!
There is some hope in the form of man made hydrocarbon fuels being use as storage, but without storage,
alternatives like wind and solar, are too low density, and irregular to help much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom