The BP Oil Spill

[MrJim]

No, I'm not getting all greenie-weenie now, but this spill is out of hand. Expect shortages of seafood soon as well as ruined beaches all the way along the gulf. It is expected to reach Florida by Sunday:


TAMPA, Fla. – University scientists are forecasting that oil from the spill off Louisiana could reach Florida's Key West by Sunday.

University of South Florida researchers said Tuesday the southern arm of the massive spill has entered or is near the so-called loop current, which circulates in the Gulf and takes water south to the Florida Keys and the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream could eventually take the oil up Florida's Atlantic coast.

Twenty tar balls were found by the Coast Guard off Key West on Monday. They are being tested to see if they came from the Louisiana spill or elsewhere. Tar balls can occur naturally or come from other sources such as ships.

USF scientists use currents, wind forecasts and other elements to make their predictions.

[LedZap]

Yeah , it's pretty bad...I think I posted this before , but here it is again. An eye witness account from a fisherman that was right under the Deepwater Horizon when it started to go. This is a link to a Forum site where the fisherman reported his ordeal ....

http://www.mudinmyblood.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6104

[AceTracer]

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2010/05/500x_455838main_louisiana.a2010138.1900.250m-4x3_946-710.jpg

"It looks very scary. It's not good. I really feel... not good about that." -International Space Station Commander, Oleg Kotov

[MrJim]

Combination of oil spill & Katrina-level hurricane "worst case scneario":

(From WFAA)

As hurricane season approaches, the giant oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico takes weather forecasters into nearly uncharted waters.

The Gulf is a superhighway for hurricanes that form or explode over pools of hot water, then usually move north or west toward thecoast. The site of the sunken rig is along the general path of some of the worst storms ever recorded, including Hurricane Camille, which wiped out the Mississippi coast in 1969, and Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

The season officially starts Tuesday, and while scientists seem to agree that the sprawling slick isn't likely to affect the formation of a storm, the real worry is that a hurricane might turn the millions of gallons of floating crude into a crashing black surf. Some fear a horrific combination of damaging winds and large waves pushing oil deeper into estuaries and wetlands and coating miles of debris-littered coastline in a pungent, sticky mess. And the worst effects of an oil-soaked storm surge might not be felt for years: If oil is pushed deep into coastal marshes that act as a natural speed bump for storm surges, areas including New Orleans could be more vulnerable to bad storms for a long time.

Experts say there are few, if any, studies on such a scenario. In this "untreaded water ... it's tough to theorize about what would happen," said Joe Bastardi, chief long-range hurricane forecaster with AccuWeather.com. The lone precedent, experts agree, is the summer of 1979, when storms hampered efforts to contain a spill from a Mexican rig called Ixtoc 1 that eventually dumped 140 million gallons off the Yucatan Peninsula. Hurricane Henri, a Category 1 storm, damaged a 310-ton steel cap designed to stop the leak that would become the worst peacetime spill in history.

Still, while oil from that spill coated miles of beaches in Texas and Mexico, tropical storms and unseasonable cold fronts that year helped reverse offshore currents earlier than normal and drive oil away from the coast. Storms also helped disperse some of the oil, Bastardi said. "That's what I think would happen this time," he said. "I'm sure a hurricane would do a great deal of diluting the oil, preading it out where the concentrations would be much less damaging."

At least 19 million gallons, according to the latest estimates, have leaked from the seabottom 5,000 feet below the surface since the April 20 explosion of BP PLC's Deepwater Horizon rig, which killed 11. Syrupy oil has crept into Louisiana's marshes, coating plants, killing some birds and threatening wetlands. The threat to the marshes could have implications lasting well beyond this hurricane season. Louisiana already has lost huge swaths of coastal wetlands in recent decades, and the oil is a major threat to the long-term viability of that delicate ecosystem. If the plants that hold the marshes together were to die at the roots, the base would wash away, leaving deeper water and less of a buffer for hurricanes, said Joseph Suhayda, director of the Louisiana State University Hurricane Center. "That would increase the amount of surge inland," Suhayda said.

Even without considering hurricanes, there is uncertainty about whether marsh cane and other plants will die to the roots or just above the surface from this oil spill. If the plants' roots survive, they could come back over time. If not, the results could be catastrophic. "I don't think anybody is going to know precisely. It depends on the quantity of the oil," said David White, a biologicalsciences professor at Loyola University New Orleans.

There is a chance that a hurricane or tropical storm could offer wetlands a reprieve from the oil, at the expense of areas farther inland. A storm surge of several feet, even if it is carrying oil, would pass over the top of the outer, low-lying marshes and disperse the mess in less toxic amounts, Suhayda said.

But such a storm could also push oil into freshwater marshes where ducks and geese thrive, White said. Experts are predicting a busy hurricane season with powerful storms. Bastardi predicts seven named storms, five hurricanes and two or three major hurricanes will have an effect on land this year. Colorado State University researchers Philip Klotzbach and William Gray predict a 69 percent chance that at least one major hurricane will make landfall on the U.S. and a 44 percent chance that a major hurricane will hit the Gulf Coast.

On Thursday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted 14 to 23 tropical storms this year, including up to seven major hurricanes. "This season could be one of the more active on record," agency Administrator Jane Lubchenco said. Hurricane season begins June 1 and runs through November. Early season storms are uncommon; the busy part of the season is in August through October. Stronger storms typically form during this time, like Katrina did in August of 2005. A hurricane like Katrina "would be a worst-case scenario" with oil pushed far ashore, said National Wildlife Federation scientist Doug Inkley. "It would suffocate the vegetation. You'd get oiled birds and other animals," Inkley said. "It's virtually impossible to clean up oil."

It could well be August before the current leak is stanched. After several failed attempts to contain it, BP has been siphoning some of the oil through a mile-long tube, but more continues to escape. BP is drilling another well to relieve pressure from the leak in hopes of a permanent fix, but that could take weeks. And oil rigs are often evacuated ahead of hurricanes, which would interrupt those containment efforts.

"It wouldn't take a hurricane to create a mess, even a tropical storm could cause problems," said William Hawkins, director the University of Southern Mississippi's Gulf Coast research laboratory. A hurricane could also push the oil in a new direction. "I think what worries us most is the hurricane taking oil to areas that probably wouldn't be hit hard otherwise, like the Florida Panhandle and Texas," said Gregory Stone, director of the Coastal Studies Institute at LSU. Even though the oil has yet to reach Florida, state Attorney General Bill McCollum recently sent a letter to BP asking the company to assure him it would pay up if a tropical storm or hurricane pushes oil ashore, which he believes "will capture the oil in its path and deposit it much further inland." Bastardi said that in the near term at least, the storms themselves remain the chief threat. "If a Category 3 hurricane is headed to the Texas Gulf Coast -- and this is simply theoretical -- I wouldn't be worried as much about damage from the oil, as the damage from the hurricane,"Bastardi said.

[Skeltered]

oil's well that ends well.

[MrJim]

oil's well that ends well.

We oil wish that were the case.

[freakazoid]

We oil wish that were the case.

Hey Jim, how far are you from the coast?

[MrJim]

Hey Jim, how far are you from the coast?

Quite a bit (about 300 miles-ish?) - but my wife hails from the coast.

[freakazoid]

Quite a bit (about 300 miles-ish?) - but my wife hails from the coast.

Ah, OK; was wondering if anyone can see the spill from the coastline areas.

[LedZap]

I can see Cuba from my front yard.

[Limbo]

Click on this link to see the extent of the oil spill, if you can call it a spill.

Intellicast Spill Map (http://www.intellicast.com/National/GulfOilSpill.aspx)

Hey Zapper, if Fidel can hear you from your front yard, you might want to let him know that the spill appears headed in his direction. Actually, they might be able to scoop up the oil and put it right in the tanks of those 50 year old chevys they have down their. Those suckers will burn anything.

Actually, all kidding aside, this is a bloody disaster. Still boggles my mind that they can't stop the flow, especially considering all the resources they have at their disposal.

[freakazoid]

I can see Cuba from my front yard.

Any James Bond style hot chicks on Cuba's beaches?

http://images.askmen.com/blogs/entertainment/hottest-bond-girl.jpg

[LedZap]

Yeah....that bastard. The Chinese have a deep water well just north of Cuba...it's probably their tar balls washing up at Key West.

[LedZap]

Any James Bond style hot chicks on Cuba's beaches?



Nope , they're all right here in the USA.

http://www.thesniper.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/brazil-beach-girls.jpg

[Carrot]

Off the top of my head, what would happen if they set the oil on the surface alight?

Could they? Would it get rid of it? Better than the alternative?

Who feels like googling?

[Limbo]

Off the top of my head, what would happen if they set the oil on the surface alight?

Could they? Would it get rid of it? Better than the alternative?

Who feels like googling?

Too much CO2 is my guess, plus some other toxins probably.

[LedZap]

Off the top of my head, what would happen if they set the oil on the surface alight?

Could they? Would it get rid of it? Better than the alternative?

Who feels like googling?

They've been doing that...there are about 5 burns going on every day.

[Carrot]

Oh right, out of the loop here then.

[Limbo]

Here is one of the burns they were doing to check on the effects on the environment.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Controlled_burn_of_oil_on_May_19th.JPG/220px-Controlled_burn_of_oil_on_May_19th.JPG

[Rec]

You know, I have heard it mentioned that Saudi Arabia pulls oil out of water with some sort of technique, wonder if they would share the knowledge?
Probably would have to check with Al-quaida first!!! lol

[MrJim]

Ah, OK; was wondering if anyone can see the spill from the coastline areas.

There have been a lot of pictures circulating, mainly from Louisiana, looks like Hershey's factory threw up on the grass. Nasty stuff.

[MrJim]

Here's one such picture:

http://media.oregonlive.com/news_impact/photo/bp-oil-spill-gulf-of-mexico-governor-jindal-louisiana-c1ef43ff0f158c8f_large.jpg

Makes Rocky Road ice cream seem less appetizing.

[freakazoid]

Here is one of the burns they were doing to check on the effects on the environment.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Controlled_burn_of_oil_on_May_19th.JPG/220px-Controlled_burn_of_oil_on_May_19th.JPG

What!? "to check on the effects on the environment." If we die it ain't working? That reminds me of that Bugs Bunny cartoon where Bugs is testing bombs on a WWII assembly line by taking a hammer to the firing pin; if it didn't explode, he would paint "DUD" on it.

[freakazoid]

Here's one such picture:

http://media.oregonlive.com/news_impact/photo/bp-oil-spill-gulf-of-mexico-governor-jindal-louisiana-c1ef43ff0f158c8f_large.jpg

Makes Rocky Road ice cream seem less appetizing.

Holy crap!! YUK!!!

[beelzebub]

Here's one such picture:
http://media.oregonlive.com/news_impact/photo/bp-oil-spill-gulf-of-mexico-governor-jindal-louisiana-c1ef43ff0f158c8f_large.jpg
Makes Rocky Road ice cream seem less appetizing.

I am so pissed about this but I find it hard to bring myself to see it. How many millions of people will be affected by this environmental disaster? What will the Gulf look like in 10 years? What long term impact is this going to have on the wildlife in the immediate area?

I cant help but think its going to be grim.

[LedZap]

I am so pissed about this but I find it hard to bring myself to see it. How many millions of people will be affected by this environmental disaster? What will the Gulf look like in 10 years? What long term impact is this going to have on the wildlife in the immediate area?

I cant help but think its going to be grim.

June 3, 1979 — Pemex's Ixtoc I exploratory well suffered a blowout resulting in the largest peace-time oil spill in history. Some 3.3 million barrels (138,600,000 gallons) of oil spewed into the Gulf of Mexico over a period of almost 11 months until the well was finally capped on March 23, 1980. A year later after CAT 3 Hurricane Allen came through the oil was gone...they never did figure out what happened to that oil.

[freakazoid]

June 3, 1979 — Pemex's Ixtoc I exploratory well suffered a blowout resulting in the largest peace-time oil spill in history. Some 3.3 million barrels (138,600,000 gallons) of oil spewed into the Gulf of Mexico over a period of almost 11 months until the well was finally capped on March 23, 1980. A year later after CAT 3 Hurricane Allen came through the oil was gone...they never did figure out what happened to that oil.

Maybe we could nuke it.

http://knowyourmeme.com/i/000/038/732/original/633673088039538329-nukethemfromorbit.jpg

[Prometheus]

"Drill baby,Drill !!" :p

[freakazoid]

"Drill baby,Drill !!" :p

In fact, it was the left winged loony environmentalist wackos that forced through laws prohibiting far safer and cheaper land drilling for oil. The idiots that passed these laws in the 70's and 80's forced oil companies to move to off shore drilling. Off shore drilling is extremely difficult, dangerous and expensive.

Thank you left winged loony environmentalist wackos for a job well done! IDIOTS!!!!


PS, it was also left winged loony environmentalist wackos that have all but destroyed any growth in our nuclear power industry which could easily cut back our need for oil and our dependence on foreign oil.


http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/looney-left.jpg


.

[Katt]

Interesting link I found..

http://www.wftv.com:80/slideshow/news/23783882/detail.html?treets=orlc&tid=2659225249813&tml=orlc_strange&tmi=orlc_strange_1_10000106072010&ts=H

[Paisleyspeaker]

In fact, it was the left winged loony environmentalist wackos that forced through laws prohibiting far safer and cheaper land drilling for oil. The idiots that passed these laws in the 70's and 80's forced oil companies to move to off shore drilling. Off shore drilling is extremely difficult, dangerous and expensive.

Thank you left winged loony environmentalist wackos for a job well done! IDIOTS!!!!


PS, it was also left winged loony environmentalist wackos that have all but destroyed any growth in our nuclear power industry which could easily cut back our need for oil and our dependence on foreign oil.


http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/looney-left.jpg


.


Let me get this straight - you are blaming the bad construction and or maintenance and the lack of planning on the people that were telling everyone that it wasn't safe. Huh.. that 's like blaming Cassandra for the fall of Troy. IT IS NOT THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS FAULT. They told you something like this would happen.

They have been saying for years we should reduce our dependency on oil...not on just foreign oil. Because sooner or later it would be a dependency on foreign oil again. And why focus on just nuclear - what about solar and wind? They have little to no pollution risk and are much less finite. And think of the other opportunities that would be created as we replace the petroleum in things like plastics.

It was the petroleum companies that; rather than diversify their energy sources and possible profit sources; decided that they would just keep going with the drilling in places that were "extremely difficult, dangerous and expensive" No one told they to do it, they made that choice all on their own. Their choice - their blame.

Them and the fools that they bribed with sex and drugs to green light the project to begin with .... but that is a whole different post.

[Patt]

Let me get this straight - you are blaming the bad construction and or maintenance and the lack of planning ....

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? If so, you're the only one on the planet who has it. You might want to contact the several boards of inquiry who are looking into the spill accident and let them in on your findings.

[freakazoid]

Let me get this straight - you are blaming the bad construction and or maintenance and the lack of planning on the people that were telling everyone that it wasn't safe. Huh.. that 's like blaming Cassandra for the fall of Troy. IT IS NOT THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS FAULT. They told you something like this would happen.

They have been saying for years we should reduce our dependency on oil...not on just foreign oil. Because sooner or later it would be a dependency on foreign oil again. And why focus on just nuclear - what about solar and wind? They have little to no pollution risk and are much less finite. And think of the other opportunities that would be created as we replace the petroleum in things like plastics.

It was the petroleum companies that; rather than diversify their energy sources and possible profit sources; decided that they would just keep going with the drilling in places that were "extremely difficult, dangerous and expensive" No one told they to do it, they made that choice all on their own. Their choice - their blame.

Them and the fools that they bribed with sex and drugs to green light the project to begin with .... but that is a whole different post.

Helen go check your facts; it was, and still is, predominately left winged so-called "environmentalists" who were primarily responsible for forcing the oil companies to drill offshore. That is a fact. We now see graphically that this foolish policy is a disaster.

RE: "They told you something like this would happen."

Perhaps, though ONLY after their ranks forced the oils companies offshore. They forced them offshore, and blame them for any damage done while running for cover and not excepting responsibility themselves.

It is a solid fact that this disaster would not have happened if we did not have on our books laws seriously hindering onshore land drilling. BP may (or may not have caused the accident), that is, at this point, highly debatable. One fact IS NOT debatable...had BP been drilling ONSHORE (the safe and sane place to be doing so), the Gulf accident would not have happened. We cannot soley blame BP.

RE: "Them and the fools that they bribed with sex and drugs to green light the project to begin with"

You forgot rock n' roll...do you have any proof of this claim?



.

[Paisleyspeaker]

How do you bribe someone with rock and roll??


Serious slant on my post. Did you not read the parts about how no one told them to drill off shore. No one forced them to do anything. The oil companies instead of grow or change , made the choice to drill offshore instead. Drilling that is almost too expensive to make a profit.
Here is an article from CBS about the drug and sex scandal. CBS Article (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/10/national/main4436263.shtml)

I believe that Prometheus posted about it too.

[freakazoid]

How do you bribe someone with rock and roll??


Serious slant on my post. Did you not read the parts about how no one told them to drill off shore. No one forced them to do anything. The oil companies instead of grow or change , made the choice to drill offshore instead. Drilling that is almost too expensive to make a profit.
Here is an article from CBS about the drug and sex scandal. CBS Article (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/10/national/main4436263.shtml)

I believe that Prometheus posted about it too.

RE: "How do you bribe someone with rock and roll??"

You have never heard of "drugs, sex and rock n' roll?" Lived a sheltered life, did we? A little humor, Helen.

Has no one told you that the laws passed in the 70's and 80's has made it all but impossible to drill onshore? The red tape alone takes decades to get through if at all. Face it Helen, those laws were both stupid and an environmental disaster. Do you think BP or any other oil company drills offshore for fun and kicks? As I pointed out; it is dangerous, expensive and difficult to drill offshore. They are not there because they want to be, rather because they are forced to be.

Thank you environmentalist wackos for all of the free oil floating in the Gulf of Mexico. Nice job, guys!






.

[beelzebub]

Let me get this straight - you are blaming the bad construction and or maintenance and the lack of planning on the people that were telling everyone that it wasn't safe. Huh.. that 's like blaming Cassandra for the fall of Troy. IT IS NOT THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS FAULT. They told you something like this would happen.

They have been saying for years we should reduce our dependency on oil...not on just foreign oil. Because sooner or later it would be a dependency on foreign oil again. And why focus on just nuclear - what about solar and wind? They have little to no pollution risk and are much less finite. And think of the other opportunities that would be created as we replace the petroleum in things like plastics.

It was the petroleum companies that; rather than diversify their energy sources and possible profit sources; decided that they would just keep going with the drilling in places that were "extremely difficult, dangerous and expensive" No one told they to do it, they made that choice all on their own. Their choice - their blame.

Them and the fools that they bribed with sex and drugs to green light the project to begin with .... but that is a whole different post.

Excellent post Pais! You made short work of that idiotic post. I am so happy there is still someone with some sense on this board besides me.

I saw Freaks post but was too disgusted and busy to reply. Thanks for shedding light on his outright lies but I will tell you, It does not surprise me. Hard right folk seem to resort to anything to smear their opposition even if it makes NO SENSE . I am still astounded he would blame environmentalists for the Gulf Oil Spill. UnFregginBelieveable!

Good work PAIS!

[LedZap]

Instead of insults...why don't you show us where you think he's lying ?

[freakazoid]

Excellent post Pais! You made short work of that idiotic post. I am so happy there is still someone with some sense on this board besides me.

I saw Freaks post but was too disgusted and busy to reply. Thanks for shedding light on his outright lies but I will tell you, It does not surprise me. Hard right folk seem to resort to anything to smear their opposition even if it makes NO SENSE . I am still astounded he would blame environmentalists for the Gulf Oil Spill. UnFregginBelieveable!

Good work PAIS!

beelzebub, I simply can't take you or your posts seriously. Sorry, they are obviously intended as a silly attack and not containing anything worth bothering with. Sad.

[Paisleyspeaker]

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? If so, you're the only one on the planet who has it. You might want to contact the several boards of inquiry who are looking into the spill accident and let them in on your findings.

I was watching the congressional hearings and was watching the folks from BP, Haliburton, and Tranocean try to throw each other under the bus. BP saying Haliburton didn't build it right, Haliburton saying Transocean failed to maintain the system properly. Even BP's own investigations are showing safety failures.

I will try to track down the day and portion that I saw. Of course there will eventually be a definite answer, hopefully all those big brains are focused on not only capping the well but cleaning up the spill and the plumes.

I am only addressing the claims I made about the causes - not the fact I hope is well established - that environmentalists have long been against drilling, pretty much anywhere. Those I know have been advocates of wind, passive and active solar and more energy efficient living.

[LedZap]

From what I've read since the beginning of this , I think it went down this way...Haliburton had just finished encasing the bore pipe with cement. The next step after curing was to inject cement into the pipe to cap the well until production . As the encasing cement hardens , it creates heat. The proper procedure is to wait until the cement hardens and the temp drops back down .Until then drilling mud must remain in the riser to hold back expansion. Once the temp is down and there is no more threat of hydrates gassing off ,the mud can be replaces with lighter sea water for the cement cap procedure. BP authorities in charge ordered the mud to be removed early (so it could be used at another project) , the natural gas hydrates gassed off and expanded up the pipe , pushing out the sea water and exploding when contacting the running machinery on the rig. Also there was a report on the Blow Out Preventer. Something about faulty wiring. The BOP would have worked no problem to stop the blowout if it was functioning.

[freakazoid]

I was watching the congressional hearings and was watching the folks from BP, Haliburton, and Tranocean try to throw each other under the bus. BP saying Haliburton didn't build it right, Haliburton saying Transocean failed to maintain the system properly. Even BP's own investigations are showing safety failures.

I will try to track down the day and portion that I saw. Of course there will eventually be a definite answer, hopefully all those big brains are focused on not only capping the well but cleaning up the spill and the plumes.

I am only addressing the claims I made about the causes - not the fact I hope is well established - that environmentalists have long been against drilling, pretty much anywhere. Those I know have been advocates of wind, passive and active solar and more energy efficient living.

LMAO...did the hearings include how much sex and drugs were involved? Just curious. I hope the hookers were hot looking! LOL

[LedZap]

Nobody's POASTING , so here......

http://www.moldychum.com/storage/wolf%20fish%205.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=127 5864771976

[Patt]

I was watching the congressional hearings and was watching the folks from BP, Haliburton, and Tranocean try to throw each other under the bus. BP saying Haliburton didn't build it right, Haliburton saying Transocean failed to maintain the system properly. Even BP's own investigations are showing safety failures.

I will try to track down the day and portion that I saw. Of course there will eventually be a definite answer, hopefully all those big brains are focused on not only capping the well but cleaning up the spill and the plumes.

I am only addressing the claims I made about the causes - not the fact I hope is well established - that environmentalists have long been against drilling, pretty much anywhere. Those I know have been advocates of wind, passive and active solar and more energy efficient living.

I too watched those hearings. The fact that there are no definitive facts to post and debate should tell you to withhold judgment until such time as you do have facts. Your previous statement assumes that you have such things. I frankly don't think you do. You can claim that the moon is made of green cheese but that wouldn't make you any more believable than your claims about the gulf oil spill. You see, it's well known that there is no one reason we can point to that caused the well to explode. Don't be trying to bullshit a bunch of bullshitters. It's never going to work. Also, when you name corporations - you best be naming MMS and the Obama Administration too. They permitted Deep Water Horizon. They can't blame this on Bush and neither can you.

Overview of U.S. Legislation and Regulations Affecting Offshore Natural Gas and Oil Activity (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/feature_articles/2005/offshore/offshore.pdf)

Re-Organizing Structure of MMS (http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=32499)via Deep Water Horizon after explosion from Ken Salazar.

As to environmentalists forcing any oil company to drill offshore: You say no one forced them to drill offshore in deep water. However, activists have long lobbied for no onshore or near shore drilling. I do believe a simple google would prove that point beginning in Carter's administration. I believe the legislation and regulations that are a culmination of that lobby effort are what you find in today's laws. However, with that said, and frankly I get a chuckle out of your premise, if oil companies, who are in the business of locating and producing oil are to find that product, and they are prohibited from that search on land or near shore, where oh where do you think they are going to look? What with the surface of the earth being a combination of land and water, they have only one other place to look --- right? Sort of makes your statement of 'no one forced them' rather silly, doesn't it?

You can advocate all day long about 'green' technology and how it would save us from ourselves when it comes to energy production, but that only tells me that you've really not studied what it does to the economy or to the jobs market of a nation. I suggest you take a look at Spain's introduction and production of solar energy beginning in 2005 and see what it did to both their economy and to their job market. For every one green job added, two were lost and it's cost prohibitive to both the supplier and the consumer. As to wind - take a look at what it's done in Cape Cod - you have there a wind project that has been approved for installation yet you also have environmentalists who are bitching about the 'look' of the project. The NIMBYs are enraged. They simply don't want to see those big bastards as it will ruin their view and therefore their way of life. Let's not even mention the recent study saying that dolphins are leaving several areas that have offshore wind farms simply because the sonar they use for direction and feeding is skewed by the sound that these things produce.

There's more to this entire subject than just ad hoc response and knee jerk reaction. Additionally, I find it quite curious that you didn't mention nuclear as the answer to our energy needs. This of course is due to the last time we had environmentalists react to a disaster concerning energy production. Three Mile Island produced a moratorium on nuclear plants and since that disaster, we've had very few plants that have been approved. Without that approval, we began to rely more and more on overseas purchases of oil to maintain our energy production. That is what results when we have outrage that is unfocused and short sighted once a disaster takes place.

Let's NOT make the same mistake twice. Wait to see what actually took place and what really was the cause. Then place the blame. I have a direct aversion to people pointing fingers while the chaos continues. There's plenty of time later to bitch and moan. Right now, we need to focus on what is before us: a well that continues to leak and a growing impact on the fish and wildlife in the gulf coast region, thereby affecting those that live and work in the area.

Please, don't be an Obama. Be a level headed citizen who's willing to work the problem instead of needing to place blame before the facts are in hand.

[freakazoid]

I too watched those hearings. The fact that there are no definitive facts to post and debate should tell you to withhold judgment until such time as you do have facts. Your previous statement assumes that you have such things. I frankly don't think you do. You can claim that the moon is made of green cheese but that wouldn't make you any more believable than your claims about the gulf oil spill. You see, it's well known that there is no one reason we can point to that caused the well to explode. Don't be trying to bullshit a bunch of bullshitters. It's never going to work. Also, when you name corporations - you best be naming MMS and the Obama Administration too. They permitted Deep Water Horizon. They can't blame this on Bush and neither can you.

Overview of U.S. Legislation and Regulations Affecting Offshore Natural Gas and Oil Activity (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/feature_articles/2005/offshore/offshore.pdf)

Re-Organizing Structure of MMS (http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=32499)via Deep Water Horizon after explosion from Ken Salazar.

As to environmentalists forcing any oil company to drill offshore: You say no one forced them to drill offshore in deep water. However, activists have long lobbied for no onshore or near shore drilling. I do believe a simple google would prove that point beginning in Carter's administration. I believe the legislation and regulations that are a culmination of that lobby effort are what you find in today's laws. However, with that said, and frankly I get a chuckle out of your premise, if oil companies, who are in the business of locating and producing oil are to find that product, and they are prohibited from that search on land or near shore, where oh where do you think they are going to look? What with the surface of the earth being a combination of land and water, they have only one other place to look --- right? Sort of makes your statement of 'no one forced them' rather silly, doesn't it?

You can advocate all day long about 'green' technology and how it would save us from ourselves when it comes to energy production, but that only tells me that you've really not studied what it does to the economy or to the jobs market of a nation. I suggest you take a look at Spain's introduction and production of solar energy beginning in 2005 and see what it did to both their economy and to their job market. For every one green job added, two were lost and it's cost prohibitive to both the supplier and the consumer. As to wind - take a look at what it's done in Cape Cod - you have there a wind project that has been approved for installation yet you also have environmentalists who are bitching about the 'look' of the project. The NIMBYs are enraged. They simply don't want to see those big bastards as it will ruin their view and therefore their way of life. Let's not even mention the recent study saying that dolphins are leaving several areas that have offshore wind farms simply because the sonar they use for direction and feeding is skewed by the sound that these things produce.

There's more to this entire subject than just ad hoc response and knee jerk reaction. Additionally, I find it quite curious that you didn't mention nuclear as the answer to our energy needs. This of course is due to the last time we had environmentalists react to a disaster concerning energy production. Three Mile Island produced a moratorium on nuclear plants and since that disaster, we've had very few plants that have been approved. Without that approval, we began to rely more on more on overseas purchases of oil to maintain our energy production. That is what results when we have outrage that is unfocused and short sighted once a disaster takes place.

Let's NOT make the same mistake twice. Wait to see what actually took place and what really was the cause. Then place the blame. I have a direct aversion to people pointing fingers while the chaos continues. There's plenty of time later to bitch and moan. Right now, we need to focus on what is before us: a well that continues to leak and a growing impact on the fish and wildlife in the gulf coast region, thereby affecting those that live and work in the area.

Please, don't be an Obama. Be a level headed citizen who's willing to work the problem instead of needing to place blame before the facts are in hand.

Great post! Great information, thanks for posting!

[freakazoid]

Nobody's POASTING , so here......

http://www.moldychum.com/storage/wolf%20fish%205.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=127 5864771976

The word "bitch" comes to mind.

[freakazoid]

"Drill baby,Drill !!" :p
.................

http://images1.fanpop.com/images/photos/1500000/Liberal-Crap-debate-1567964-300-391.jpg

[MrJim]

Well, we COULD give up our cars and ride bikes - too bad that our bikes and sneakers have petroleum products in them though - and it still requires oil to build and maintain the roads that we bike on. We could also shut off our A/C, but the fans we would switch to have plastic in them. Even the insulation we use in our homes to curb energy use was created from oil. Not only would we be riding bikes in triple-digit weather during the summertime, but without oil we would do so without deoderant - it's also an oil product. Stop and get a cool milkshake and you might forget there's a petrochemical-based thickener in.

We can never give up our dependence on oil - ever - we can only cut our usage at the expense of many jobs in the Gulf. Wind and solar power would not be enough to power the country, and as bad as this spill is, it is not even on the same playing field as a nuclear explosion.

All of that being said, I hope they get this under control and learn a thing or two to prevent a future spill of this magnitude. Oil companies on the shores of Alabama, for example, are already figuring out how to capture the oil as it washes ashore, which may help.

[Patt]

News update - watch Bill Gates - he has a 16 billion dollar proposal toward an energy change in America (bad news is that he asks for yet another layer of government in the form of some stupid commission.) He's looking to put it into R & D. No, he's not in congress and no, we don't have the money. BUT - as Hoyer said of the new request for 50 billion in funding that came out yesterday from Obama (teachers' unions --- sheesh) the Dems are going to see if they can take that out of the Stimulus that was already passed where the monies have yet to be appropriated. Perhaps that 16 billion can come out of that as well. It would, after all be a job creator and not just that 'saved' job shit Obama's been pushing. Perhaps also next time Obama wants more spending he won't first release the request to the press before he sends it to congress - and certainly NOT on a Saturday evening after meeting with the leadership the previous Tuesday and never, ever bringing the issue up face to face.

Couple of questions though, while I'm here: Why does Obama think it's a good idea to refuse to meet with people who are integral to pressing subjects to America's future? But, he, as a candidate, thinks it's a good idea to meet one on one with America's sworn enemies?

Let's review - first, he's 'too busy' to meet with Jan Brewer when she's in DC on Arizona's problems with illegal immigrants and her new immigration bill. Then, he doesn't find Tony Hayward to be important to meet with regarding the Gulf Oil spill and prefers the Chairman of the BP Board. He covers that stupidity with a surprise schedule change that allows him to talk to Governor Brewer and now tries to tell America, through Gibbs, that the Corporate structure of BP says that Tony Hayward isn't in fact the one who makes the day to day decisions regarding the operations of the company.

I submit to all of you that Obama is a total screw up and doesn't know his asshole from the spewing hole in the Gulf.

Brewer was the person to talk to - in fact, if he had the stones he should have and behaved like a {gasp} leader, he'd of gone to Arizona to seek her out regarding the problem with illegal immigrants. Notice, he didn't.

Hayward DOES make the day to day decisions on BP's operations as it's CEO and the Board of Directors only gives general guidance to the company's future strategies. Notice that the Obama White House doesn't even understand what a corporate structure is or how it operates. Damn, how dumb!

It's like the OJT that Obama has gone through so far simply hasn't worked because he's too pig headed to think for a second that he possibly, just possibly mind you, is NOT the smartest man in the room on all subjects at all times. I can hardly wait for the big news presser on Tuesday.

It's much like the Governor of Alabama said today - there are 13 different agencies working in the Gulf and despite what we've been told by Obama, Thad Allen is NOT the number one decider down there on this problem. Any one of the 13 different agency heads has the right to veto a decision that is agreed upon by the others. That is NOT leadership. That is simply being a cog in a wheel that is too big to operate efficiently. And that proves the Conservative point of view that a government that is too big is unable to operate efficiently.

Jesus God, when will Obama pull his head out of his ass and realize just what his job is here? MAKE those 13 agencies work in some sort of comprehensive, well thought out game plan to mitigate the damage done to the shores of the United States. And, for heaven's sake, stop wasting your time with letters to BP demanding that they do something to stop the leak and stop with the pointing fingers and lawsuits. Our nation needs a BP with deep pockets until this entire matter is settled. Is Obama so brain dead that he thinks they aren't working the problem day in and day out, 24/7? Does he not yet understand that BP knows that their very existence depends upon it? Simple minded liberal idiot - hell, he's not even a useful idiot at this point!

[mooreed2323]

i noticed in the news today that one of the ships involved in the recovery phase of the oil had a little run in with a lightning bolt.


here is a pic of the ship, DiscovererEnterprise


http://img40.imagefra.me/img/img40/8/6/16/mooreed2323/f_ggf3d5fqm_989cce3.png

it is currently anchored at 28.7386N 88.3666W and is flagged under the Marshall Is.

it is very interesting that there are several "dredgers" in the area

but to look at the ship photos, they are drill platforms, plain and simple.

here is DD3, one of the rigs drilling the relief wells

http://img38.imagefra.me/img/img38/8/6/16/mooreed2323/f_e4tm_0868cd4.png

[Paisleyspeaker]

Wow, I found one statement that I can agree with. Jim you are right - the spill is nothing compared to a nuclear explosion. I suspect that Nuclear could be usable option - if we could nationalize it. (I know collective groan from the small government crowd) There is no way I could see it being safe enough with profit motive attached. Corporations are legally bound to make a profit - not to do things the best or safest way- but the cheapest.


Now on to the rest.

Freak there was a large scandal involving the Mineral Management Service

"The report says that eight officials in the royalty program accepted gifts from energy companies whose value exceeded limits set by ethics rules — including golf, ski and paintball outings; meals and drinks; and tickets to a Toby Keith concert, a Houston Texans football game and a Colorado Rockies baseball game.

The investigation also concluded that several of the officials “frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and gas company representatives.”

The investigation separately found that the program’s manager mixed official and personal business. In sometimes lurid detail, the report also accuses him of having intimate relations with two subordinates, one of whom regularly sold him cocaine.

The culture of the organization “appeared to be devoid of both the ethical standards and internal controls sufficient to protect the integrity of this vital revenue-producing program,” one report said." rest of article here (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html)

So, no there were no hookers, they were doing cocaine and having sex with oil industry lobbyists and executives. And as a result of the investigations Bill Nelson a congressman from Florida asked for a moratorium on off shore drilling until it could be determined that the permits given actually should have been given.


And Patt - who said I couldn't blame Bush before I even tried to - then proceeded to excrete more Obama bashing than some of our older right wing members. This scandal happened in the years around 2002. The individuals involved were married to (involved with ) Bush appointees. The Justice Department, that found clear violations of laws and ethics and chose not to prosecute everyone involved, was that of the Bush administration. But I am not going to blame Bush, and though Cheney would be a much better target I am not going to get that specific. I am going to blame the entire fucked up political and economic movement that values dollars over lives - that holds that business can do no wrong- who provides excuses for atrocities as long as
they are committed by our corporate citizens.


I think that Zap stated it very well. According to the details that he provided BP is pretty clearly at fault. They removed the drilling mud too early - because they needed it somewhere else - they removed the drilling mud early resulting in an explosion that killed 11 people. That is dumping thousands of gallons of oil into the Gulf right before hurricane season.

[Paisleyspeaker]

One more thing. These oil jobs - are they worth more than all the other jobs in the Gulf region? The thousands who work in the tourism industry? The fishermen and shrimpers? Who is really loosing more?


And BTW he did meet with the CEO "who make the day to day choices" and the Chairman of the Board ( who had to be there to do things like create the escrow account. duh!!!) You say he should make them do it, but if he did another conservative would just scream and cry about how he is overstepping his bounds and is a dirty socialist ( just like when he stepped in with GM - ousting the CEO that had led them into bankruptcy)

There should just be a general admission that the only thing he could do to make you (all our conservatives) happy is resign.


And before you knee jerk into how I just love him and defend him ( which I don't I have huge issues with a number of his policies) just like you knee jerked into "you can't blame Bush". Those who hate him so much, just have no place is discussing his merits - you could never admit he has any. Nothing that one sided could be called debate or discussion.

[freakazoid]

Wow, I found one statement that I can agree with. Jim you are right - the spill is nothing compared to a nuclear explosion. I suspect that Nuclear could be usable option - if we could nationalize it. (I know collective groan from the small government crowd) There is no way I could see it being safe enough with profit motive attached. Corporations are legally bound to make a profit - not to do things the best or safest way- but the cheapest.


Now on to the rest.

Freak there was a large scandal involving the Mineral Management Service

"The report says that eight officials in the royalty program accepted gifts from energy companies whose value exceeded limits set by ethics rules — including golf, ski and paintball outings; meals and drinks; and tickets to a Toby Keith concert, a Houston Texans football game and a Colorado Rockies baseball game.

The investigation also concluded that several of the officials “frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and gas company representatives.”

The investigation separately found that the program’s manager mixed official and personal business. In sometimes lurid detail, the report also accuses him of having intimate relations with two subordinates, one of whom regularly sold him cocaine.

The culture of the organization “appeared to be devoid of both the ethical standards and internal controls sufficient to protect the integrity of this vital revenue-producing program,” one report said." rest of article here (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html)

So, no there were no hookers, they were doing cocaine and having sex with oil industry lobbyists and executives. And as a result of the investigations Bill Nelson a congressman from Florida asked for a moratorium on off shore drilling until it could be determined that the permits given actually should have been given.


And Patt - who said I couldn't blame Bush before I even tried to - then proceeded to excrete more Obama bashing than some of our older right wing members. This scandal happened in the years around 2002. The individuals involved were married to (involved with ) Bush appointees. The Justice Department, that found clear violations of laws and ethics and chose not to prosecute everyone involved, was that of the Bush administration. But I am not going to blame Bush, and though Cheney would be a much better target I am not going to get that specific. I am going to blame the entire fucked up political and economic movement that values dollars over lives - that holds that business can do no wrong- who provides excuses for atrocities as long as
they are committed by our corporate citizens.


I think that Zap stated it very well. According to the details that he provided BP is pretty clearly at fault. They removed the drilling mud too early - because they needed it somewhere else - they removed the drilling mud early resulting in an explosion that killed 11 people. That is dumping thousands of gallons of oil into the Gulf right before hurricane season.

RE: "The investigation also concluded that several of the officials “frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and gas company representatives.”"

Sounds like everyday life in America in any industry; so what, Helen? “frequently consumed alcohol" ...damn, I'll tell ya; no one should ever have a cocktail at a company party! And sex; noooo, really, you think? Imagine that, people having sex!!! The nerve of some people!! And people were actually smoking pot!!!! Damn hippies!!!!

http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/shocking.jpg

[Rec]

Oh, not to worry, after a detailed "twenty minute" meeting with the oil company, an agreement was made for payment of twenty
billion dollars from the oil company to be turned over to the government, with, of course one of Obama's cronies as overseer.
Another slush fund for the Democrats to plundered like the Tarp mess. It will be interesting to see just how much is made
available to the hurting people for relief. So far, the "give aways" by the Obama administration has been indirectly some-
where else rather than what it is appropriated for. Who,,,,,,,is going to watch the hen house funds, where they are going?
The Obama congress and minions???? Watch for another financial switching of the progressives that never seem to
help a damn thing for the common working man.

As for the speech before the meeting, a hired, emotionless robot could have done the same thing, maybe even better.
The man is an empty suit with no life, other than anger "to kick azz" and that never has brought jobs, more
small business or any other promise to fruition. How much can the big man spend and waste? Watch and see
how much relief trickles down to the working class of people. Not much, you can bet!!!

[mooreed2323]

Actually Freak, she brings up some great points that only serves to re-inforce what some of us have been screaming for years.

Too many in Washington and those that serve them have been there too long. They have become drunk with the power and NO LONGER DO THEY

REPRESENT THOSE THAT ELECTED THEM!!!!!!!

[freakazoid]

Oh, not to worry, after a detailed "twenty minute" meeting with the oil company, an agreement was made for payment of twenty
billion dollars from the oil company to be turned over to the government, with, of course one of Obama's cronies as overseer.
Another slush fund for the Democrats to plundered like the Tarp mess. It will be interesting to see just how much is made
available to the hurting people for relief. So far, the "give aways" by the Obama administration has been indirectly some-
where else rather than what it is appropriated for. Who,,,,,,,is going to watch the hen house funds, where they are going?
The Obama congress and minions???? Watch for another financial switching of the progressives that never seem to
help a damn thing for the common working man.

As for the speech before the meeting, a hired, emotionless robot could have done the same thing, maybe even better.
The man is an empty suit with no life, other than anger "to kick azz" and that never has brought jobs, more
small business or any other promise to fruition. How much can the big man spend and waste? Watch and see
how much relief trickles down to the working class of people. Not much, you can bet!!!

It will be interesting to see where that money REALLY goes.

[freakazoid]

Actually Freak, she brings up some great points that only serves to re-inforce what some of us have been screaming for years.

Too many in Washington and those that serve them have been there too long. They have become drunk with the power and NO LONGER DO THEY

REPRESENT THOSE THAT ELECTED THEM!!!!!!!

That is VERY true, and why I say...

http://www.kickthemallout.com/Banners/Animated/HoldThemAccountable_468x60.gif

[MrJim]

Wow, I found one statement that I can agree with. Jim you are right - the spill is nothing compared to a nuclear explosion. I suspect that Nuclear could be usable option - if we could nationalize it. (I know collective groan from the small government crowd) There is no way I could see it being safe enough with profit motive attached. Corporations are legally bound to make a profit - not to do things the best or safest way- but the cheapest.

At least you understand the dangers of nuclear power; many don't. Not only are those who work directly with the enrichment of plutonium at high risk for health problems, carefully calculated terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities would quicky decimate America with a fiery, cancerous blast. I'm really surprised that companies in the Houston area haven't been targeted already.

As far as the cheapest way vs. the best or safest, I would like to point out that another emergency bill for the unemployed failed to pass a test phase in the Senate this week because Washington is also tightening its belt - an embarrasing blow to the charismatic 'provide for the poor' ambitions of our administration, stunning macroeconomists that are privy to the importance of unemployment rates. Our debt relative to GDP is unsustainable and there is no dodging it. A bill nationalizing energy is certainly not going to make it when we are already sacrificing a key to our recovery.

[Patt]

Paisleyspeaker;

One more thing. These oil jobs - are they worth more than all the other jobs in the Gulf region? The thousands who work in the tourism industry? The fishermen and shrimpers? Who is really loosing more?

Yes. "A young fellow could get out of high school and come offshore, and in 2 or 3 years he's making 60,000 a year without having to go to college or do good in high school. In 6 or 7, years he could double that. But that's all he knows how to do. There's nothing else in industrial America that's like what we do. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/10/offshore-rig-workers-brac_n_607459.html)

And BTW he did meet with the CEO "who make the day to day choices" and the Chairman of the Board ( who had to be there to do things like create the escrow account. duh!!!) You say he should make them do it, but if he did another conservative would just scream and cry about how he is overstepping his bounds and is a dirty socialist ( just like when he stepped in with GM - ousting the CEO that had led them into bankruptcy)

What could have possibly been wrong with him picking up the phone to discuss his concerns with BP far sooner than he did? Especially if he was 'on top of it from day one' as he says. You'd do best remember, that like Jan Brewer, the Governor of Arizona, Obama said he didn't have to talk to the CEO of BP at first.

Two of the most important issues facing America and her citizens and Obama says he doesn't need to meet with the principles involved? That's hubris and stupid hubris at that.

There should just be a general admission that the only thing he could do to make you (all our conservatives) happy is resign.

He could admit he's not the guy with every answer to every question to start. I'd like that. A smattering of humility would do nicely. But, every time he pulls a stunt like this, and then tries to talk his way out of it, it proves the conservative point made during the election - the man actually had NO executive experience and didn't qualify for the job he now has. It's no wonder he doesn't understand what Tony and Jan do on a daily basis and therefore thinks that they are unimportant in how a state and/or corporation operates on a daily basis.

And before you knee jerk into how I just love him and defend him ( which I don't I have huge issues with a number of his policies) just like you knee jerked into "you can't blame Bush". Those who hate him so much, just have no place is discussing his merits - you could never admit he has any. Nothing that one sided could be called debate or discussion.

I think the stupid meme of 'it's Bush's fault' is appropriate to smack down here. First of all, there is a report made during Bush's term, the one you quoted from earlier, stating that the MMS has big problems. Second, you have Ken Salazar stating it's the first agency that he's reforming, top to bottom. Then you have Darrell Issa's bill from last year calling for a reform of MMS in the House which Pelosi shuffled off to committee. Then you have a plan submitted for this well by BP to Salazar's MMS, then you have that plan's approval by Salazar's MMS.

Then you have the blow out and the request for testimony by the oversight committee from the MMS personnel who approved the plan. Then, on the day that the head of MMS is to testify, you have Obama firing her just prior to her appearance - ergo, no appearance. To date, no appearance has been made by a member of MMS to the oversight committee in their role in the approval of this well.

You're damn skippy this blow out wasn't Bush's fault. And, anyone who dares bring that up should be shut down faster than BP can cap the Deepwater Horizon.

[Patt]

At least you understand the dangers of nuclear power; many don't. Not only are those who work directly with the enrichment of plutonium at high risk for health problems, carefully calculated terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities would quicky decimate America with a fiery, cancerous blast. I'm really surprised that companies in the Houston area haven't been targeted already.

As far as the cheapest way vs. the best or safest, I would like to point out that another emergency bill for the unemployed failed to pass a test phase in the Senate this week because Washington is also tightening its belt - an embarrasing blow to the charismatic 'provide for the poor' ambitions of our administration, stunning macroeconomists that are privy to the importance of unemployment rates. Our debt relative to GDP is unsustainable and there is no dodging it. A bill nationalizing energy is certainly not going to make it when we are already sacrificing a key to our recovery.

All they would have to do is pay for the damned thing under the pay-go that congress adopted and it would fly right through. Will the Democrats do that? NO. Because of that, most politicians are voting to not fund that which is before them. Why? Because they are afraid of their constituents. It's about damned time that took place.

[MrJim]

One more thing. These oil jobs - are they worth more than all the other jobs in the Gulf region? The thousands who work in the tourism industry? The fishermen and shrimpers? Who is really loosing more?

I'm not defending BP at all, and they absolutely should be responsible for the damages at every level - including class action suits by fishermen, restaurant owners, etc. - just a drop in a huge bucket for BP. With a moratorium on oil drilling, however, we have a losing scenario for everyone because it will only serve to increase energy prices and hurt consumer spending. If we want to use the spill as ammo for renewable energy, we need to realize all effects nationwide rather than the region alone. Harsh as this may sound, the area will recover - other energy companies are preparing to catch the oil as it moves ashore, so after the leak is stopped completely, the effects will soon peter out and BP's trash will be another company's treasure. The Exxon Valdez spill is one example of a crisis long forgotten.

[MrJim]

All they would have to do is pay for the damned thing under the pay-go that congress adopted and it would fly right through. Will the Democrats do that? NO. Because of that, most politicians are voting to not fund that which is before them. Why? Because they are afraid of their constituents. It's about damned time that took place.

The fear is a ballooning deficit, which doesn't look favorable to voters in November who were expecting a Clinton-era deficit reduction and received a WWII-era deficit explosion.

[Patt]

The fear is a ballooning deficit, which doesn't look favorable to voters in November who were expecting a Clinton-era deficit reduction and received a WWII-era deficit explosion.

I've long advocated that Obama's Stimulus Package should have been the move away from foreign oil and upgrading the grid. The nation was ready for that after the election. Obama blew it - big time. It would have given the nation a sense of purpose and a goal to reach as we recovered from the near disaster in the financial sector. Unfortunately, Obama decided to squander what little we had on payoffs to his minions for electing him. Had Obama actually been worth his salt, we'd not be facing this continued high unemployment rate, the lack of federal dollars collected through taxation due to people not working nor the non-start to a move away from foreign purchases had he taken that approach.

He shouldn't have been given the job. He was in no way qualified. Leaving the Stimulus Package up to Pelosi and congress proves that. It has no sense of vision.

[Paisleyspeaker]

I've long advocated that Obama's Stimulus Package should have been the move away from foreign oil and upgrading the grid. The nation was ready for that after the election. Obama blew it - big time. It would have given the nation a sense of purpose and a goal to reach as we recovered from the near disaster in the financial sector. Unfortunately, Obama decided to squander what little we had on payoffs to his minions for electing him. Had Obama actually been worth his salt, we'd not be facing this continued high unemployment rate, the lack of federal dollars collected through taxation due to people not working nor the non-start to a move away from foreign purchases had he taken that approach.

He shouldn't have been given the job. He was in no way qualified. Leaving the Stimulus Package up to Pelosi and congress proves that. It has no sense of vision.

Hey , we almost agree there. The stimulus should have been the move away from oil and the development of not only energy without petroleum - but also plastics and farming without petroleum as well.

But he dropped the ball. I don't think it is lack of vision. I think that he articulated a vision in the election. Maybe just a lack of the mojo it takes to make it happen. Too much professor and not enough arm twister. :rolleyes:

[MrJim]

He likely passed this opportunity up because the fallout of the financial markets sent oil plunging from nearly $150 to nearly $35 in 2008. Falling prices for oil created diminishing public interest for alternative energy sources. However, the prices are rising again, meeting the current equilibirum in the $60-$80 range - still very expensive for an economy still struggling. If/when prices climb beyond $100 a barrel again, the interest in alternative fuels will return.

[Rec]

The man and his minions do not have a clue as to how to run this country, other than in the ground.

Which at the moment, he would get an A+!

[Paisleyspeaker]

You can't seriously blame this all on Obama. When Clinton left office there were budget surpluses. Bush through tax cuts and two very expensive wars ( where the VP's alma mater Haliburton received some fat no bid contracts and their negligence fulfilling the terms has led to the death of US military members.) had to go to Congress and have the cap on the amount we could go into debt raised for his own spending plans.

Remember the idea Bush came into office with, to privatize Social Security - we would all have accounts that we could invest into the stock market. I think there are many seniors the wake every morning thanking God that didn't happen.

He had no sense with money. I am thinking the same thing about our current POTUS too. I'll admit that I do like some of what he is spending it on. But still have some questions about the details of it. And before you blame Obama for the TARP program check your dates. That one is clearly the baby of the Bush Administration. The stimulus you can blame on him.

I understand the ideas behind the cry for smaller government - I question what it turns into. But I really don't understand how you folks who want smaller balanced budgets could possibly still defend and embrace a man who spent more than any president before him. Bush was just not fiscally conservative by any measure.

[mooreed2323]

When Clinton left office there were budget surpluses. Bush through tax cuts and two very expensive wars

The Clinton surplus everyone is sooooooo happy to run out and brag about was a surplus ONLY AFTER SOCIAL SECURITY REVENUES WERE COUNTED AS PART OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MONIES.

Tax cuts, historicly, have almost always spawned increased tax revenues as it tends to create more jobs and investments

And need I remind anyone that Presidents CAN NOT start wars, The War has to be authorized by Congress, which it was, by an overwhelming majority.

[Paisleyspeaker]

:D:DHey look BP has a new CEO - I bet the board still has the same chairman. So who was a what for meeting with the chairman?????:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Rec]

You can't seriously blame this all on Obama. When Clinton left office there were budget surpluses. Bush through tax cuts and two very expensive wars ( where the VP's alma mater Haliburton received some fat no bid contracts and their negligence fulfilling the terms has led to the death of US military members.) had to go to Congress and have the cap on the amount we could go into debt raised for his own spending plans.

Remember the idea Bush came into office with, to privatize Social Security - we would all have accounts that we could invest into the stock market. I think there are many seniors the wake every morning thanking God that didn't happen.

He had no sense with money. I am thinking the same thing about our current POTUS too. I'll admit that I do like some of what he is spending it on. But still have some questions about the details of it. And before you blame Obama for the TARP program check your dates. That one is clearly the baby of the Bush Administration. The stimulus you can blame on him.

I understand the ideas behind the cry for smaller government - I question what it turns into. But I really don't understand how you folks who want smaller balanced budgets could possibly still defend and embrace a man who spent more than any president before him. Bush was just not fiscally conservative by any measure.


Nowhere did I say that I defended anybody, but given the track record so far, I would take Bush back over Obama anytime.....In general I am po'ed mostly at the
freaking Congress and the power brokers there. But when a nation gets a Congress and a sitting President, joined together at the hip joint, everybody loses! JMO

[hitekredneck]

You can't seriously blame this all on Obama.
why not?...after all, libs have blamed bush for everything from katrina to the current state of affairs...i don't blame him for the actual spill, but i do blame him for not accepting help from countries with the technology to slow the spill if not stop it...i blame him for spending so much effort on healthcare when the national unemployment rate hovers around 10%....it's my belief that between the army corp of engineers and our scientists as well as experienced drilling engineers could have stopped the flow long ago, but the incedent works great for obama to raise a "carbon tax" as well as push away from petroleum products when we do NOT have anything to replace it...face it PS, your idol has failed miserably.

[freakazoid]

why not?...after all, libs have blamed bush for everything from katrina to the current state of affairs...i don't blame him for the actual spill, but i do blame him for not accepting help from countries with the technology to slow the spill if not stop it...i blame him for spending so much effort on healthcare when the national unemployment rate hovers around 10%....it's my belief that between the army corp of engineers and our scientists as well as experienced drilling engineers could have stopped the flow long ago, but the incedent works great for obama to raise a "carbon tax" as well as push away from petroleum products when we do NOT have anything to replace it...face it PS, your idol has failed miserably.

RE: "face it PS, your idol has failed miserably. "

That is for damn sure!

[Patt]

Hey , we almost agree there. The stimulus should have been the move away from oil and the development of not only energy without petroleum - but also plastics and farming without petroleum as well.

But he dropped the ball. I don't think it is lack of vision. I think that he articulated a vision in the election. Maybe just a lack of the mojo it takes to make it happen. Too much professor and not enough arm twister. :rolleyes:

Why don't you try and tell me what 'vision' you think Obama articulated in the election. Better yet, size that up with what's actually happened.

You do understand, I hope, that the reduction in fossil fuels automatically equates to a reduction in plastics. I'm hoping you take the time to read that ignorant bill that came out of the House regarding Cap and Trade and actually look into how much CO2 it would really reduce - believe me, you're going to laugh when you look into it - suffice it to say the number is miniscule. Note also the reduction in the number of bbls imported. LOL - I found it a hoot. Then, bop on over and read the Kerry-Liberman bill that's slogging (yeah, that word fits) around the edges of the Senate and the one Obama spoke of the other night. Forget that BP helped write it - that will just freak you out. Try then to tell us how the move away from coal mining, a fossil fuel we are rich in and one that contributes massively to our energy production now, is going to reduce the number of bbls of oil we import. Take your time. They're wordy. :D

Tell you what --- just go ahead and ask this question when you see anything from Congress or the White House - How many bbls of oil will that reduce being imported? If the answer is zero - don't advocate for what is proposed as it simply won't stop our hemorrhaging national debt. After all, we have more oil spills from tankers than we do from oil rigs. That is, if you're concerned about oil spills, and the environmental damage that can be done by that industry.

We are well past the time where we had money to invest in new technology or a national goal toward different energy sources. You can thank Obama for that - he spent the money on his lackeys, bought a car company or two, invested in some foreign banks, gave money to the Hamas backed regime, grew government and made sure the Unions were fat and happy. Past that, he's scared the bejebus out of the corporate world as they have no idea what to expect next from that brain dead anti-capitalist. Ergo, they're not doing anything until he goes away. BTW - don't come at me with tax hikes to pay for it. You have no idea what his ObamaCare is going to do to your personal income starting on January 1 of next year. Don't forget - the taxes are front loaded for four years before anyone sees any changes.

Let's hope that BS get repealed and replaced - with a quickness. After all, Obama has now put us in a position of choosing energy or health care. Hell of a position to put people in when you're supposed to be caring for the common man in America, isn't it?

Some freaking agenda you voted for - thanks. /sarcasm/

Oh gee, I left out the the National Flood Insurance Program now needs a bail out and that Congress has yet to address Fannie and Freddie who, this week, were valued below a dollar per share each, and had to give up the glory of the NYSE. You know - the housing bubble - that little thing - the one that started all of this?

Want to comment on Pelosi's new digs in San Francisco that is costing us about $19,000.00 per month? The most expensive in Congress?

[freakazoid]

:D:DHey look BP has a new CEO - I bet the board still has the same chairman. So who was a what for meeting with the chairman?????


....................
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/8708/outz.jpg

[Patt]

Too much professor and not enough arm twister. :rolleyes:

You aren't aware of who Rahm Emmanuel is, I take it? LOL

[Patt]

You can't seriously blame this all on Obama. When Clinton left office there were budget surpluses. Bush through tax cuts and two very expensive wars ( where the VP's alma mater Haliburton received some fat no bid contracts and their negligence fulfilling the terms has led to the death of US military members.) had to go to Congress and have the cap on the amount we could go into debt raised for his own spending plans.

Remember the idea Bush came into office with, to privatize Social Security - we would all have accounts that we could invest into the stock market. I think there are many seniors the wake every morning thanking God that didn't happen.

He had no sense with money. I am thinking the same thing about our current POTUS too. I'll admit that I do like some of what he is spending it on. But still have some questions about the details of it. And before you blame Obama for the TARP program check your dates. That one is clearly the baby of the Bush Administration. The stimulus you can blame on him.

I understand the ideas behind the cry for smaller government - I question what it turns into. But I really don't understand how you folks who want smaller balanced budgets could possibly still defend and embrace a man who spent more than any president before him. Bush was just not fiscally conservative by any measure.

Jesus - if you're going to try and quote Bush's policy on the privatization of Social Security - at least - for pity's sake - know who it included - it was NOT seniors.

Shit, I truly do dislike those who mouth the platitudes of the talking heads reading talking points of those that would shuffle the sheeple into the nearest shoot for slaughter....

You might also realize that Obama is relying on Paul Volcker these days as to how to come to terms with spending. Think Jimmy Carter's term and how well he did. Also, Bush only approved 1/2 of TARP because Obama was coming into office. Obama signed the rest. You need an update in your very own history lesson on what takes place within the beltway.

I'd say you're more ill informed than un-informed but clueless, none the less.

[Patt]

:D:DHey look BP has a new CEO - I bet the board still has the same chairman. So who was a what for meeting with the chairman?????:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Nope - still has the same CEO - Tony Hayward. You must listen to MSNBC a lot !! LMAO

They only changed the guy doing the day to day, on the ground stuff. Tony is STILL in charge for BP in the overall spill response.

[Patt]

Just a thought.........

210

[MrJim]

Remember the idea Bush came into office with, to privatize Social Security - we would all have accounts that we could invest into the stock market. I think there are many seniors the wake every morning thanking God that didn't happen.

The underlying idea was that Social Security was doomed - so to HELP seniors, he promoted investing the money in private accounts to keep them from losing it all. Now the headlines tell us that Social Security and Medicare are going broke even sooner than expected. When that happens, they (and certainly we) will WISH Social Security had been converted to investment accounts. Note that when investing in the stock market, you don't follow peaks and troughs, you follow long-term trends. The Dow was at 14,000 in 2007, in the 6,000's last year and is at around 10,500 now. In early 2003, it was in the 7,000s. Even with the turmoil that continues from the recession, we are at a higher level than non-recessionary 2003.

http://www.chartingstocks.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/dow0301.png

A lot of publicity surrounded the trough of last year - the lowest close since 1996 - but, WAIT A MINUTE, wasn't 1996 a boom year? How about the mid-'80s? Bottom line - long-term trends for investing. If you start at 20, 45 years later you may have quite a nest egg, barring absolute economic collapse (but Social Security won't help you with that either if it's broke).

[Patt]

And for the record, my vote is that Joe Barton was right - although he expressed it at the wrong time - here's a very good take on it.


The worst thing about Joe Barton’s “apology” (coupled with his apology for the apology) is the implication abroad in political and media circles that Barton was a jerk to have “apologized” the first time.

The implication draws attention, alas, from the truth Barton addressed. Obama’s attempts at intimidating BP warrant more than a passing glance. Barton was right: this thing sets “a terrible precedent for the future.” A couple of terrible precedents.

Precedent No. 1: Trying a company (for that matter any entity) in the media when the imputed injury is large enough. That BP is responsible for the spill seems clear enough. Responsible in what way? Responsible to what degree, and at what cost? Don’t we care to find out?

Precedent No. 2: Inspiring politicians (as if they need the inspiration) to get out in front of the lynch mob, throwing nooses over tree branches.

The president of the United States, whoever he may be at a given moment, carries about him a presumption held over from more antique times. The presumption is that the president is a grown-up, capable of keeping his cool in tough situations, wanting to hear both sides of a disputed question before rendering judgment. Instead, the present president of the United States gave it out from the Oval Office that, hell, he knew who the bad guys were in this spill business, and it sure wasn’t his guys; plus, the bad guys were—shut up; don’t argue—going to put $20 billion to cover reparations for their crimes. Lewis Carroll’s Red Queen would have understood the plan as well as the terminology: sentence first, trial afterward.

Not only that, the president of the United States asserted no legal authority for his claim to BP’s money. He demanded it—in his best stagecoach-robber mode: Whoa, pardner; get those hands up; now throw down that box. The president of the United States, or his advisers, or both, evidently thought it meaningless to assert their authority for such a demand. They asserted it. Any more questions, Sonny? Good.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/index.php/2010/06/22/good-for-you-joe-barton/

I'd like everyone to remember the recent Supreme Court Ruling stating that a corporation has the rights of an individual.

What if Obama had done this to YOU ?

[Patt]

Yet another Democrat FAIL


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., recently blamed Bush (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/pelosis-lame-blame-game-no-burrowed-in-bush-appointees-oversaw-deepwater-horizon-96833674.html) appointees who “burrowed in” at the Minerals Management Service for the regulatory failures that led to the Deepwater Horizon disaster. But as it turns out, not one of the officials responsible for overseeing the exploded rig was a Bush political appointee.


The Washington Examiner has obtained biographic information on the MMS officials responsible for overseeing BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig at the time it exploded, from the Gulf Region Director to the last inspector to set foot on the rig. Most of these federal employees started with the agency decades ago. Not one was a presidential appointment of George W. Bush, although one longtime MMS employee in question was promoted to his current position during the Bush Administration.