Conquer Club

pimpdave wrote:Your powers of logic and argument are fascinating, jefjef. Simply fascinating.

He sounds like a Glenn Beck mini me.


Honibaz

thegreekdog wrote:Are there government regulations for implementing safety systems in case this sort of thing happens? I have no idea, I'm just asking.

Not really. A lot of this technology was developed fairly recently, cooinciding with the wave of deregulation.

Bush, in particular is legendary. I know, from fisheries, that he flat out told the EPA and Fish and Wildlife service to ignore certain designations of wetlands, for example. I know a little of the MMS pressure, in fact can sort of blame that for why I lost my job. (was "encouraged" to transfer/ temporary job was simply not renewed, though I was doing GS-11+ work as a GS-5 -- pretty typical for "ologists" in the government).

Anyway, I heard a conference where the press secretary asserted that Obama is not going to require redundancy. I think it telling that one reporter insisted on asking "but won't that hurt jobs?". The reply was equally telling.. to paraphrase, yes, but look at all the jobs that have been lost through this spill. In that, I don't think news reports have been close to accurate. However, if they truly were accurate, it would cause a lot of panic, so maybe that is a good thing.

jonesthecurl wrote:Sarah is against bloggin in case it upsets the bgreens by depleting the bforests.

OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but she does have a Facebook account and does blog on occasion.

tzor wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Sarah is against bloggin in case it upsets the bgreens by depleting the bforests.

OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but she does have a Facebook account and does blog on occasion.

...which I supplied a link to. How's the humour bypass going?

b.k. barunt wrote:

pimpdave wrote:Your powers of logic and argument are fascinating, jefjef. Simply fascinating.

He sounds like a Glenn Beck mini me.

^ ^^

jefjef wrote:

pimpdave wrote:Yup, that's why BP cut corners.

Short-sighted profit and flagrant disregard for anything but had nothing to do with it.

Actually it has everything to do with it. Yes BP was negligent and so were those who were supposed to be enforcing regulations BUT If they were not FORCED to drill that far down they WOULD NOT BE THERE.

If planes hadn't been invented, terrorists wouldn't be able to use them as weapons.

jefjef wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:

pimpdave wrote:Your powers of logic and argument are fascinating, jefjef. Simply fascinating.

He sounds like a Glenn Beck mini me.

^ ^^

Why is he arguing with himself?

Woodruff wrote:

jefjef wrote:

pimpdave wrote:Yup, that's why BP cut corners.

Short-sighted profit and flagrant disregard for anything but had nothing to do with it.

Actually it has everything to do with it. Yes BP was negligent and so were those who were supposed to be enforcing regulations BUT If they were not FORCED to drill that far down they WOULD NOT BE THERE.

If planes hadn't been invented, terrorists wouldn't be able to use them as weapons.

You are as on topic as a zit on Omomma's ass.

Here. Let me try. If toilet paper wasn't invented you would have to drag your ass in the grass.

AMIDOINITRITE?

SAY NO TO DEEP SEA DRILLING! Do it in shallow water and on land so accidents could be accessible.

Sarah is right on!

The Ixtoc oil leak was in "shallow water" (at what point do you define shallow water anyway?), and yet until now has been the worst one in history.

But yeah, you're right; it's the deep sea drilling that's the issue. "Shallow" water is completely safe.

InkL0sed wrote:The Ixtoc oil leak was in "shallow water" (at what point do you define shallow water anyway?), and yet until now has been the worst one in history.

But yeah, you're right; it's the deep sea drilling that's the issue. "Shallow" water is completely safe.

1979. Mexico's government-owned oil company Pemex (Petróleos Mexicanos) was drilling a 3 km (1.9 mi) deep oil well when the drilling rig Sedco 135F lost drilling mud circulation. They were in 50m of water.

No drilling is completely safe. Never said it was. There is a huge difference remedying a problem in 50m of water or on land.

The major issue is the fact they are having to attempt to cure this a MILE down. They should not even be drilling in water that freaking deep.

So partially blame those who forced them to be there to in the first place to aquire the oil we ask them to provide for us.

Sarah is correct.

jefjef wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:The Ixtoc oil leak was in "shallow water" (at what point do you define shallow water anyway?), and yet until now has been the worst one in history.

But yeah, you're right; it's the deep sea drilling that's the issue. "Shallow" water is completely safe.

1979. Mexico's government-owned oil company Pemex (Petróleos Mexicanos) was drilling a 3 km (1.9 mi) deep oil well when the drilling rig Sedco 135F lost drilling mud circulation. They were in 50m of water.

No drilling is completely safe. Never said it was. There is a huge difference remedying a problem in 50m of water or on land.

The major issue is the fact they are having to attempt to cure this a MILE down. They should not even be drilling in water that freaking deep.

So partially blame those who forced them to be there to in the first place to aquire the oil we ask them to provide for us.

Sarah is correct.

Why not, us and Norway have been doing it for almost 40 years without any major castastrophes. Might I also add that barring hurricane season, I'll assume the North Sea to be a rougher current and choppier then the Gulf of Mexico.

Titanic wrote:

jefjef wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:The Ixtoc oil leak was in "shallow water" (at what point do you define shallow water anyway?), and yet until now has been the worst one in history.

But yeah, you're right; it's the deep sea drilling that's the issue. "Shallow" water is completely safe.

1979. Mexico's government-owned oil company Pemex (Petróleos Mexicanos) was drilling a 3 km (1.9 mi) deep oil well when the drilling rig Sedco 135F lost drilling mud circulation. They were in 50m of water.

No drilling is completely safe. Never said it was. There is a huge difference remedying a problem in 50m of water or on land.

The major issue is the fact they are having to attempt to cure this a MILE down. They should not even be drilling in water that freaking deep.

So partially blame those who forced them to be there to in the first place to aquire the oil we ask them to provide for us.

Sarah is correct.

Why not, us and Norway have been doing it for almost 40 years without any major castastrophes. Might I also add that barring hurricane season, I'll assume the North Sea to be a rougher current and choppier then the Gulf of Mexico.

1 mile = 5280 feet.

The North Sea averages about 100 m (325 ft) deep, with a maximum depth of 700 m (2300 ft) and in some areas shallows can be a mere 15 m deep. Big difference.

June 2005, a South African called Nuno Gomes, had Reached the depth of 318.25m (approx 1030 ft) in the Red sea. The Guiness Book of World Records still records this as the deepest ever scuba dive. And this is not a safe/workable diving depth. Deep sea drilling should not be allowed where divers can not safely dive and work/repair until proper equipment is created and readily avail.

It's all just common sense.

InkL0sed wrote:The Ixtoc oil leak was in "shallow water" (at what point do you define shallow water anyway?), and yet until now has been the worst one in history.

But yeah, you're right; it's the deep sea drilling that's the issue. "Shallow" water is completely safe.

Deep sea drilling is extremely risky and almost impossible to clean up in case of an accident. would you not agree?

We have oil on land. We should relax the federal restrictions as related to accessing this "lower hanging fruit".

thegreekdog wrote:However, Sarah Palin is a moron and if she runs for office with the endorsement of the Tea Party, I'm out.

If she somehow wins, I think Im out too.

jefjef wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

jefjef wrote:

pimpdave wrote:Yup, that's why BP cut corners.

Short-sighted profit and flagrant disregard for anything but had nothing to do with it.

Actually it has everything to do with it. Yes BP was negligent and so were those who were supposed to be enforcing regulations BUT If they were not FORCED to drill that far down they WOULD NOT BE THERE.

If planes hadn't been invented, terrorists wouldn't be able to use them as weapons.

You are as on topic as a zit on Omomma's ass.

Here. Let me try. If toilet paper wasn't invented you would have to drag your ass in the grass.

AMIDOINITRITE?

SAY NO TO DEEP SEA DRILLING! Do it in shallow water and on land so accidents could be accessible.

Your "logic" shows a distinct lack of knowledge of the sea and impact of oil spills.

The problem here is not on shore or off shore. The problem is that ANY drilling is allowed without multiple failsafes that would PREVENT all these accidents.

The drilling was allowed far offshore not becuase it was "better" (that much is true), but because local people had no say in the matter. The states have learned that oil rigs cause more economic damage than they provide in benefits. With Bush in office, that was ignored. It was carte blanche to the drilling companies.

The REAL truth is that we need to stop pretending that evironmental damage concerns are just externalities that can be ignored until after accidents happen.

jefjef wrote:Sarah is right on!

Never.