Comments


  • I admit I am a novice when it comes to the oil industry but I am interested in hearing those that are experts in the field like the former CEO of Shell oil.... He said that when we are working with more than 30,000 pounds of pressure we should adhere to all the safety policies in place. Shortcuts and money should never take precedence over the lives of the workers, the environment, and the livelihood of others... He said it will always be a risky and expensive proposition; we should we should think carefully before proceeding.... As I understand it(I'm not an expert) a relief well would equalize the pressure making it easier to plug the main leak.... He said shell did not meet the standards of MMS for three years.

    I have said numerous times that without experienced staffers, a lot of politicians would be dead in the water. Several people have talked to these politicians off the record(in the so called green room) prior to a televised event saying " this guy knows less than I do and I'm a professional comedian etc."... Being the slow learning political nerd; I have to to see a piece of legislation being debated on CSPAN to get the politicians point of view, read fact checkers and to see where they lied to me, see the experts in the field give their points of view, then maybe I can make up my own mind knowing full well I still my not have all the facts. I read with interest what a poster who said he had 20 years experience working offshore, had to say about the BP spill.

    May 26, 2010 at 4:36 p.m.

  • I'm not trying to give you a hard time here Mike - I know that doesn't seem normal - but by my reckoning this would increase the probability of a blowout, there would now be two holes to keep plugged.

    It always makes me cringe a little when politicians start making recommendations on things they know absolutely nothing about. Not just offshore oil drilling, but green energy, healthcare, financial reform, etc and etc.

    May 26, 2010 at 4:06 p.m.

  • The Canadian government requires a relief well to be built alongside the deep shore rig.

    "It has yet to announce plans to drill in the region but shortly before the U.S. disaster, BP and other oil companies urged Canadian regulators to drop a requirement stipulating that companies operating in the Arctic had to drill relief wells in the same season as the primary well."

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1...

    From the Keith Olbermann show

    http://deadlinelive.info/2010/05/24/c...

    What is this going to cost BP(if they don't go bankrupt) $10 billion? What is the cost of a relief well?... Not counting the environmental damage and livelihoods of many?

    Senator Bernie Sanders said that deep shore drilling would only save 3¢ a gallon at the pump... At the same congressional hearing he asked Ken Salazar if it was worth the risk.

    May 26, 2010 at 2:40 p.m.

  • "Many countries require offshore drilling rigs to erect a relief well next to the actual rig; to prevent the disaster BP caused. "

    No where have I found a reference saying that any country required a relief well to be in place next to the production rig. What countries require this? I would guess this would make off shore drilling uneconomical and it would essentially stop it.

    May 26, 2010 at 1:04 p.m.

  • Yes I know that but wheras the president might have influence ;the separation of powers keeps him from dictating policy on domestic issues. He usually delegates that power to Rohm Emanuel (chief of staff) to work with Congress and in the past, and it has gotten him in trouble. I'll believe it was Mr. Emanuel that talked the president into a opening up offshore drilling in hopes of getting republican votes for an energy plan. Since the president said that off shore drilling was relatively safe, he now has to walk that back.... I was trying to make a point.... You can't separate politics from policy or the lack thereof.

    May 26, 2010 at 10:40 a.m.

  • I wasn't answering in response to the oil disaster. I was referring to President Obama's role in getting us off of fossil fuels.

    May 26, 2010 at 10:25 a.m.

  • Lol xring,I consider you one of the most reasonable posters but when I saw your post this morning,I had to do a double take....I didn't view the vid becuase that poster is on my ignore list but it must of been a doozy to get you riled up.

    Have a good one.

    May 26, 2010 at 10:22 a.m.

  • waywardwind
    Initially, new green energy will be more expensive. That is just a fact but eventually we will work that out because we don't have too many years where we can depend on a hundred year old electrical grid.... I'm curious, where are the libertarians ideas to make us less dependent on foreign oil?

    According to the administration, Cap-and-Trade is practically dead because many democrats do not favor it; we know the republicans don't. They would like to go to a carbon tax which will eventually replace the payroll tax, have vouchers for the poor, and tax incentives for the corporations. Forget any legalization this close to the November election.

    In the meantime the administration is pushing for higher CAFE standards, replacing their fleet with hybrids, and rethinking their strategy because they known their large majority is coming to an end.....You never mention the politics involved.

    May 26, 2010 at 9:30 a.m.

  • Born,Writein
    I think we all know that the president of the United States has the ultimate responsibility and blame but all presidents delegate; when a delegate fails it falls on the administration and ultimately on the president..... Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will probably submit his regulation in about two and three months because he knew MMS was a mess when the Obama administration took over. It's not all his fault because sometimes assuming is standard procedure..... It's like a son wrecking the family car while under the influence of alcohol. The parents will pay the Atty. fees, damages, and take flack from people who will blame them for being a bad influence and not monitoring their sons actions.

    Democrats are putting pressure on the administration to be more proactive with BP... Memos have been released showing a chronological data of events prior to the explosion. This alone will be damaging to BP and when they have to answer for the death of those 11 men.

    When a similar leak occurred off the shores of Saudi Arabia; many tankers capable of sucking up million gallons of fluid were summoned to keep the oil from reaching shore. Expensive? Yea , but it works. Many countries require offshore drilling rigs to erect a relief well next to the actual rig; to prevent the disaster BP caused.

    May 26, 2010 at 9:12 a.m.

  • Obviously the president can't "personally" fix this problem. He is not a petroleum engineer, and he doesn't have any background in ecological disasters...BUT...he is the freakin PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! How can you say "its not up to him"?? It is UP TO HIM to find a way to put a stop to the flow of oil that is damaging the country he is SUPPOSED to be running. I'm not saying for him to throw on some overalls and a hardhat, and fix the darn thing himself, but I am saying that he does need to take the initiative and have a vital role in fixing the problem. And since you brought up the Fox News team, I will explain it like I heard one of them explain it. If you accidentally catch your garage on fire, and you can't put it out, what do you do? You call 911. They don't tell you "you started it, you put it out". No, it is their responsibility to put the fire out to keep other homes from catching fire, and to save lives. Such is true with this oil spill disaster. It is the federal government's responsibility to step in and put out the proverbial "fire" to preserve the coastal shores, and loss of life (plants, animals, etc.). Obama has shown that he does not hesitate to take over parts of America that the federal government should not even be messing with, so why is he NOT taking over something the federal government SHOULD be messing with?!?

    May 26, 2010 at 8:14 a.m.

  • Born2bme.

    I think you are onto something. Especially when you ask, “ What's the President supposed to do, personally.” I seriously think they (Glenn Beck, Hannity, BO sinks, and other local Conservatives) want him to do it personally while ….eeerrrr…. I would add more to this but I’ll let you use your imagination on that one.

    May 26, 2010 at 12:55 a.m.

  • What's the President supposed to do, personally? It's not up to him. He can suggest, conjole, or whatever, but he cannot make things happen all by himself.

    May 25, 2010 at 9:34 p.m.

  • Sorry Mike - I know that I'm "off topic", but I had to comment on the video :) It just had to come out or I would burst!

    May 25, 2010 at 9:06 p.m.

  • BOStinks said:
    "My new hero:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU7fhI...

    BOS - Actually, I don't think this guy was paying attention while he was in the Marines.

    "LADIES! Rule #2 - keep your stinkin' finger out of the trigger well if you are not on the target! On target, on trigger. Off target, off trigger! Violation of Rule #2 will result in the sudden removal of your head and excrement will be forced down your neck hole." (Actually this is the clean version). Those words SHOULD ring in your ears forever. I'm sure that "most Marines" cringed when he slung that lever action over his shoulder with his *&%#$!# finger on the trigger.

    Sheesh.
    X

    May 25, 2010 at 8:44 p.m.

  • Okay, he's earmarked a bunch of money he doesn't have to creat commissions. He's promised a million homes a year to be weatherized. Well, he started. They did about 9,000 last year. He wants to get back into bed with the UN to lower emissions. Lowering emissions significantly isn't going to get done without either cutting the use of hydrocarbon fuel drastically or rapidly implementing alternatives -- wind, nuclear, solar, hydrogen fuel cells, millions of hamsters on little wheels -- in a very short time span. He's got a bunch of people running around making speeches, mostly tauting cap-and-trade which won't reduce emissions; it'll only change the source from one plant to another.

    I read that link. It's full of pie-in-the-sky programs and study groups and commissions and plans, but they haven't DONE anything to reduce, much less end, our dependence on oil and natural gas energy sources. Boiled down, most of the ideas are to simply implement additional taxes on people and companies that emit "greenhouse gases." I guess when BO gets the last dime from the last citizen, we WILL see reductions in emissions because nobody will be able to afford to use energy.

    May 25, 2010 at 8:03 p.m.

  • My new hero:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU7fhI...

    May 25, 2010 at 7:46 p.m.

  • First off...the whole Palin thing was not "preposterous". Honestly, with this administration, nothing is too far fetched to believe. Secondly I think BOstinks had a good point. If this was Bush, the press would be all over this saying things somewhat similar to your "George W. Bush came up through the oil fields and his heart was with big oil,so was his vice president....."statement. Well in using this theory are we to believe that Obama is a communistic extremist because he "came up" the way he did, and had communist and extremist mentors? All I am saying is everyone is entitled to their own judgements on people, including Palin. And, based on all the backsliding, craziness we have seen of late, who knows what to believe. In my opinion, I don't believe there is too much to the whole BP/Obama contribution thing, and I'm not an Obama fan. I think the reason he hasn't done anything extreme yet is because he knows if the government steps in and takes over, and fails, that's it for him. He's too afraid to take that risk...he's a politician.

    May 25, 2010 at 6:14 p.m.

  • sorry, that was page 2, start at page 1

    http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/p...

    May 25, 2010 at 1:51 p.m.

  • Where do you get that President Obama has done nothing? This kind of thing takes time.

    http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/p...

    May 25, 2010 at 1:49 p.m.

  • I was talking about a mindset between the previous administration and this one. The stimulus package has about $50 billion earmarked for alternative energy, he backed loan guarantees for two nuclear plants but in case you haven't heard; our Congress is in gridlock. BP, doesn't have to be threaten with lawsuits because as soon as this leak is plugged; Congress is considering criminal charges.... I've always said it's gonna take an innovator to come up with an interchangeable battery that will go at least 200 miles per charge, conservation on our part, and a collective agreement on what we should do. As you can see; we're not exactly in agreement.

    May 25, 2010 at 1:44 p.m.

  • Mike..."President Obama wants to get us off fossil fuels."

    Gee, Mike, that's good to hear. What's he doing -- other than wringing his hands over the BP gusher in the Gulf and threatening lawsuits, what is BO doing to wean this country off fossil fuels? Remember, to get us off fossil fuels, there has to be something to take its place. This country isn't going to return to the 19th century and light our homes with candles and turn off our air conditioning. I haven't noticed any leadership along this line; have you?

    May 25, 2010 at 1:05 p.m.

  • Thanks a good question but the circumstances are different...George W. Bush came up through the oil fields and his heart was with big oil,so was his vice president.....President Obama wants to get us off fossil fuels....Tell you the truth I never even thought of Bush but I never accused him of taking bribes.

    I am disappointed that this administration has not taken over this situation instead of taking their cue from BP....They need to bring in experts from all over the world because obviously BP does not have the answers....It has now been said that this leak will go on for the next three months because we only have two options...1. Run out of oil 2. Wait on the relief well to equalize the pressure.

    May 25, 2010 at 11:22 a.m.

  • Would this be a "preposterous charge" if W was still in the White House?

    May 25, 2010 at 9 a.m.

  • Yes, I know that, that's why I said she was insinuating that the president of an United States was bought and paid for by BP. That that was the main reason this leak has gone on for 36 days now. A preposterous charge. EPA was on the scene shortly after the disaster but everyone believed the lies by BP..... I added the additional information on contributions because and if you follow politics you know it takes 60 votes to bring a proposal to the floor for debate. We do not have a dictatorship, we have three separate but co- equal branches of government.... Lobbyist saw the handwriting on the wall and poured money into what they saw would be the next president of United States..... And a quick look at opensecretes.com will show you that president Obama also receive the most money from Goldman Sachs. It's common knowledge that the Republican Party and is the" drill baby drill" party. Did you miss their convention; that was their battle cry.

    I'm just saying that Palin's statement was not only preposterous; it was disingenuous.

    May 25, 2010 at 8:53 a.m.

  • I watched all of these shows too. Just wanted to add that in the "Sarah Palin/Fox News thingy"...that Palin was actually more focused on the individual donation to Obama from BP, ($71,000 or $77, 000 can't remember) and not the "overall" total donations from oil companies to either party. Also, that amount BP contributed to Obama was more than what they donated to any other candidate.

    May 25, 2010 at 8:25 a.m.

  • Lets keep the frame work in context:

    Sestak Confirms Bribe: DNC and WH at Odds



    Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., repeated Sunday the White House had offered him a job if he would withdraw from the primary race against Sen. Arlen Specter.

    Sestak, who defeated the five-term incumbent Specter to win the Democratic nomination in the Senate primary, was asked on CBS's "Face the Nation" if the Obama administration had offered a position in exchange for his agreeing not to run.

    "Yeah," he replied. "I was asked that question months after it happened. And I felt an obligation to answer it honestly. I said, 'yes.'"

    Asked what job, Sestak said: "No, no … and I said at the time, anything beyond that just gets into politics."

    He said his victory reflected anti-incumbent and anti-Washington sentiments.

    On the campaign trail, he said: "What I listened to was people who had literally lost trust. They'd lost faith in Washington, D.C. … They knew that Washington had lost focus."

    Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, appearing on the program before Sestak, declined to answer whether the congressman had been offered a position.

    Gibbs said the White House had "conversations" with Sestak but refused to provide details.

    May 24, 2010 at 11:56 a.m.