How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 What Obama Admin SHOULD have Done in Gul   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ]
 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

What Obama Admin SHOULD have Done in Gulf Oil Crisis

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


200 posted 07-05-2010 10:06 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Less than four months after President Barack Obama took office, his new administration received a forceful warning about the dangers of offshore oil drilling.

The alarm was rung by a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., which found that the government was unprepared for a major spill at sea, relying on an "irrational" environmental analysis of the risks of offshore drilling.

The April 2009 ruling stunned both the administration and the oil industry, and threatened to delay or cancel dozens of offshore projects in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.

Despite its pro-environment pledges, the Obama administration urged the court to revisit the decision. Politically, it needed to push ahead with conventional oil production while it expanded support for renewable energy.

Another reason: money. In its arguments to the court, the government said that the loss of royalties on the oil, estimated at almost $10 billion, "may have significant financial consequences for the federal government."

The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed its decision and allowed drilling in the Gulf to proceed—including on BP PLC's now-infamous Macondo well, 50 miles off the Louisiana coast.

The Obama administration's actions in the court case exemplify the dilemma the White House faced in developing its energy policy. In his presidential campaign, President Obama criticized the Bush administration for being too soft on the oil industry and vowed to support greener energy forms.

But, once in office, President Obama ended up backing offshore drilling, bowing to political and fiscal realties, even as his administration's own scientists and Democratic lawmakers warned about its risks.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704699604575342843359124882.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fxml%2Frss%2F3_ 7011+%28WSJ.com%3A+What%27s+News+US%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


201 posted 07-05-2010 10:24 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

That's a fascinating article. Hope everyone takes the time to read all of it.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


202 posted 07-05-2010 10:29 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Yes, it is.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


203 posted 07-06-2010 03:06 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I haven't had time to read it yet, but it looks fascinating.  You really do come up with some great stuff from time to time; even if this doesn't make President Obama look like a star, if it's accurate it's important as all get out.

     Thanks.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


204 posted 07-06-2010 07:39 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Actually, Bob, the article is not favorable to Bush, either, which makes it more favorable to some.

Interesting how some people will excuse Obama's actions by saying "Well, Bush did the same thing.", such as we have seen in these threads lately, the Jones Act with regards to Katrina and the oil spill, for ecamaple. What does that mean? One has to assume that it's one of the following:

Obama's actions are ok, which would have made Bush's actions ok

or

Bush's actions were wrong, which would make Obama's actions wrong.

To make the comparison and say Bush's actions were wrong but Obama's actions (the same) were right is fairly ludicrous and yet that's what gets peddled.

Sooner or later, Obama will have to stand on his own feet and take some responsibility for his actions. In the article are actions he should be held accountable for, although I doubt Lefties will see it that way, unsurprisingly.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


205 posted 07-06-2010 03:27 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
That's a fascinating article.

quote:
I haven't had time to read it yet, but it looks fascinating.


Fascinating?

I thought it was a really bad representation of the facts. Take this for instance:

“The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed its decision and allowed drilling in the Gulf to proceed”

Sounds good but scores pretty low on truth content when you look at the facts.

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


206 posted 07-07-2010 05:55 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I feel chastised by Grinch and by Mike.

     Possibly because I was chastised by both luminaries.  I stand blinded but not necessarily illuminated by the heat and radiation.  A little extra light would be appreciated, since I believe I was suggesting that I was interested in  what Mike was saying.  Being taken to task for that by Mike is something that happens from time to time.  I'm not sure why that earns me a brish set-to from Grinch, however, and I am equally fascinated to find out the whys and wherefores of that.

     I do appreciate the tart tone, the brisk delivery and the umbrage.  It was well applied, but I remain bewildered.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


207 posted 07-07-2010 07:15 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch



Sorry Bob,

I didn’t mean it to come across that way, I was simply a little taken aback that both you and Jen were so easily fascinated by such a bad article.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


208 posted 07-07-2010 08:01 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

..and I don't see where I chastised you, or said anything personally negative, at all.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


209 posted 07-08-2010 08:01 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:

Interesting how some people will excuse Obama's actions by saying "Well, Bush did the same thing.", such as we have seen in these threads lately, the Jones Act with regards to Katrina and the oil spill, for ecamaple. What does that mean? One has to assume that it's one of the following:

Obama's actions are ok, which would have made Bush's actions ok

or

Bush's actions were wrong, which would make Obama's actions wrong.

To make the comparison and say Bush's actions were wrong but Obama's actions (the same) were right is fairly ludicrous and yet that's what gets peddled.

Sooner or later, Obama will have to stand on his own feet and take some responsibility for his actions. In the article are actions he should be held accountable for, although I doubt Lefties will see it that way, unsurprisingly.



    1) In generalizing about "lefties," you include me.  If you didn't notice, you should have.

     Was it "a personal attack?"

    That wasn't and isn't an issue for me here.   I didn't complain about a personal attack, I complained about feeling chastised.

     2) My comments about the Jones Act  noted that no requests for exceptions to that act had been made in regard to this oil spill.  Nor have you mentioned any, despite your efforts to say that the Jones Act was preventing foreign help.

     The comparison that Mike was suggesting was one I did not make.

     However, since he brings the subject up, President Bush did decline offers of help from Cuba and Venezuela that Mike should be aware of.  There may have been other offers he declined as well.

     When Mike speaks of "The Dutch," offer, does he mean an offer by the Dutch government or does he mean an offer by Royal Dutch Shell.  What were the strings attached?  And where are the mainstream sources that I might use to follow up this information?

     And why in heaven's name, does it seem possible that any shipboard technology could even remotely begin to approach the pace of the leak in recovering the amount of oil already bled away into the ocean?  

     3)  Perhaps you might start by offering a list of the things you think that Bush did wrong, Mike.

     There are many things that I think President Obama might have done differently or better, and I've laid them out for you several times.  I've also laid out some of my differences with President Obama.  This doesn't seem to affect your willingness to characterize me as indistinguishable from  other folks on the left, nor has it enabled you to notice that each of us seems to think of things differently.
      
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


210 posted 07-08-2010 09:44 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ah, I see. No, you didn't make those comparisons, Bob. Jennifer did. I thought you had seen them. That comment did not reference you.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


211 posted 07-08-2010 10:11 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

A federal appeals-court panel on Thursday quickly rejected the Obama administration's bid to keep intact a moratorium on deepwater drilling while it appealed a federal judge's decision overturning the ban.
The three-judge panel ruled that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar didn't prove the U.S. would suffer irreparable harm without an immediate ban on exploratory drilling in deep waters.

"The secretary has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable injury if the stay is not granted," reads the panel's decision, issued late Thursday shortly after the panel heard arguments from both sides in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. "He has made no showing that there is any likelihood that drilling activities will be resumed pending appeal."
The Interior Department didn't have immediate comment.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111704575354832293447318.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


212 posted 07-08-2010 11:03 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     And yet all the possible means of cleaning up or clearing a spill is tied up with the Deepwater Horizon spill now, so that any new accident cannot be addressed, can it?

     And the basis for proceding is on the basis of the same lies that the oil companies offered to justify the Deepwater Horizon going forward.  We have not even the assurances we did with that well, those of lies and self delusion, to keep us safe.  The oil companies tell us the sites are safe and, by golly, we know how trustworthy they are, don't we.

     Drill, Baby, Drill, as the Republicans say.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


213 posted 07-08-2010 11:37 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

As far as my comments about Obama assuming responsibility for - anything - this is waht a democratic reporters sees..

OBAMA IS A VICTIM OF BUSH'S FAILED PROMISES - BY Chuck Green - Democrat
    * Posted 05/24/10

Here's an opinion piece by Chuck Green  who writes "Greener Pastures" for the Aurora ( Colorado ) Sentinel...one of the more liberal papers in the country.

Barack Obama is setting a record-setting number of records during his first year in office.

Largest budget ever. Largest deficit ever. Largest number of broken promises ever. Most self-serving speeches ever. Largest number of agenda-setting failures ever. Fastest dive in popularity ever. Wow. Talk about change.

Just one year ago, fresh from his inauguration celebrations, President Obama was flying high. After one of the nation’s most inspiring political campaigns, the election of America ’s first black president had captured the hopes and dreams of millions. To his devout followers, it was inconceivable that a year later his administration would be gripped in self-imposed crisis.

Of course, they don’t see it as self imposed. It’s all George Bush’s fault.

George Bush, who doesn’t have a vote in Congress and who no longer occupies the White House, is to blame for it all.
He broke Obama’s promise to put all bills on the White House web site for five days before signing them.
He broke Obama’s promise to have the congressional health care negotiations broadcast live on C-SPAN.
He broke Obama’s promise to end earmarks.
He broke Obama’s promise to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent.
He broke Obama’s promise to close the detention center at Guantanamo in the first year
He broke Obama’s promise to make peace with direct, no pre-condition talks with America ’s most hate-filled enemies during his first year in office, ushering in a new era of global cooperation.
He broke Obama’s promise to end the hiring of former lobbyists into high White House jobs.
He broke Obama’s promise to end no-compete contracts with the government.
He broke Obama’s promise to disclose the names of all attendees at closed White House meetings.
He broke Obama’s promise for a new era of bipartisan cooperation in all matters.
He broke Obama’s promise to have chosen a home church to attend Sunday services with his family by Easter of last year.

Yes, it’s all George Bush’s fault. President Obama is nothing more than a puppet in the never-ending, failed Bush administration.

If only George Bush wasn’t still in charge, all of President Obama’s problems would be solved. His promises would have been kept, the economy would be back on track, Iran would have stopped its work on developing a nuclear bomb and would be negotiating a peace treaty with Israel , North Korea would have ended its tyrannical regime, and integrity would have been restored to the federal government.

Oh, and did I mention what it would be like if the Democrats, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, didn’t have the heavy yoke of George Bush around their necks. There would be no earmarks, no closed-door drafting of bills, no increase in deficit spending, no special-interest influence (unions), no vote buying ( Nebraska , Louisiana ).

If only George Bush wasn’t still in charge, we’d have real change by now.

All the broken promises, all the failed legislation and delay (health care reform, immigration reform) is not President Obama’s fault or the fault of the Democrat-controlled Congress. It’s all George Bush’s fault.

Take for example the decision of Eric Holder, the president’s attorney general, to hold terrorists’ trials in New York City . Or his decision to try the Christmas Day underpants bomber as a  civilian. Two disastrous decisions. Certainly those were bad judgments based on poor advice from George Bush.

Need more proof?

You might recall that when Scott Brown won last month’s election to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts , capturing “the Ted Kennedy seat,” President Obama said that Brown’s victory was the result of the same voter anger that propelled Obama into office in 2008. People were still angry about George Bush and the policies of the past 10 years, and they wanted change.

Yes, according to the president, the voter rebellion in Massachusetts last month was George Bush’s fault. Therefore, in retaliation, they elected a Republican to the Ted Kennedy seat, ending a half-century of domination by Democrats.

It is all George Bush’s fault.

Will the failed administration of George Bush ever end, and the time for hope and change ever arrive?
Will President Obama ever accept responsibility for something — anything?

Chuck Green, veteran Colorado journalist and former editor-in-chief of The Denver Post, syndicates a statewide column and is at chuckgreencolo@msn.com http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/obama-is-a-victim-of-bushs-failed-promises---by-chuck-green---democrat/blog-330905/
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


214 posted 07-09-2010 07:52 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.

But look on the bright side. If President Obama has embraced offshore drilling in Brazil, why not in the old U.S.A.? The land of the sorta free and the home of the heavily indebted has enormous offshore oil deposits, and last year ahead of the November elections, with gasoline at $4 a gallon, Congress let a ban on offshore drilling expire.

The Bush Administration's five-year plan (2007-2012) to open the outer continental shelf to oil exploration included new lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. But in 2007 environmentalists went to court to block drilling in Alaska and in April a federal court ruled in their favor. In May, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said his department was unsure whether that ruling applied only to Alaska or all offshore drilling. So it asked an appeals court for clarification. Late last month the court said the earlier decision applied only to Alaska, opening the way for the sale of leases in the Gulf. Mr. Salazar now says the sales will go forward on August 19.

This is progress, however slow. But it still doesn't allow the U.S. to explore in Alaska or along the East and West Coasts, which could be our equivalent of the Tupi oil fields, which are set to make Brazil a leading oil exporter. Americans are right to wonder why Mr. Obama is underwriting in Brazil what he won't allow at home.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html


Who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this?  It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign..

Wake up, folks....
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


215 posted 07-09-2010 10:35 AM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/bogus-brazilian-oil-claims/

http://mediamatters.org/research/201006170084
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


216 posted 07-09-2010 07:29 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     I'm very interested in Mike's response to Jennifer's citations.  It's too early at this point to expect him to be able to respond by now and I know it, so I'm not saying, "Hey guy, where's your response?"  But I think the citations would be worth a little thought.  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


217 posted 07-09-2010 07:55 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-helps-soros-drill-oil-in-brazil


    His New York-based hedge-fund firm, Soros Fund Management LLC, sold 22 million U.S.-listed common shares of Petrobras, as the Brazilian oil company is known, according to a filing today with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Soros bought 5.8 million of the company’s U.S.-traded preferred shares.

    Soros is taking advantage of the spread between the two types of U.S.-listed Petrobras shares, said Luis Maizel, president of LM Capital Group LLC, which manages about $4 billion. The common shares were 21 percent more expensive than preferred today, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. …

    Petrobras preferred shares have also a 10 percent additional dividend, said William Landers, a senior portfolio manager for Latin America at Blackrock Inc.

    “Given that there will most likely never be a change in control in the company, I see no reason to pay a higher price for the common shares.” Brazil’s government controls Petrobras and has a majority stake of voting shares. http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/obama-blocks-drilling-at-home-makes-loan-to-soros-backed-firm-to-drill-in-brazil/
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


218 posted 07-10-2010 04:57 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
Who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this?  It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign..

Wake up, folks....


Well it certainly woke me up.

If you’re right George Soros sounds like a complete wingnut – he cashed in $22 million in shares at a net loss of 28% on his original investment despite, according to your assertion, having a nod and a wink from his buddy Obama that the shares were about to rise due to a loan announcement.

If you’re wrong though, and Soro’s had no idea that he could have made a killing and simply made a decision to liquidate some assets that turned out to be a bad move that he lost money on, he’s less of a wingnut and simply fallible like the rest of us.

I’m not 100% sure he’s a wingnut Mike, but you might be right.

Back to my snooze.

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


219 posted 07-10-2010 05:13 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     It really would be nice if you responded to the two references that Jennifer posted, Mike, since they undercut your accusations about President Obama.  You might also check out the meaning of "calls" in the stock market and distinguish what they are from actual purchases.  There is a large difference.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


220 posted 07-12-2010 12:18 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

http://vimeo.com/12934857
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


221 posted 07-16-2010 12:56 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

“Lafourche Parish (La.) president Charlotte Randolph blasted the zero-risk-tolerance mentality of Salazar and Beinecke, illustrating the folly behind the offshore-drilling moratorium: If “safety” demands a blanket halt to deepwater drilling, she said, then all oil-tanker traffic in the Gulf of Mexico should be halted, too. “An oil tanker is a four times greater risk of spilling its cargo than an oil well blowing out,” Randolph pointed out. “Tankers carrying 3 million barrels of oil traverse the Gulf daily en route to Houston.” That’s roughly the amount of oil BP spilled over the past three months. . . .

While Salazar ducks and dithers, deepwater oil drillers are canceling contracts or moving their rigs overseas — and American jobs along with them. Diamond Offshore moved one of its rigs to Egypt. Murphy Oil Company is also moving operations to the Congo. And Bloomberg News reported that “the number of offshore rigs operating in U.S. waters has plunged 71 percent to 16 from 56 before the blowout, according to surveys by Baker Hughes Inc.”

The new sheriff’s in town, all right — and he’s shooting the Gulf Coast economy in the foot, head, and heart. Heckuva job, Kenny.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/438211/ken-salazar-needs-another-behind-kicking/michelle-malkin?page=1

.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


222 posted 07-16-2010 02:26 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Of course they should let the drilling continue – I mean it’s not like there’s any chance of another leak in the gulf.
http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article217088.ece
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


223 posted 07-30-2010 09:35 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:



“Lafourche Parish (La.) president Charlotte Randolph blasted the zero-risk-tolerance mentality of Salazar and Beinecke, illustrating the folly behind the offshore-drilling moratorium: If “safety” demands a blanket halt to deepwater drilling, she said, then all oil-tanker traffic in the Gulf of Mexico should be halted, too. “An oil tanker is a four times greater risk of spilling its cargo than an oil well blowing out,” Randolph pointed out. “Tankers carrying 3 million barrels of oil traverse the Gulf daily en route to Houston.” That’s roughly the amount of oil BP spilled over the past three months. . . .

While Salazar ducks and dithers, deepwater oil drillers are canceling contracts or moving their rigs overseas — and American jobs along with them. Diamond Offshore moved one of its rigs to Egypt. Murphy Oil Company is also moving operations to the Congo. And Bloomberg News reported that “the number of offshore rigs operating in U.S. waters has plunged 71 percent to 16 from 56 before the blowout, according to surveys by Baker Hughes Inc.”

The new sheriff’s in town, all right — and he’s shooting the Gulf Coast economy in the foot, head, and heart. Heckuva job, Kenny.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/438211/ken-salazar-needs-another-behind-kicking/michelle-malkin?page=1



     1) The amount of oil spilled in the gulf over the last 90 days is a matter of some dispute.  If you take the original estimate of 1000 barrel a day, then of course 90,000 barrels is less than 3.000,000 barrels.  What happens, however, if you take some of the more realistic figures in the 40,000, 60,000 or 70,000 barrels a day range, however?  It begins to sound like The National Review's addition is slightly worse than that of Hans the Computing Thoroughbred.  

     The calculations do not seem to take into account that BP and the other Oil Companies have been lying to us about their safety records and their abilities to do the things that say they can do.  They have been pointing fingers at their contractors about where the blame lies since the beginning of this fiasco, and they have been disputing facts with each other.

     Why, then, should we assume that any facts and any figure we get from them have any relationship at all with reality, unless possibly an inverse one?

2)  We still have no idea what sort of damage has been done or how long-lasting that damage may be in this latest oil spill.  We have no idea if the effects of a one time shirt term accident releasing a large amount of oil all at once would have the same effect as the continuous release of oil over a three or four month period.  We don't know if the economic, physical, environmental or social effects will be the same, will be lesser or greater.

     The National Review Article leaps to make comparisons that we do not know we can make on the basis of evidence we do not know we have.  At the same time, they strive to make an authoritative statement.

     What is your reaction to this sort of reasoning as a scientist, John?  Would you hasten to tell a patient that he should make a choice of medication over surgery on evidence such as this?  I would hope my physician would tell me that the evidence was at the very least equivocal and that there was no real basis for making a sound decision as yet.  And that the best choice would be the most conservative one, the one that would be least likely to do harm to the health of the patient.

     It seems to me that this should probably be the basis for making a solid decision here.

     You might argue a pro or anti-drilling position on that basis, I think with some sense of ethical soundness; but it is not clear to me that The National Review has proved that a good review of the safety of the drilling methods and the safety procedures for the new wells according to standards that are in the American self interest and that are protective of American health is not one terrific idea.

     While the Oil Companies may suffer some reduced profit, the damage done to American citizens and property is unlikely to be covered by any liability that the oil Companies would possibly pay, should more damages occur.  As they will; not simply at sea, but on land as well.  As they have.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


224 posted 07-30-2010 09:56 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

As a sidenote, I have a friend right now vacationing in Grayton Beach, Florida. She tells me that there are hundreds of workers and dozens of pieces of heavy equipment all up and down the beach. The equipment is brand new as are the uniforms of the workers. At 50 yard intervals, there are rest stations set up. In four days no one has done nothing. Why? There is no oil! The workers spend their time at the rest stations all day until word comes that a supervisor is on the way and they they all go out and try to look busy.

She finds it comical. So do I.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> What Obama Admin SHOULD have Done in Gul   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors