Oops.
An offshore oil rig has exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, west of the site of the April blast that caused the massive oil spill.
Coast Guard Petty Officer Casey Ranel says the blast was reported by a commercial helicopter company about 9:30 a.m. CDT Thursday. Seven helicopters, two airplanes and four boats are en route to the site, about 80 miles south of Vermilion Bay along the central Louisiana coast.
When President Obama attempted to impose a moratorium on deep water drilling, the industry responded that that was crazy… that they’d been drilling safely for decades, and that there was no reason to halt production due to one freak accident. Well, how about two freak accidents?
Yeah, right. They have been drilling safely for decades. Please ignore the Usumacinta Jack-Up in 2007, the Mumbai High North Platform in 2005 and the GSF Adriatic IV Jack-Up in 2004.
Oh, wait. I guess they are referring only to the deep water drilling off the Louisiana coast. My bad…
Goldy,
So I will now assume you are no longer going to drive your car or take the jet plane on your many trips….and I will also assume you will no longer be using any materials or products that come from crude oil
time to walk the walk……
@2 That makes no logical sense. Life isn’t all or nothing. You disagree with our President (just guessing) so you should LEAVE the country immediately. Right? Of course not.
If you don’t like deep water (or any off shore) drilling, the answer isn’t to stop driving (most of that oil comes from the mideast, Canada or Venezuela)…it’s to work to stop off shore drilling. Duh. Off shore drilling represents a very tiny percent of the world oil. Remember this stuff doesn’t go TO America just because it’s drilled “near” us, we don’t have nationalized oil. This is just oil sold on the world commodities markets.
Shallow(er) water drilling is EASIER to clean up of course. That doesn’t mean they’re not having accidents, just not an long term and difficult to stop as the deep water platforms. Drilling (land or water) is not perfectly safe. Everything is a calculated risk. There are geological issues, hydraulic pressures, equipment failures, etc. Everything from diving to eating comes with risk. We just need to know the REAL risk (not imagined, hyped, or ignored) and then decide if the outcome is worth the risk.
@3
fair enough.
But lets list some of the most recent drilling options:
ANWAR: enviro nazis against that one
shallow offshore drilling: enviro nazis against that one
deep water drilling: enviro nazis against that one
any new drilling ANYWHERE: enviro nazis against that too
just saying…..
Betcha there are a lot of folks heaving a sigh of relief that Hurricane Earl took a left turn…
Seriously, what this points up is that there’s a need to re-examine a few assumptions. Nobody in his or her right mind ought to propose that we immediately give up our gas flivvers–or for that matter, our entire industrialized society which still for the most part hums along on fossil fuels. Nobody in his or her right mind would be accusing progressives of doing so–but of course, there’s little evidence that there’s anyone sane left in the American right.
Since it’s been demonstrated what risky business so much of this is, the folks who extract that black gooey stuff from the bowels of the earth need to be concentrating really hard on minimizing the risk of mishaps at every stage of the game, even if it means a little less devotion to “returning value to the shareholders”. If they won’t do that on their own, government has not only a right but an obligation to step in and hang them by their collective scrotum until they do it.
Looking a little further ahead, if we’re running out of easy places to suck oil out of, the slavish pursuit of every drop from progressively riskier sources may not be worth it–sooner or later, other means will need to be deployed to power the engines of civilization. Eventually the marketplace will force that to happen. There’s nothing at all wrong with accelerating the process–especially if it spares us from more messy clusterfucks such as this.
Yeah, until we replace oil (which we will eventually) we do need it, and while there is environmental risk, there’s also risk to the ‘easy’ oil. The Saudi oil is easy to get…but we have to kiss (literally) the Saudi’s to get it. We only have middle east wars because of access to ‘easy’ oil. China invaded Tibet and we didn’t lift a finger…guessing it’s because Tibet wasn’t our major supplier of oil. Kuwait on the other hand (50 miles of nothing) gets invaded by our former alley (Saddam Hussein, when we was in a war against Iran) and we had to spend a couple hundred billion and “protect” that chunk of dead land. Huh. So the “cheap” oil ain’t that cheap either. We spend trillions protecting it, and IF that cost was truly passed onto your gasoline cost, you’d think twice. We have cheap gasoline because we PRETEND the costs of protecting it in the mideast isn’t really part of the costs, we (tax payers) just eat that cost.
So pick your poison. We get ‘easy’ oil in the mideast and pay out our ass to protect it (even while Saudi’s fund radical Islam which supposedly we have a problem with)….or we do local drilling and risk the environmental damage. And factor in, how MUCH oil are we REALLY getting for the (environmental) risk? If it’s just like 2% of the world oil and not impacting accessibility or price, is it worth it? Hmmm…maybe…maybe not. And it’s not “our” oil, it’s BP or Exxon’s oil and they can sell to it whoever they want (Mexico, China, Norway, Spain, United States).
They COULD drill more safely – they just don’t because they’d rather cut corners to save a few bucks, which sits well enough with most people because we like cheap gas.
@4 Spoken like the fucking ignoramus you are. First of all, it’s “ANWR” not “ANWAR” which stands for “Alaska National Wildlife Refuge” — nobody except you calls it “Alaska National Wildlife A Refuge.” Are you one of those dopes who spells phonetically because he never reads anything and therefore doesn’t know what words look like in print? Secondly, ANWR holds (according to the most generous estimates) a 3 1/2-month global supply or a 15-month U.S. supply of oil — hardly a solution to our energy problems. So why take a chance on wrecking one of the world’s most important ecological areas for a pittance of oil? Let’s keep in mind that ANWR is in the Arctic which doesn’t heal itself as readily as temperate zone land — the effects of a major oil spill there could linger for decades or even hundreds of years. That’s why there’s more concern about drilling for oil in ANWR than, say, Borneo. And where do you get this “enviro nazis” shit from? We live in a democracy, one that’s largely controlled by corporations, and environmentalists hardly dictate energy policy or any other kind of policy. If Congress doesn’t permit drilling in ANWR, it’s because a majority of Americans don’t want to risk losing ANWR for the pittance of oil there.
But where you really go off the rails is when you conflate reasonable government regulation and oversight of the industry’s drilling activities with banning drilling. Even Obama didn’t propose that — he merely sought to impose a moratorium to buy some time to improve government regulation and oversight of drilling, which obviously failed in BP’s case.
@4
The North Slope peaked a while back, new drilling won’t change this, it will just let the oil companies suck out the remaining oil faster. Sucking that oil out faster isn’t in our national intrest and oil companies are some of the most profitable compainies on the planet. They don’t need thatoil to stay in business
On behalf of all Republicans, I’d just like to preemptively apologize to whichever company is responsible, and for whatever damage they may have caused, for the inevitable criticism of their actions by the socialist, atheist, liberal, gay-loving, troop-hating abortionists.
“enviro Nazi’s”
Sorry Charley, but the environmental movement was founded by a bunch of concervativies.
A problem that never gets addressed is that oil goes to make energy, fertilizer and plastics. Solar, wind and nuclear can replace oil for energy production when the oil production drops off after we hit peak oil, but what do we do about fertilizer and plastics? Do without?
@6 “how MUCH oil are we REALLY getting for the (environmental) risk?”
Although environmental risk is important, it’s a sideshow. The real issue is that we cannot drill our way to oil self-sufficiency, no matter what. The U.S. simply doesn’t have enough oil in the ground to meet our consumption needs. Period. We consume so much oil we MUST draw on oil reserves in other countries. Because it ain’t there, never was, never will be! The “Drill, baby, drill” idiots are deluding themselves if they think opening ANWR (and everywhere else) to drilling will free us from foreign oil or lower prices at the pump. Not a fucking chance! All ANWR would do is replace declining North Slope production. It wouldn’t raise domestic production above current levels.
@4
Goodwin’s law…
As any fool with an ounce of global economic knowledge would know, opening ANWAR or increasing drilling in U.S. territorial waters wouldn’t do much. Royalties would go to the U.S. Treasury while the oil extractors would sell on the open market. With Demand for oil rising (see China) faster than any domestic production could ever hopeto match, the price per barrel would not change.
Your right about one thing. The solution is to use less. So what were the great ideas from the right over the last several decades.
Eliminate funding for solar research and remove the solar panels from the White House. (Reagan)
Fight higher fleet mileage standards (Reagan, Bush the Smarter, Bush the Chimp, every R in current Congress)
Drill here, drill now, pay less (Gingrich/Palin in what has to be the stupidest economic argument ever.)
I could go on but suffice to say that the U.S. squandered 40 years of potential alternative energy research while plundering the treasury to the tune of billions in corporate welfare to the oil drillers.
@12 We wouldn’t need nearly as much fertilizer if we quit eating beef, which is bad for you anyway.
F-that…beef tastes good.
@10, I forgot to list Muslim-lovin’.
@11
so you are saying that conservatives are the majority in the enviro-nazi movement now? There are plenty of conservatives and liberals involved with different environmental concerns. THen you have the enviro nazis – which is pretty much the haven of the progressive moonbats…but anyway..
hhmm….well with that logic, lets look at another group: planned parenthood was formed by a racist bitch looking to keep the population of blacks in the US down to a minimum, among other things.
check this out:
In A Plan for Peace (1932), for example, Sanger proposed a congressional department to:
Keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.[21]
so by your logic(?) I guess planned parenthood is full of racist bitches looking to breed out the weak on society.
hey man, just using your logic (?)
[Deleted — Off topic]
@18
No, you are not using anyone’s logic. In fact, logic fails you. What you are doing is using a ‘strawman.’
I’m not going to explain why because I would use a logical argument, which you won’t understand.
It is utterly simplistic to assume that once the easy oil is gone that we just put up with the risks associated with deep water drilling or ANWR. It isn’t that easy of a dichotomy. Unfettered capitalistic access with no rules or restrictions to get in the way of corporate profit IS in fact unnecessary and unconscionable risk. BP fucked up. BP fucked up because it was able to bypass safety rules and have no backup plans for its rig. I’m sure we’ll learn the same about the current rig on fire.
People who just shrug their shoulders and say “yeah well if you don’t like it, walk” simply refuse to be bothered with information that points to the problem. We have a corporatocracy, not a democracy, not a federalist system. There is no concern, regard, or consideration for the public good if it gets in the way of profit.
The oil companies currently in Alaska have crap records of environmental responsibility. Why the hell would we let them have access to wilderness areas like ANWR? The response by both the gov’t and BP was shamefully slow, incompetent and shocking in the Gulf. Imagine how it would be in an area where the weather also poses challenges and there aren’t nearly the same number of people whose livelihoods are at risk. No thanks.
I think my only possible response to this news is: ‘Drill baby Drill?’
@20
TEH FAYLE…
@22
YES, drill like there is no tomorrow – but at the same time new energy sources have to be developed.
Both can be done at the same time….
Last year I was meeting with some U.S. companies about investments in solar technology. Every company I spoke to said their biggest problem was the volatility of the price of oil. Oil would go up, then there would be a demand for advanced solar technolgies, but just about the time the banks/investment firms would start to become interested, the price of oil would drop again, and virtually all research & development stopped.
Currently, it appears that the country making the most progress in solar technolgy is … China. We may soon be buying advanced solar systems from them, which we can’t match here because they will own all the patents on the technology.
Of course, try to adjust this to favor solar technology, either by offering consumer tax credits or artificially raising the price of oil by imposing a consumption tax, then watch the wingnuts on the right go off like a bottle-rocket. Advance planning isn’t among their skills, preferring to “let the market all sort itself out”. Yea, it will sort itself out, eventually – with all the oil gone, and us the buyers of solar technology, and the Chinese as the sellers.
I suspect that when the dust settles we will find that the Bush II administration relaxed the safety regs, and that’s why we’re having problems.
I used to be whole hog in favor of renewables like wind/solar farms and putting solar panels on roofs.
Not so much anymore.. I like wide open spaces unencumbered by wind or solar dish farms. The whole enterprise just smacks of desperation. Solar panels on roofs have to be maintained. Stuff falls on roofs, the panels have to be washed.. What if you need to fix something on the roof under the panels?
Absent an inexpensive leap forward in energy storage (that may happen), intermittent, diffuse wind/solar won’t make much of a dent in displacing fossil fuel burning.
As I’ve posted many times before – this is my silver bullet:
http://energyfromthorium.com/
A simple substitution of the stored chemical energy from dead organic matter that was buried and accumulated over many millions of years of the earth’s existence for the nuclear energy that was produced in the hearts of exploding stars at the dawn of earth’s creation.
It’s the energy that is believed to keep the earth’s core hot and through a related nuclear chemical reaction drives all the billions of stars in the visible universe.
If we harness it properly, we have no energy problems, no climate change problems to speak of and minimized risk from any hazardous radio-toxic waste.
What stands in the way? Ignorance and fossil fuel industry greed.
@26
what a gonad. the record shows that it was Obama’s administration that played fast and loose with the paperwork…but then you wouldnt know that listening to pacifica radio..
get over Bush already, he hasnt been in office in nearly 2 years FFS…..
Obama inherited Bush’s MMS who was found LITERALLY in bed with the industry.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories.....6263.shtml
But it is true that Obama compromised with the drill baby drill mentality in Congress to negotiate a cap and trade bill.
Gambler’s fallacy, gone awry.
@8 “If Congress doesn’t permit drilling in ANWR, it’s because a majority of Americans don’t want to risk losing ANWR for the pittance of oil there.”
Actually, it’ll probably be because Big Oil, for all their public pleadings to the contrary, quietly instructed them not to. They’d rather sit on it, using “enviro-nazis” as an excuse, and then pump it in ten or fifteen years when they can get a lot more money for it.
“Even Obama didn’t propose that — he merely sought to impose a moratorium to buy some time to improve government regulation and oversight of drilling, which obviously failed in BP’s case.”
…and again this morning.
Just to kep the record sd stigh, this wanot adrilling pplatform that exploded, but rather a production platform and therefore not subject to any moratorium. Deepwater production platforms in the Gulf contiunue to operate.
Also, they are in about 350 feet of water or somethign like that, so it is not a deepwater platform, and thus again not subject to a moratorium.
I would say that regulations that would tend to make oil operations safer are definitely needed (as are stricter coal mining safety regs), and they would not require us to return to the Stone Age any time soon.
What’s up with my keyboard? Sorry folks, something’s wrong with it, and it’s not just the loose nut behind it.
Off-topic, but still of interest:
Gallup finds Barack Obama’s approval rating jumping a net 12 percentage points in two and a half weeks, with more approving than disapproving for two straight days. This is the first time that has been the case since mid-July.
Hey, where’s Cynical?
@8
“So why take a chance on wrecking one of the world’s most important ecological areas”
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
That right there is rich!
http://www.anwr.org/Video/View.....-Movie.php
@27
I agree with you.
I think these need more looking into.
http://www.nextenergynews.com/.....2.17b.html
Oh Goody. A new idiot to kick around.
@24 How is drilling “like there’s no tomorrow” and selling the oil on the commodities market going to alter the energy supply of the U.S.? (I already explianed, not at all.)
And what makes you think the party that fought as hard as possible for 50 years to make sure alternative energy isn’t explored is going to change now? (Short answer, as long as Obama’s in office, Cold Fusion could be discovered and the Rs would filibuster.)
@28
Maybe step away from the Fox News once in a while. Should Obama reviewed all oil industry safety rules after eight years of two Texas Oil men in the White House? Absolutely. Are the rules that were left in place after eight years of two Texas oil barons in the White House “Obama’s Regulations?”
@36
you mean Republicans like Ted Kennedy who stop offshore wind turbine projects because they supposedly ruin the view?
progressive mantra: do as I say, not as I do.
poor teddy kennedy – why should royalty like him have to suffer like us meaningless surfs…I mean for god sakes, its his view!
@36
do some research..you might be surprised regarding the oil drilling “accpetions”…uh oh…barry done fucked up…
YLB is dead on correct with his comments about Thorium reactors.
Building thorium reactors would solve our energy problems and potentially eliminate dependence on foreign oil.
With this cheap, safe and abundant energy, we could power our cities, extract hydrogen from seawater, turn our abundant coal reserves into gasoline and desalinate seawater – all for far less in the cost of energy and pollution.
This technology is already proven. (google “oakridge reactor”) The reason it has not been done are political.
A recent article on Thorium reactors:
Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium
@37
Yup, Ted Kennedy had a giant streak of NIMBY in him. But did you notice that the project got approved by Obama’s Dept. of the Interior anyway? And this happened while Kennedy was alive. D’Oh!
@38…What’s an acception? D’OH! Right, so we’re back to square one. Obama didn’t fire the whole MMS during transition. But who built that MMS?
@28
What record are you referring to?
The Macando project was permitted in March 2009, fewer than 2 months after Obama’s inauguration. I’m pretty sure that the damage done after 8 years of Bush’s secret energy task force led by former Haliburton CEO Dick Cheney was still, unfortunately, in place.
I’d much prefer to leave carbon reserves in the earth. As one environmentalist put it – anything that comes out of a tail pipe is just another form of oil spill.
I’m also a big believer in end-use efficiency and that means convenient well-designed public transportation.
However, cars are certainly popular and should be fully electric.
Any liquid fuels we’d need for transportation like jet travel can be synthetically derived with ag/forestry and even municipal wastes as feedstocks. The heat from high temp reactors like the LFTR makes this possible.
With cheap enough energy from Thorium we could economically re-purpose the entire human waste stream and hopefully reduce mankind’s footprint on the environment.
That article by the way is remarkable coming from a newspaper that is so right wing leaning.
The title was probably thought up by the editor.
Of course the article doesn’t talk about the elephant in the room:
Pushback from the incumbent fossil fuel and even the status quo nuclear industry whose business model is highly threatened by a fuel (thorium) that costs next to nothing.
@12 “A problem that never gets addressed is that oil goes to make energy, fertilizer and plastics.”
…probably a far more worthwhile use of a finite resource than…just burning it all up.
Pushback from the incumbent fossil fuel and even the status quo nuclear industry whose business model is highly threatened by a fuel (thorium) that costs next to nothing.
Which proves that both parties are owned by special interests and not their constituents.
Thorium reactors are the kind of infrastructure projects this country needs, IMO. It’s proven and any party that gets behind it and pushes it to make it a reality would get my vote. It would prove they have common sense and are working for us.
oops.. here we go again…. Mariner/Apache both have been sanctioned for numerous violations of safety and pollution regulations (and that was under the lax Bushco regime).
Hilarious. Doesn’t prove that at all. What I said says the fossil fuel and incumbent nuclear power industries with their allies in transportation and banking will do ANYTHING to hold onto to their power. And yes that includes keeping buried a superior source of energy through buying the government – ANY government.
And Lyndon LaRouche has supported nuclear power forever. You’re not going to support him are you?
Heh. If the libertarians through some fluke came to dominate all three branches of government like the Republicans STILL DO, they’d whine that “the government shouldn’t pick winners”.
Follow the exposure of oil as the root cause of cancer on Twitter at:
https://twitter.com/doctorlee445/status/22820554491
Help get the message out and RePost and reTweet this.