• 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!

Gulf of Mexico spill may hit coast this weekend

Chappy

User
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
733
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Excerpted from “Gulf of Mexico spill may hit coast this weekend” By Chris Baltimore, Reuters, Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:57pm EDT
[SIZE="+2"]A[/SIZE] giant oil slick from a deadly offshore drilling rig explosion could hit the fragile U.S. Gulf Coast shoreline this weekend as the White House and Congress launched separate probes into the worst offshore incident in nearly a decade. …

“If this doesn't give somebody pause, there's something wrong.” — Florida Gov. Charlie Crist¹

“The explosion, ensuing fire, and continuing spill raise serious concerns about the industry's claims that their operations and technology are safe enough to put rigs in areas that are environmentally sensitive or are critical to tourism or fishing industries.” — statement signed by Senators Bill Nelson, Frank R. Lautenberg, Robert Menendez²

Well, that kind of sucks. To the East Coast, welcome to the shape of things to come.[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shape_of_Things_to_Come"]³[/ame]

Excerpted from “Concern Grows About Impact of Gulf Oil Spill” By LESLIE KAUFMAN, The New York Times, Published: April 27, 2010
[SIZE="+2"]W[/SIZE]ith a massive oil slick now within 20 miles of the ecologically fragile Louisiana coastline, Coast Guard officials said they were considering a “controlled burn” of the petroleum on the surface of the Gulf of Mexico.

Rear Adm. Mary Landry, the federal on-scene coordinator for the spill, said Tuesday that the joint government and industry task force had been unable to stop crude from streaming out of a broken pipe attached to a well 5,000 feet below sea level. …
 
hey guys no problem the Coast Guard is thinking of burning the slick !!!
Wow that will be the biggest napalm demonstration since Khe San !!! I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THE VIDEO!!!!


So will the Palin Pukes chant BURN BABY BURN !!!!!!!! ?? ?
 
hey guys no problem the Coast Guard is thinking of burning the slick !!!
Wow that will be the biggest napalm demonstration since Khe San !!! I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THE VIDEO!!!!


So will the Palin Pukes chant BURN BABY BURN !!!!!!!! ?? ?
As long as it isn't near property or population centers yet it may be the best option available depending on wind and ocean currents. Because of the BTU rate it should burn out quickly. I don't think it's a great idea, but probably better than letting the slick hit maximum saturation.
 
Let's see, burn it while it's off shore... or let it hit the shore causing greater long term economic and ecological problems...

Nope, can't burn it off, that's just... that would add to "Global Warming" or something.
 
This disaster makes Exxon Valdez (which is still causing ecological problems in Alaska) look minor. I wonder who is responsible for the clean up?
 
Burning beats the hell out of letting it get to fishing and tourist areas.
 
This disaster makes Exxon Valdez (which is still causing ecological problems in Alaska) look minor. I wonder who is responsible for the clean up?

British Petroleum, as the leaseholder, is responsible for the cost of the cleanup. I think they will be billed for whatever the US Coast Guard has to do, plus whatever they are coordinating themselves.
 
To bad it's not off Washington DC.... We could let it hit land, then set it on fire.
 
So, one accident in several decades, from one oil rig among thousands, and "this is the shape of things to come"?

Too bad the people determined to prevent US energy independence don't waste any effort thiking things through.

How old was that rig? How old will the oil rigs built in future be? (Brand new.)

What safety rule was broken to cause the explosion? You can guarantee that some rule was broken, either in maintenance, inspection, or operations, and you can't argue convincingly that corners were cut because god knows the men working on the damn rig are 100% aware of the fact that they're maybe hundreds of miles from land, they're working with flammable liquids and explosive gases, and it's their asses that get crisped. So there's not likely to be any significant flaw in the rules, someone goofed somewhere.

Is an act of Congress required to shut down an entire industry whenever a single person makes a mistake regarding circumstances already covered by law and regulation and corporate policies? (no, of course not)

Is American energy independence more important than hysterical fears about unlikely accidents? (yes, of course)

Is defunding terrorist and socialist and inimical nations more important than hysterical fears about unlikely accidents? (yes, of course)

And people are biting their nails that someone might burn the oil spill before it becomes so dispersed it can't burn and there's nothing left to do but get out the dish soap to wash the egrets?
 
I wonder if "Drill baby Drill" still resonates so with Palin supporters.

I knew that such things would be a problem, but I still supported drilling as the least of evils. This is in contrast with Palin's callous chant.

Conservatives give lip service to 'wise use', when really they haven't seen a resources project they didn't think was 'wise'. Liberals give lip service to 'wise use' when really most of us haven't seen a resources project we thought was 'wise'.

My position is closer to my fellow liberals, however. I think it is a good idea to count the cost, which they would agree with. But, I want to then weigh the options, and choose the prudent course. "Drill baby Drill" just ignores that whole process.

All things considered, I still want to drill, however. But, I also want that wind project off the coast of Massachusetts, maybe Nuclear, etc. We need to get out of the ME, and let the rest of the world bear the cost of ensuring it's energy supply. With the rise of China, and the demands it will place on world energy resources, cheap energy is probably a thing of the past anyway.

Getting out of the ME is my top priority. Let Europe, India and China battle for it.
 
If this one incident causes Congress to put the kibosh on expanded drilling in the Gulf, we pretty much deserve to be Venezuela's and Saudi Arabia's bitch.
 
Just heard on NPR that attempting a controlled burnoff would take care of 3% of the spill, max. So that's not really a solution. And the pipe hasn't even been closed off so it's still spewing oil.
 
I wonder if "Drill baby Drill" still resonates so with Palin supporters.

Works for me just fine, and I don't "support" Palin.

I knew that such things would be a problem, but I still supported drilling as the least of evils. This is in contrast with Palin's callous chant.

What's callous about it?

Conservatives give lip service to 'wise use', when really they haven't seen a resources project they didn't think was 'wise'. Liberals give lip service to 'wise use' when really most of us haven't seen a resources project we thought was 'wise'.

More importantly, the Left never sees any project to improve American self-reliance as "wise".

Nothing wise about leaving treasure in the dirt, dude.

My position is closer to my fellow liberals, however. I think it is a good idea to count the cost, which they would agree with. But, I want to then weigh the options, and choose the prudent course. "Drill baby Drill" just ignores that whole process.

Cost so far? Eleven dead, as compared to twenty-seven in the West Virginian coal mine. So oil is cheaper in that regard than coal.

Some muck in the ocean isn't going to kill anyone, and it's a temporary mess, anyway, even if it's allowed to reach shore.

The prudent course is to drill our own oil, dig our own coal, tap our own natural gas reserves, and burn our own uranium so we're not dependent on the goodwill of hostile nations for the energy to run our industry.

All things considered, I still want to drill, however. But, I also want that wind project off the coast of Massachusetts, maybe Nuclear, etc. We need to get out of the ME, and let the rest of the world bear the cost of ensuring it's energy supply. With the rise of China, and the demands it will place on world energy resources, cheap energy is probably a thing of the past anyway.

Then don't bitch about other people having the sense to demand a major increase in our exploitation of our own energy resources.

Getting out of the ME is my top priority. Let Europe, India and China battle for it.

Precisely. No cost is too high to cut the Middle Eastern/Venezualan/Russian umbilical cord.
 
“If this doesn't give somebody pause, there's something wrong.” — Florida Gov. Charlie Crist¹

“The explosion, ensuing fire, and continuing spill raise serious concerns about the industry's claims that their operations and technology are safe enough to put rigs in areas that are environmentally sensitive or are critical to tourism or fishing industries.” — statement signed by Senators Bill Nelson, Frank R. Lautenberg, Robert Menendez²

Well, that kind of sucks. To the East Coast, welcome to the shape of things to come.³

Their going to light the slick on fire.

This will eliminate 98% of the spill.

What you think they don't think **** through and make multiple contingency plans?

1: Continue work on oil cap.

2: Begin building secondary drill site 10 miles away, drill into original site from new location, apply cement, have a cigar.

3: Use common containment methods to control the spill.

4: Light the spill on fire and burn off 98% of it.

The situation's under control.
 
Jerry said:
Their going to light the slick on fire.

This will eliminate 98% of the spill.

Me said:
Just heard on NPR that attempting a controlled burnoff would take care of 3% of the spill, max. So that's not really a solution. And the pipe hasn't even been closed off so it's still spewing oil.

The 98% figure is the amount of oil eliminated when it is burned; the issue with this spill is not how much burns when you ignite it but actually getting it ignited, and my figure of 3% (unfortunately I can't find a transcript) says that only about 3% of the spill is concentrated enough or has the potential to become concentrated enough to ignite.
 
The 98% figure is the amount of oil eliminated when it is burned; the issue with this spill is not how much burns when you ignite it but actually getting it ignited, and my figure of 3% (unfortunately I can't find a transcript) says that only about 3% of the spill is concentrated enough or has the potential to become concentrated enough to ignite.

They don't try to light the entire oil spill. They use booms to sweep a small area of oil away from the main spill and tow it away. Then they burn it. Takes a few hours to burn off, then they go get some more.

I just love the "experts" on here that spout off without having a clue as to what really goes on.
 
Just heard on NPR that attempting a controlled burnoff would take care of 3% of the spill, max. So that's not really a solution. And the pipe hasn't even been closed off so it's still spewing oil.

Since they did light it off, and this would be the only time I've heard the 3% number, I think mayhaps you should reconsider listening to NPR.
 
The 98% figure is the amount of oil eliminated when it is burned; the issue with this spill is not how much burns when you ignite it but actually getting it ignited, and my figure of 3% (unfortunately I can't find a transcript) says that only about 3% of the spill is concentrated enough or has the potential to become concentrated enough to ignite.

Not 3%, 98% of all the oil. They've don this before and it's very effective.

Still, it's fun to watch all the Earth worshipers get their pink diapers in a knot about it all :mrgreen:
 
Oil is a NATURAL product of the earth. The earth will clean itself, just like it did Valdez.
 
Not 3%, 98% of all the oil. They've don this before and it's very effective.

Still, it's fun to watch all the Earth worshipers get their pink diapers in a knot about it all :mrgreen:

And equally amusing to see people brush it off as no big deal. :rolleyes:
 
This is proof Obama is a right winger. How dare he not go to the coast as Bush did after Katrina? Obama opened the doors to drilling off the east coast where drilling has never before happened . He is a facist and a big oil lover in bed with all the big banks.
 
DRILL BABY DRILL!!!! Because oil spills are so rare and all and the new technology is so safe... It's what the commercials keep telling us. Let's build more oil platforms and ship more oil around the globe instead of focusing on alternatives, because oil production is so safe now...
 
Their going to light the slick on fire.

This will eliminate 98% of the spill.

What you think they don't think **** through and make multiple contingency plans?

1: Continue work on oil cap.

2: Begin building secondary drill site 10 miles away, drill into original site from new location, apply cement, have a cigar.

3: Use common containment methods to control the spill.

4: Light the spill on fire and burn off 98% of it.

The situation's under control.

As an offsshore petroleum engineer I can tell you it will not be under control any time soon. To set up to drill in to the runaway needs another rig to be moved in to the area and then there is the time required to locate and start the horizontal/angular drilling process. The blow out prvenetor failed to do its job. This could easily become the single greatest ecological disater in American history. The burnoff will leave thousands of tons of solid waste in the Gulf waters and will have to be removed as well. Wish them well they wil need it.
 
Back
Top Bottom