Go Back  The Hull Truth - Boating and Fishing Forum > BOATING FORUMS > Dockside Chat
Reload this Page >

Oil Spill - Blame the Enviromentalist.

Notices

Oil Spill - Blame the Enviromentalist.

Old 05-30-2010, 09:09 PM
  #1  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 53,965
Default Oil Spill - Blame the Enviromentalist.

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/ob...6-oil-deep.htm
A Few Dollars is offline  
Old 05-30-2010, 09:37 PM
  #2  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Garett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 24,119
Default

You can't blame the environmentalist, BO has already taken full responsibility!
Garett is offline  
Old 05-31-2010, 05:23 AM
  #3  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: CT
Posts: 18,350
Default

The page was taken down. So I can't read the article...

But, Yea environmentalists often required back-up systems for worst case scenarious and standards to protect the most vunerable. They are called nuts for such an extreme approach given the unlikelyhood and probabilities and all. Until something unlikely like this happens and then everyone says - where's the safeguards?
LI Sound Grunt is offline  
Old 05-31-2010, 09:08 AM
  #4  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Long Island Sound
Posts: 2,298
Default

Riiiight!!!!!!

And Iraq is to blame for September 11

Soundbounder is offline  
Old 05-31-2010, 09:18 AM
  #5  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 53,965
Default

Try reading the article first

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/ob...-oil-deep.html
A Few Dollars is offline  
Old 05-31-2010, 09:43 AM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Long Island Sound
Posts: 2,298
Default

Originally Posted by A Few Dollars View Post
First of all, it is not an article, it is an opinion piece. Big Difference!!!!

And I did read read it! Krauthammer banged the drum loudest for the Iraq War, even going so far as linking Iraq to the September 11 attacks and claiming that they already had nuclear weapons aimed at us.
When Charles Krauthammer comes clean on his Iraq misinformation, then maybe I will give him the time of day.
Apparently, the irony of my comment was lost on you
Soundbounder is offline  
Old 05-31-2010, 09:55 AM
  #7  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South of Pennsyltucky
Posts: 9,487
Default

Originally Posted by Soundbounder View Post
First of all, it is not an article, it is an opinion piece. Big Difference!!!!
His points are still quite valid. Would it be easier to repair a oil spill on land, or one a mile under water? Oh nevermind, don't answer that, i think we're finding that out firsthand right now.
Hollywood9s is offline  
Old 05-31-2010, 10:11 AM
  #8  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: MA
Posts: 16,306
Default

Originally Posted by Soundbounder View Post
First of all, it is not an article, it is an opinion piece. Big Difference!!!!

And I did read read it! Krauthammer banged the drum loudest for the Iraq War, even going so far as linking Iraq to the September 11 attacks and claiming that they already had nuclear weapons aimed at us.
When Charles Krauthammer comes clean on his Iraq misinformation, then maybe I will give him the time of day.
Apparently, the irony of my comment was lost on you


Do you have a link or proof of this?????
bobb is offline  
Old 05-31-2010, 10:20 AM
  #9  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 790
Default

I read the article, and since this is where I live, and in fact, my “local paper” I’ll comment. This strategy of blaming environmentalists for “forcing” BP offshore into deep waters, and thereby spreading accountability into the opposite political party is a “nice try but no cigar” play as far as I’m concerned.

The other ploy (not mentioned in the article) is to blame the consumer by saying that America has an insatiable appetite for oil and by extension the big oil companies are just serving their customers who are, indirectly the real culprits. After all, they are just providing a service.

Nonsense.

It is true, environmentalists have had an impact on near shore drilling, particularly here on the West coast. Why? Well, in 1969 they had a spill off of Santa Barbara that caused much damage and was largely credited for starting the environmental movement- it was that big of a deal. I remember the rage and anger was enormous, even in that era.

So add in Exxon Valdez, and a few other minor spills over the years and you have a pretty poor track record with regard to environmental stewardship by the oil companies. Arguably, the spills are small in number, but big-no huge, in impact. Now I am no environmentalist, but come on, who in their right mind would approve offshore drilling off a pristine coastline given this history? Sooner or later, there is a spill that is what history tells us. Is this the environmentalist’s fault? Or is this political cover bought and paid for by oil companies and their political (and journalistic) shills, designed to put pressure on politicians to allow them to drill wherever they want- to the tune of almost $6bn in profits last quarter alone, just for BP.

Looks to me like the latter, and judging by the near shore drilling approvals for VA and FL, (now canceled) it almost worked.
darbikrash is offline  
Old 05-31-2010, 11:50 AM
  #10  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: st augustine fl
Posts: 7,172
Default

They drill offshore in the north atlantic, require all the safeguards in place and maintained so they work when they need them to....not so in the Gulf...typical LA politics...where did all the money go in the 60-70's that was earmarked to improve the levies?...same thing with the oil rigs....
slickster is online now  
Old 05-31-2010, 01:26 PM
  #11  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: FL
Posts: 363
Default

Read what you will from my take

1) Obama allows off shore drilling
2) We have the left and tree huggers wailing
3) BP problem surfaces
4) Admin "on it from day one".. Right!
5) Obama places moratorium on off shore drilling

My take home message from this muslim Kenyan born prez - more standard muslim "taqqiya"/deceit. It was all just a ruse to stop off shore drilling in the first place, raise taxes on coal and then we all will be bowing to Saudi kings - not just the Great Reader.
Marquis42 is offline  
Old 05-31-2010, 01:37 PM
  #12  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Long Island Sound
Posts: 2,298
Default

Originally Posted by bobb View Post
Do you have a link or proof of this?????
Krauthammer also made the famous statement that the oil revenues from Iraq would pay for the war.

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2007/jan/15/00020/

7 years later, he has yet to address that dishonest comment either
Soundbounder is offline  
Old 05-31-2010, 01:51 PM
  #13  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 490
Default

Originally Posted by slickster View Post
They drill offshore in the north atlantic, require all the safeguards in place and maintained so they work when they need them to....not so in the Gulf...typical LA politics...where did all the money go in the 60-70's that was earmarked to improve the levies?...same thing with the oil rigs....
What typical LA politics write the code of federal regulations?
What money are you talking about to improve levies?
I have an idea lets shut off all drilling off of LA and close the LOOP, then when you are paying 8.00 a gallon for fuel we'll see how you feel. I oughta rip your head off.
lumpfisher is offline  
Old 05-31-2010, 02:06 PM
  #14  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: MA
Posts: 16,306
Default

Originally Posted by Soundbounder View Post
Krauthammer also made the famous statement that the oil revenues from Iraq would pay for the war.

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2007/jan/15/00020/

7 years later, he has yet to address that dishonest comment either

Saw nothing about him connecting 9/11 to Saddam....
How were his comments in your link dishonest???? I read nothing of the sort.
bobb is offline  
Old 05-31-2010, 03:21 PM
  #15  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 8,460
Default

Originally Posted by Marquis42 View Post
Read what you will from my take

1) Obama allows off shore drilling
2) We have the left and tree huggers wailing
3) BP problem surfaces
4) Admin "on it from day one".. Right!
5) Obama places moratorium on off shore drilling

My take home message from this muslim Kenyan born prez - more standard muslim "taqqiya"/deceit. It was all just a ruse to stop off shore drilling in the first place, raise taxes on coal and then we all will be bowing to Saudi kings - not just the Great Reader.

Okay, let me see if I've got this straight. Obama wants to stop offshore drilling so he says "lets drill offshore" even while he knows the left will cry bloody murder and in the mean time he's waiting for the disaster he knows is coming so he can spring the moratorium on offshore drilling thereby completing his evil Kenyan-muslim plot to further enrich his Saudi King friends. Brilliant!



I don't think I'll be taking that home with me.
OReely is offline  
Old 05-31-2010, 04:13 PM
  #16  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 53,965
Default

Originally Posted by Hollywood9s View Post
His points are still quite valid. Would it be easier to repair a oil spill on land, or one a mile under water? Oh nevermind, don't answer that, i think we're finding that out firsthand right now.


Originally Posted by lumpfisher View Post
What typical LA politics write the code of federal regulations?
What money are you talking about to improve levies?
I have an idea lets shut off all drilling off of LA and close the LOOP, then when you are paying 8.00 a gallon for fuel we'll see how you feel. I oughta rip your head off.
A Few Dollars is offline  
Old 05-31-2010, 06:49 PM
  #17  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: FL
Posts: 363
Default

Originally Posted by OReely View Post

I don't think I'll be taking that home with me.
OK. Whatever floats your boat,dude!
Marquis42 is offline  
Old 05-31-2010, 08:47 PM
  #18  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 790
Default

I hear all these claims that environmentalists are holding up the show with respect to blocking and/or preventing drilling in the US. So I guess I need to start asking some questions- such as specifically, which oil fields are being blocked?

Here is what I know about US oil reserves:

1.) The US has something less than 2% ( I believe the number is about 1.5%) of the world’s oil reserves in or under US territorial limits- yet uses about 20% of the worlds’ oil.
2.) Of the <2% we have on US soil, about 75% of this is offshore, as in under water.
2.) Of the 25% that is left, a big chunk of this is the Bakken oil fields in Montana/South Dakota, which is currently being drilled. (Limited drilling)
3.) Another big chunk is the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. (Not being drilled)
4.) Lots of smaller fields scattered around the US, most either actively being drilled, or exhausted.

There is another consideration with oil drilling, and that is the concept of EROI, or energy return on investment. How much energy does it take to extract a barrel of oil from the ground, transport it, and convert it to usable energy. This is different than ROI, which is simply the cash on cash return on investment, e.g. if it costs $75/barrel to get the oil out, and you can only sell it for $70/barrel, well, who wants this deal? Similarly, if it takes more energy (not money) to get that one barrel out of the ground, than you are going backwards. Both of these concepts are very important to understanding why or why not an oil company drills in a specific area, and note this has absolutely nothing to do with environmentalists.

Rest assured, enviros or not, ALL of the low hanging, easy to find, cheap to drill US based 49 state ground based sites are very nearly tapped out. According to the USGS there exist massive amounts of “technically recoverable unproven oil reserves” in the Bakken fields which, is government speak for “we think they are there, (but not sure) and have no idea how much it will cost to recover these reserves, or even if the are economically recoverable”. Despite this, the Bakken fields are being drilled.

Which leaves us to the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. I don’t know how much this field holds, nor if it is economically feasible to recover, either from and ROI or EROI standpoint. But I do know that Exxon Valdez happened, and there are a whole bunch of people, fisherman, tradesman, Eskimos, and just citizens as well as environmentalists in Alaska that are still plenty pissed off at the way that whole spill was handled some 20 years ago. And these folks are probably not in a mood to have Spill v2.0 handed to them given the history of they way that deal went down. Can you blame them?

So, now we have discussed, to the best of my knowledge, about 95% of all the US total oil reserves. Remember 75% of these reserves exist offshore. So where exactly are the environmentalists holding up the show, specifically?

Just curious.
darbikrash is offline  
Old 06-01-2010, 06:44 AM
  #19  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 490
Default

They aren't holding up the show because they can't. Whenever and wherever the oil companies NEED to drill they will.
lumpfisher is offline  
Old 06-01-2010, 07:05 AM
  #20  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 790
Default

I think I agree with that.
darbikrash is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread