|
Ecological Disaster Gulf of Mexico (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Ridexer |
| I don't think they're actually trying to limit your domestic oil drilling because it's risky. Oil is finite resource, so it's only logical to exhaust the resources abroad before tapping into the own resources. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
banks have far greater responsibility in avoiding systemic risk than the thousands of customers they butted. |
I didnt say discount the banks, i just said that the customers are responsible as well and lest not forget THEY are the ones who defaulted. The bank just lent them the money on terms they agreed to. (Although shifty terms) they agreed. |
|
|
| we_R_DNA |
I just heard Fox news talk about giving up Oil so that we can move to nuclear power and create electricity along with moving to electric powered cars
This is exactly what i'd like to see happen faster; more money into Research and Development to build
 |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Don't know if anyone mentioned this point yet, but my main concern in all this, aside from the awful ecological damage that will take years to balance back out, is that the knee-jerk reaction of "Death to drilling!" is just going to make us more dependant on foreign sources.... and having more necessarily shipped in, which is how the Exxon Valdez situation happened- from a shipping mistake.
I don't think this will lead to more "urgency" for alternative energy in the public discource; we are saturated with this topic daily and have been increasingly so for years.
The truth is yes, energy prices are about to rise from this. Who will be hardest hit? The lower and middle class; adding say, 10% or 15% to the cost of food due to rising shipping costs will be horrible for them. And all of this could have been avoided!! Would we need super oil rigs reaching 5000 feet into the sea bed if barren wastelands ON DRY LAND like Anwar, Alaska could be accessed (with minimal environmental impact in comparison)? To me, this is more of a call for a reasonable, sane energy policy so we don't have to head 20 miles off shore and dig a mile deep. We always have to accept that there is risk and negatives involved if we want to see a lot of positive upside. This disaster is the consequence of a rediculously restrictive energy policy that limits the out of our own access to oil reserves on land. Now, unfortunately, photos of birds drenched in oil are about to further enslave us to energy dependence. |
Reading that other thread, you have proved to be beyond any reasonable discourse so all I'm going to say is that you are a huge imbecile. Analyze the bull you've been spewing and maybe you will realize how stupidly wrong you are. |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
Taylor expects spill to break up naturally
GULFPORT — U.S. Rep. Gene Taylor on Saturday said people shouldn’t be so scared about the massive oil spill in the Gulf; he said after flying over it, “it’s not as bad as I thought.”
Taylor said the oil could break up before reaching Mississippi shores.
Meanwhile, U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker said he is putting his focus on finding a way to contain the crude that continues to spill each day from the uncapped well in the Gulf.
Taylor flew over the site of the sunken Deepwater Horizon rig Saturday along with Department of Marine Resources Director Bill Walker and Rep. Jo Bonner of Alabama.
They viewed the spill from the extended ramp of a Coast Guard twin-engine plane 1,000 feet above the water.
“At the moment, it’s not as bad as I thought it would be,” he said, shortly after returning from the three-hour tour.
Taylor told a group of reporters waiting at Atlantic Aviation he was less concerned about the spill after witnessing its movement firsthand.
“This isn’t Katrina. It’s not Armageddon,” Taylor said. “A lot of people are scared and I don’t think they should be.”
He described the spill as a light, rainbow sheen with patches that look like chocolate milk.
He did not see any traces along the Louisiana shore, near the Chandeleur Islands in Louisiana or the barrier islands in Mississippi.
He said the closest he saw oil was 20 miles from the Louisiana marsh and that it was further than that away from the Chandeleur Islands and even further from the barrier islands.
“It’s breaking up naturally; that’s a good thing. The fact that it’s a long way from the Mississippi Gulf Coast, that’s a great thing, because it gives it time to break up naturally,” he said.
Walker said the sheen could collect on beaches and in estuaries, but it will evaporate within a week.
Walker’s plan is to let any sheen that makes its way into the marshes evaporate naturally.
“That’s what we will probably do, is leave it alone and let nature take its course,” he said.
Any residue on public beaches would be scraped away with a front-end loader, he said.
Wicker talked about the spill Saturday while attending the ribbon-cutting of the Fontainebleau Community Center/Emergency Shelter.
“I think initially our reaction is to try to stop the flow and get the oil cleanup done,” he said. “Questions will come also. But my top priority and the priority of the federal government is to stop the flow of oil and protect our wildlife.”
Wicker said he anticipated congressional hearings about the spill and wondered what the spill meant for the future of offshore drilling and energy use. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
Reading that other thread, you have proved to be beyond any reasonable discourse so all I'm going to say is that you are a huge imbecile. Analyze the bull you've been spewing and maybe you will realize how stupidly wrong you are. |
Tell me what I said in that box you quoted that makes me such an offbase imbecile. Reducing drilling would make us have to buy more from overseas. A dropoff in production would lead to increasted energy/transportation costs. There's less risk for environmental disaster by drilling on dry land than 20 miles out to sea. We drill so far off land because we are massively restricted ON land. All facts.
So, what about those statements is idiotic? Tell me, or just shut your ing mouth... you offer no alternative ideas or thoughts to any conversation... just a bunch of "you're an idiot! you're stupid! you're a right wing extremist!" ing douchebag. |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| yeah, time for Kev to snap again. Gettin' a beer for this one! Bring it! |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sushipunk
yeah, time for Kev to snap again. Gettin' a beer for this one. |
:stongue: |
|
|
| Ridexer |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Tell me what I said in that box you quoted that makes me such an offbase imbecile. Reducing drilling would make us have to buy more from overseas. A dropoff in production would lead to increasted energy/transportation costs. There's less risk for environmental disaster by drilling on dry land than 20 miles out to sea. We drill so far off land because we are massively restricted ON land. All facts.
So, what about those statements is idiotic? Tell me, or just shut your ing mouth... you offer no alternative ideas or thoughts to any conversation... just a bunch of "you're an idiot! you're stupid! you're a right wing extremist!" ing douchebag. |
They're limiting the drilling of your god damn resources because they don't want to spend them untill the price of foreign oil is trough the roof. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ridexer
They're limiting the drilling of your god damn resources because they don't want to spend them untill the price of foreign oil is trough the roof. |
although that sounds logical, it's bull. the environmentalists will never allow it, just like how we haven't been able to build another nuclear power plant in 25 years.
| quote: | Originally posted by Sushipunk
yeah, time for Kev to snap again. Gettin' a beer for this one! Bring it! |
:stongue: |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| i dont think one-eyed kev is either an idiot or stupid, which is why he's so ing frustrating. |
|
|
|
|
