Offshore Oil Drilling and the Oil Rig Disaster in the Gulf

[Ocklawaha]

California Beach Tar


No drilling off California? You were kidding right?


Right off the beach at Long Beach, they look like tropical casinos at night!



Long Beach or the Holly Rigs off Santa Barbara


This is the part they left out of the famous "Beach Movie Craze"


So you don't look or smell like the poor tar baby above, the beach comes complete with wipes.

Or you can BYOB

Where do they drill? CALIFORNIA... ANYWHERE, mostly Southern 1/2.
Bi-Product, Tar Bubbles.
Net Effect? You'll NEVER see this in the movies.

OCKLAWAHA

[Eazy E]

This excellent piece by Deroy Murdock demolishes the Democrats' arguments against offshore drilling:

Offshore Drilling: Cleaner Than Mother Nature
Fear of oil spills is a poor Democratic excuse for energy poverty.

Thus, 3,050 offshore structures endured Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in August and September, 2005 without environmentally damaging petroleum spills. While 168 platforms and 55 rigs were destroyed or seriously damaged, the oil they pumped remained safely entombed, thanks to heavy underwater machinery.

As I have pointed out here before, and to you personally, RG, this is, quiet simply, a lie.  There was much spillage from Katrin and Rita, and it is well documented.

While i am personally resigned to the fact that any oil that exists in any place will have to be drilled sooner or later, one does not need to perpetuate false information to persuade others to his point of view.

[RiversideGator]

You have made conclusory statements that there were bad spills after Katrina but have never posted anything very persuasive.  Sorry but just because you believe something does not make it true.

[thebrokenforum]

Ock, excellent pictures. Thank you for sharing.

Sorry but just because you believe something does not make it true.

Same goes for you, river. Can you ever simply agree to disagree?

[RiversideGator]

You have made conclusory statements that there were bad spills after Katrina but have never posted anything very persuasive.  Sorry but just because you believe something does not make it true.

pot.  let me introduce you to kettle........oh.   how stupid of me.
Pot.  Let me introduce you to pot.

Right.  I have posted statistics, charts and facts of all sorts.  In response I get sarcasm, mere opinion and bad jokes.

[RiversideGator]

BTW, in Ock's California photos, the oil wells are on the beach.  Of course there will be some minor oil spills which affect beach goers in such areas.  The point is that now the oil wells will be far off the coast and far less likely to result in any oil reaching shore.

[Eazy E]

You have made conclusory statements that there were bad spills after Katrina but have never posted anything very persuasive.  Sorry but just because you believe something does not make it true.

Actually, guy, I sent you the Mineral Management Services report that stated "MMS also is releasing the following tally of hurricane-related oil/condensate/chemical spills in Federal offshore OCS waters as reported to MMS and the National Response Center. Six spills of 1,000 barrels or greater were reported; the largest of these was 3,625 barrels of condensate reported by the Gulf South Pipeline Company in the Eugene Island Block 51 area. A total of 146 spills of 1 barrel or greater have been reported in the Federal OCS waters; 37 of these were 50 barrels or greater."

http://www.mms.gov/ooc/press/2006/press0501.htm

[Eazy E]

Also, while we are all discussing it:

Just days after John McCain reversed himself on offshore drilling, ten senior Hess Corporation executives and Hess family members each plowed $28,500 into the RNC's committee to elect McCain president.

Soooooooo, all these rich Hess family members or executives just happened to all donate on the same day; furthermore they just happened to pick the day on which McCain was announcing positions favorable to oil companies.  Jesus, are people not sick of this obvious selling-off of our government, yet? I mean, seeing as having 8 years of an oil/energy beholden White House has gone so well for us so far, right?

[Doctor_K]

Also, while we are all discussing it:

Just days after John McCain reversed himself on offshore drilling, ten senior Hess Corporation executives and Hess family members each plowed $28,500 into the RNC's committee to elect McCain president.

Soooooooo, all these rich Hess family members or executives just happened to all donate on the same day; furthermore they just happened to pick the day on which McCain was announcing positions favorable to oil companies.  Jesus, are people not sick of this obvious selling-off of our government, yet? I mean, seeing as having 8 years of an oil/energy beholden White House has gone so well for us so far, right?

Maybe not 'just happened.'  But it's completely legal, and within the rules of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ("McCain-Feingold"):
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml#Contribution_Limits

How is that any different from supporters of Obama donating the legal limit to the DNC's election committee?
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search.php?cid=N00009638&name=%28all%29&employ=%28any+employer%29&state=%28all%29&zip=%28any+zip%29&submit=OK&amt=c&sort=A

The only difference I see between the two is the socio-political stigma attached to those affiliated with Big Oil versus those afiliated with Big Green.  Or Big Hollywood, as Chris Rock is also near the top of the list. 

(And before someone goes all nuts for me singling out Chris Rock, I'm not trying to imply anything whatsoever.  He's simply #12 on that donation list (as of 8/4).)

Bottom line:  Big Oil board members contributed to GOP.  So what?  Big Green investor contributed to the Democrats.  The so-called 'sell-off' is on both sides.

[Eazy E]

Also, while we are all discussing it:

Just days after John McCain reversed himself on offshore drilling, ten senior Hess Corporation executives and Hess family members each plowed $28,500 into the RNC's committee to elect McCain president.

Soooooooo, all these rich Hess family members or executives just happened to all donate on the same day; furthermore they just happened to pick the day on which McCain was announcing positions favorable to oil companies.  Jesus, are people not sick of this obvious selling-off of our government, yet? I mean, seeing as having 8 years of an oil/energy beholden White House has gone so well for us so far, right?

Maybe not 'just happened.'  But it's completely legal, and within the rules of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ("McCain-Feingold"):
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml#Contribution_Limits

How is that any different from supporters of Obama donating the legal limit to the DNC's election committee?
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search.php?cid=N00009638&name=%28all%29&employ=%28any+employer%29&state=%28all%29&zip=%28any+zip%29&submit=OK&amt=c&sort=A

The only difference I see between the two is the socio-political stigma attached to those affiliated with Big Oil versus those afiliated with Big Green.  Or Big Hollywood, as Chris Rock is also near the top of the list. 

(And before someone goes all nuts for me singling out Chris Rock, I'm not trying to imply anything whatsoever.  He's simply #12 on that donation list (as of 8/4).)

Bottom line:  Big Oil board members contributed to GOP.  So what?  Big Green investor contributed to the Democrats.  The so-called 'sell-off' is on both sides.

Um, the problem is that it makes one draw the completely justified inference of "Oh, McCain told these hess people that if they gave him a ton of money, he would reverse his stated position and to one which benefits those same Hess individuals".

I mean, that is not too hard to see.

Trust me, I do not think that taking money from someone who works for an oil company is necessarily and automatically a sign of corruption or influence, but happening on the same day like that is curious.

[BridgeTroll]

But in the case of the present day I think its more like the scandal that brewed with Senator Prescott Bush was caught financing Nazi's during the 40s.

Interesting reading... I assume many U.S. companies were caught in similar situations in the 1930s...  The article mentions the Kennedys as one of them also...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

[Doctor_K]

But in the case of the present day I think its more like the scandal that brewed with Senator Prescott Bush was caught financing Nazi's during the 40s.

Stephen-- I didn't understand the analogy at first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush#Business_links_with_Fritz_Thyssen:

In 1924, Bush had been made a vice-president of A. Harriman & Co. ... Harriman Bank was the main Wall Street partner for several German companies and the varied U.S. financial interests of Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen had been an early financial backer of the Nazi party, but by 1939 was bitterly denouncing Hitler and had fled Germany. He was later jailed by the Nazis for his opposition to the Nazi regime.[5] Business transactions with Germany were not illegal until Hitler declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941...

...and...

Toby Rogers claimed that Bush's connections to Silesian businesses (with Thyssen and Flick) made him complicit with the slave labour mining operations in Poland out of Auschwitz. However given Thyssen fled Germany before Hitler invaded Poland and set up those mining operations it is very hard to see how this claim can be defended.
Some records in the National Archives, including the Harriman papers, document the continued relationship of Brown Brothers Harriman with the anti-Nazi German exile Thyssen and some of his German investments up until his 1951 death.

Prescott Bush was involved with anti-Nazi eventual-German-exiles.  

In principal, is it not dissimilar to staunch progressives and liberals throwing in their support for Obama (or any Democratic candidate, for that matter) because he refuses to drill for oil and pushes for alternative energy sources, then eventually retracts and states he'd/they'd support limited further-offshore drilling?

So at this juncture I'll respectfully say "I don't get your point," agree to disagree, and move on.

But back to the subject of the thread:
Being as how things like several everyday, household items are petroleum derivitives, I don't see how feasible freeing ourselves "...of Oil dependency of all kinds..." in the immediate future really is.  

Given the plethora of end-products that come from, or involve to one degree or another, crude oil and its immediate refined products, I respectfully disagree that oil is "harming Americans."

Ween off of petroleum:  Eventually?  Absolutely.  In a mandated time table?  Not impossible; and not saying I'm against it.  However, it's harder to determine and attain a goal like that within those metrics and criteria.  

I hope science finds satisfactory alternatives for plastics made from materials other than petroleum-based sources.  In the meantime, cutting ourselves off from all oil for the sake of what's en vogue seems short-sighted.  Why not research and develop replacement/successor technologies and resulting products first, *then* cut ourselves off, rather than the reverse?  This is my source of frustration within the larger argument.

[BridgeTroll]

But in the case of the present day I think its more like the scandal that brewed with Senator Prescott Bush was caught financing Nazi's during the 40s.

Interesting reading... I assume many U.S. companies were caught in similar situations in the 1930s...  The article mentions the Kennedys as one of them also...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

Looks like Kodak, IBM, Ford, GM... had similar ties.  Looks to me like those ties are difficult to break...

[BridgeTroll]

great questions k.

why do you think that our present technologies arent good enough?

Because they cannot compete with oil yet.  Not in cost nor energy output nor reliability.

[Doctor_K]

why do you think that our present technologies arent good enough?

I will be the first one to admit that I'm not nearly smart enough or informed enough to know if they are or are not 'good enough.'

But I do not see any (for lack of a better term,) 'synthetic' plastics, or petroleum jellies, or whatnot, that don't owe their existence in part to the parent resource - crude oil.  If there are, and they're currently available and affordable to the greater global consumer public, then I gladly stand here just-educated and in humility before the forum.  

I just don't know/see that said technologies/processes/end-products are economically viable *yet*.