Environmental Fascists Responsible For Oil Spill

[Old Rocks]

Well, the economy is improving, the Alaska Loon is no longer chanting "Drill, baby, Drill", and people are slowly returning to work.

As for the rest of you stupidity, who cares.

What we are going to see, after we look back from the vantage point of history, is two competant Presidents, Clinton and Obama, bracketing the most incompetant President in the histoy of our nation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, the economy is improving, the Alaska Loon is no longer chanting "Drill, baby, Drill", and people are slowly returning to work.

As for the rest of you stupidity, who cares.

What we are going to see, after we look back from the vantage point of history, is two competant Presidents, Clinton and Obama, bracketing the most incompetant President in the histoy of our nation.

Can you spell E-A-S-T-A-N-G-L-I-A ?

Did you see how easily I dispatched you without using the word 'stupid'?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The far bigger question is why fanatics continue to predict dire outcomes of drilling and exploration for the life's blood of an industrial society when same is accomplished in every permutation and combination around the world...
It seems that when myth and fantasy take over- even in the age of enlightenment- facts are simply ignored: evidence, reason, and logic are exiled in favor of irrationality, ideology and prejudice.


This Modern World Blog Archive The Doomsday Bomb: It’s perfectly safe!

Who's ignoring facts? That seems to be the Brownies stock in trade!!!

Clarification: what does 'the Brownies' mean?

Are you picking on the Girl Scouts?

 

[NYcarbineer]

"...the mythical premise here that shallow water drilling doesn't occur in the Gulf..." has never been the question, as much as you try to obfuscate and claim so, the questions are

1. whether not it would be easier to deal with on shore, or in shallower water...

and

2. shouldn't the blame, in large measure, be firmly on the shoulders of the greeniacs who have insisted that drilling and exploration be relegated to deep water...
The outright falsity of your statement, "because they're anywhere they think they can make money" is astounding.

A truer statement is " because they're anywhere they are allowed to find energy sources by Big Green" the more distant, difficult and irrelevent they are, the better.

And since our environmental friends have eliminated drilling and exploration in ANWAR and Oklahoma, etc..."...how ironic it all now looks..."


I did peruse the link, and wonder exactly which parts of the 20 pages you find dispositive?


The far bigger question is why fanatics continue to predict dire outcomes of drilling and exploration for the life's blood of an industrial society when same is accomplished in every permutation and combination around the world...


It seems that when myth and fantasy take over- even in the age of enlightenment- facts are simply ignored: evidence, reason, and logic are exiled in favor of irrationality, ideology and prejudice.

Drilling has not been relegated to deep water. That is the myth of your premise, and the myth is debunked in my link, which lists dozens of ongoing drilling operations IN shallow water.

So, I recommend you start over, with a premise that is NOT a myth.

So your defense is to persist in creating the strawman argument that I claimed that there is not any off shore drilling?It is quite easy to google Democrat oppostition to drilling and exploration...i.e....

I highlighted you refuting yourself, calling my claim that you said there was no shallow water drilling 'a strawman.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[I seem to have poked a hornet's nest!

I must be on the right track.

To see what track you're on, let's do a breakdown.

Your original argument is:

1. The 'greenies' are to blame for the spill because they forced BP to drill where they shouldn't be drilling.

Ok, so you oppose deepwater drilling and think it should stop. lol, I'm guessing you didn't mean to reach that unintended consequence of position, but darned if you didn't.

2. BP is deepwater drilling because they can't find anywhere else to drill and they are desperate to find oil somewhere, more of your premise.

Hmmm. Do you recall what BP was doing when the rig blew up? I bet you heard, but have forgotten.

They were capping the well. My thinking friends here at USMB won't need an explanation as to why that obliterates your argument from another angle, but I can provide you that explanation, if you need it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Drilling has not been relegated to deep water. That is the myth of your premise, and the myth is debunked in my link, which lists dozens of ongoing drilling operations IN shallow water.

So, I recommend you start over, with a premise that is NOT a myth.

So your defense is to persist in creating the strawman argument that I claimed that there is not any off shore drilling?It is quite easy to google Democrat oppostition to drilling and exploration...i.e....

I highlighted you refuting yourself, calling my claim that you said there was no shallow water drilling 'a strawman.

I would be happy to give you a rep if I did as you suggest, that is refute my own post, as it seems that I said "...there is not any off shore drilling..."

Is this the highlighting to which you refer?
" ...shouldn't the blame, in large measure, be firmly on the shoulders of the greeniacs who have insisted that drilling and exploration be relegated to deep water..."



If so, please show how this states "...is not any off shore drilling.."


Or is this the highlighting: 'A truer statement is... " because they're anywhere they are allowed to find energy sources by Big Green" ' ?

Let's parse this together:
1. I said 'not any.' How many would that include? Ah, yes,...none.

2. In the former highlighting we find the phrase "...in large measure..." This seems not to include 'not any.' So, it seems that if you are resting "I highlighted you refuting yourself..." on this, you would be...what is the word? Oh, yes: WRONG!

3. The latter highlighting includes this phrase: "A truer statement ..." Now, perhaps this is too nuanced for you, but 'truer' means closer to the absolute truth, and implies that there is a more supremely correct, that is without limitation, statement...one which I chose not to use because I enjoy being correct.

So, it seems that my post remains a paragon of exactitude.

Would it be accurate that, you now seeing the light, intend to apologize and offer me a rep?

 

[PoliticalChic]

[I seem to have poked a hornet's nest!

I must be on the right track.

To see what track you're on, let's do a breakdown.

Your original argument is:

1. The 'greenies' are to blame for the spill because they forced BP to drill where they shouldn't be drilling.

Ok, so you oppose deepwater drilling and think it should stop. lol, I'm guessing you didn't mean to reach that unintended consequence of position, but darned if you didn't.

2. BP is deepwater drilling because they can't find anywhere else to drill and they are desperate to find oil somewhere, more of your premise.

Hmmm. Do you recall what BP was doing when the rig blew up? I bet you heard, but have forgotten.

They were capping the well. My thinking friends here at USMB won't need an explanation as to why that obliterates your argument from another angle, but I can provide you that explanation, if you need it.

I really appreciate the style you have chosen for your post, as it both easier to read and comes across as more adult.

1. "...'greenies' are to blame for the spill because they forced BP to drill where they shouldn't be drilling."
No, I actually believe that Big Green and their allies have made it more difficult for the industry to drill and explore.
My idea is that drilling and exploring should be anywhere there is an indication of oil.


2. "Ok, so you oppose deepwater drilling and think it should stop."
No I don't. Please refer to answer #1.


3. "BP is deepwater drilling because they can't find anywhere else to drill ..."
Silly. Of course they can find elsewhere to drill. They're not allowed.


4. "My thinking friends here at USMB won't need an explanation ..."
It may offend you for me to point this out, but my thought processes and extensive reading, research, etc. don't require me to beg for others to support me.
You should consider standing on your own two feet, as well.

In summary, I must accuse you of producing a less than your usual level of post, as this one is entirely of the 'strawman' variety.
Looking forward to more of the attack variety.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The worst oil spill in history occurred in 1979, in 150 feet of water.

So, your premises are the following:

1. Techniques and precautions are identical, even though the previous event took place over 30 years ago.

2. Solutions are no more difficult in coastal waters and on land than in mile deep locations.

These 'unspoken assumptions' represent your response?

Nor, it seems, do you wish to comment on the overwhelming control, exhibited by Big Green, of the future of America. Wise choice.

Nope, your basic premise is flawed, PC, and you are weakly trying to defend a corporatist failure. The fascists are the corporatists who wish to have the government to allow them to drill wherever they wish.

You will keep arguing your pathetic arguments, my sad friend, but you have lost already.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The worst oil spill in history occurred in 1979, in 150 feet of water.

So, your premises are the following:

1. Techniques and precautions are identical, even though the previous event took place over 30 years ago.

2. Solutions are no more difficult in coastal waters and on land than in mile deep locations.

These 'unspoken assumptions' represent your response?

Nor, it seems, do you wish to comment on the overwhelming control, exhibited by Big Green, of the future of America. Wise choice.

Nope, your basic premise is flawed, PC, and you are weakly trying to defend a corporatist failure. The fascists are the corporatists who wish to have the government to allow them to drill wherever they wish.

You will keep arguing your pathetic arguments, my sad friend, but you have lost already.

You might almost appear knowledgeable if you would stick to concepts to which you have some entre.

Being generous, I'll help you out.

1 “Corporatism” was a term for dividing up industry into cooperative units, and associations, that would work together under the rubric of “national purpose.” Corporatism simply seemed a more straightforward attempt at what social planners and businessmen had been moving toward for decades. It embodied a new sense of national purpose that would allow business and labor to put aside their class differences and hammer out what was best for all. It represented an exhaustion with politics and a newfound faith in science and experts.

2 Corporatism has many of its roots in Catholic doctrine. In 1891, the papal encyclical ‘Rerum novarum’ proposed corporatism or syndicalism in response to the Industrial Revolution. As a backbone of progressive Catholic social thought, the Church thought that corporatism was the best way to revive medieval social arrangements, giving man a greater sense o meaning in his life.

3 The intellectual descendants of those who worshipped Bismarck’s Prussia or Mussolini’s Ministry of Corporations…the lodestar of enlightened economic policy….in a quest for the holy grail of government-business ‘collaboration.’

4 Robert Reich, proponent of the form of corporatism known as the Third Way movement, wrote “The Next American Frontier,” in 1983, and championed, in exchange for ‘restructuring assistance’ from the government, businesses would agree to ‘maintain their old work forces intact.’

a. Workers would become de factor citizens of their companies, in a relationship similar to Krupp’s General Regulations. “The Krupps feared the Social Democrats and to keep them out of their facilities, they used repression and a compensation package that many German workers found quite acceptable. If you worked for Krupp, your children were born in a Krupp hospital, educated in a Krupp school, played on a Krupp playground, etc. You shopped in a Krupp store. It was cradle-to-grave security of sorts. Women advertising for husbands would specify employees of Krupp.” Chapter Four: notes

b. In an even more eerie echo of Italian Fascist corporatist thought, corporations would replace “geographic jurisdictions as conduits of government support for economic and human development.” Social services- health care, day care, education, and so forth- would all be provided by your employer.


I suggest you pick up a copy of "Liberal Fascism," by Goldberg, for a more extensive explanation. Much of this is from said source.

 

[Toro]

BP is responsible for this mess.

I thought conservatives were all for personal responsibility?

 

[PoliticalChic]

BP is responsible for this mess.

I thought conservatives were all for personal responsibility?

Where does this post fit in?

Have you seen some indication that anyone is suggesting that BP not pay for the 'mess.'

No, you have not: what you see is an indication that BP and other industry members are often deprived of the selection of sites by Big Green and their lackeys.

But since you have opened this can of worms, if it turns out to be true that the governor of Louisiana asked for certain assistance in the form of federal aid and OK's to build sand berms and the feds took 17 days to get back with the OK's, I wonder if BP has a leg to stand on as far as mitigation of damages.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[I seem to have poked a hornet's nest!

I must be on the right track.

An admission that you're really just trolling.

I really appreciate the style you have chosen for your post, as it both easier to read and comes across as more adult.

Ironic comment of the day.

1. "...'greenies' are to blame for the spill because they forced BP to drill where they shouldn't be drilling."
No, I actually believe that Big Green and their allies have made it more difficult for the industry to drill and explore.
My idea is that drilling and exploring should be anywhere there is an indication of oil.


2. "Ok, so you oppose deepwater drilling and think it should stop."
No I don't. Please refer to answer #1.

Then why are you blaming the 'greens' for the spill if in your world, BP would be drilling there anyway? That is irrational.

3. "BP is deepwater drilling because they can't find anywhere else to drill ..."
Silly. Of course they can find elsewhere to drill. They're not allowed.

That's what I said. That is your claim. The claim you denied you made a couple posts ago. Called it a strawman that I referenced your claim. Now you've confirmed it. So the question is, why are there currently 50 drilling rigs in the shallow water sites in the Gulf if the greens won't let them drill there?


.

In summary, I must accuse you of producing a less than your usual level of post, as this one is entirely of the 'strawman' variety.
Looking forward to more of the attack variety.

Since I've comprehensively proven you full of shit on all counts, it's a reflection on your inadequacy that I can do so while allegedly off my best game.

You avoided a basic issue. Why was BP capping the well and not pumping it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The premise of the OP again, just for clarity.

BP should not have been drilling in such a deep well situation, but was forced to because the environmentalists wouldn't let them drill in shallow well situations.

Question: which 'greens' oppose shallow water drilling but support deep well drilling??

 

[Toro]

BP is responsible for this mess.

I thought conservatives were all for personal responsibility?

Where does this post fit in?

Have you seen some indication that anyone is suggesting that BP not pay for the 'mess.'

No, you have not: what you see is an indication that BP and other industry members are often deprived of the selection of sites by Big Green and their lackeys.

But since you have opened this can of worms, if it turns out to be true that the governor of Louisiana asked for certain assistance in the form of federal aid and OK's to build sand berms and the feds took 17 days to get back with the OK's, I wonder if BP has a leg to stand on as far as mitigation of damages.

The idea that "Big Green" is "forcing" oil companies into the Gulf is ridiculous. BP is there because there is a lot of oil in the Gulf. Full-stop. They'd still be there even if they could drill in ANWR et. al. Why? Because its there!

 

[Big Fitz]

Had this spill been on land it would have been plugged in a few days.

Had this spill been in shallow water, the same.

But the real culprit, Big Green, and the Greeniacs, forced the industry into mile deep water.

"The irony here is that it's been the reluctance of Congress and the White House to allow more onshore development of our vast untapped oil and natural gas energy reserves that has forced oil companies such as Shell and British Petroleum to go farther and farther offshore to drill deeper and deeper in riskier waters.

"I am frustrated that this decision by the Obama administration to halt offshore development for a year will cause more delays and higher costs for domestic oil and gas production to meet the nation's energy needs," Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, said in a statement. As with nuclear power, domestic oil exploration will now be consigned to the "study forever, develop never" category."
The Drill Is Gone - IBD - Investors.com


"…there has been a departure from reason and logic because objectivity has been replaced in large measure by ideology.

[There are] extraordinary similarities between the attempt by the Western intelligentsia to impose secular ideologies such as materialism, environmentalism ...

[There are] remarkable links and correspondences between left-wing ‘progressives’ and Islamists (those who wish to impose Islam on unbelievers and to extinguish individual freedom and human rights among Muslims), and environmentalists and fascists, militant atheists and fanatical religious believers. All are united by the common desire to bring about through human agency the perfection of the world, an agenda which history teaches us leads invariably- and paradoxically- to tyranny, terror, and crimes against humanity."
“The World Turned Upside Down,” Melanie Phillips


On the excellent webcast 'Uncommon Knowledge', Czech president Václav Klaus recently compared “two ideologies” that were “structurally very similar. They are against individual freedom. They are in favor of centralistic masterminding of our fates. They are both very similar in telling us what to do, how to live, how to behave, what to eat, how to travel, what we can do and what we cannot do.” The first of Klaus’s “two ideologies” was Communism—a system with which he was deeply familiar, having participated in the Velvet Revolution in 1989. The second was environmentalism.
The Varieties of Liberal Enthusiasm by Benjamin A. Plotinsky, City Journal Spring 2010

May the next president finally understand that enviornmental groups in the US are anti-humanist domestic terrorist organizations and start shutting them down.

 

[Bfgrn]

Had this spill been on land it would have been plugged in a few days.

Had this spill been in shallow water, the same.

But the real culprit, Big Green, and the Greeniacs, forced the industry into mile deep water.

"The irony here is that it's been the reluctance of Congress and the White House to allow more onshore development of our vast untapped oil and natural gas energy reserves that has forced oil companies such as Shell and British Petroleum to go farther and farther offshore to drill deeper and deeper in riskier waters.

"I am frustrated that this decision by the Obama administration to halt offshore development for a year will cause more delays and higher costs for domestic oil and gas production to meet the nation's energy needs," Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, said in a statement. As with nuclear power, domestic oil exploration will now be consigned to the "study forever, develop never" category."
The Drill Is Gone - IBD - Investors.com


"…there has been a departure from reason and logic because objectivity has been replaced in large measure by ideology.

[There are] extraordinary similarities between the attempt by the Western intelligentsia to impose secular ideologies such as materialism, environmentalism ...

[There are] remarkable links and correspondences between left-wing ‘progressives’ and Islamists (those who wish to impose Islam on unbelievers and to extinguish individual freedom and human rights among Muslims), and environmentalists and fascists, militant atheists and fanatical religious believers. All are united by the common desire to bring about through human agency the perfection of the world, an agenda which history teaches us leads invariably- and paradoxically- to tyranny, terror, and crimes against humanity."
“The World Turned Upside Down,” Melanie Phillips


On the excellent webcast 'Uncommon Knowledge', Czech president Václav Klaus recently compared “two ideologies” that were “structurally very similar. They are against individual freedom. They are in favor of centralistic masterminding of our fates. They are both very similar in telling us what to do, how to live, how to behave, what to eat, how to travel, what we can do and what we cannot do.” The first of Klaus’s “two ideologies” was Communism—a system with which he was deeply familiar, having participated in the Velvet Revolution in 1989. The second was environmentalism.
The Varieties of Liberal Enthusiasm by Benjamin A. Plotinsky, City Journal Spring 2010

May the next president finally understand that enviornmental groups in the US are anti-humanist domestic terrorist organizations and start shutting them down.

Is there ANY brain activity in that tiny little pea between your shoulders, or do you just spew right wing corporatist talking points in a catatonic state? The depth and scope of right wing ignorance and propaganda parroting is beyond comprehension.

Yea, the people that want to protect the environment are evil, and the people that want to exploit the environment for personal gain and profit are the good guys...

Hey pea brain, is there a right wing pea brain version of the Bible that say Jesus sided WITH the Pharisees?

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke

 

[Big Fitz]

Is there ANY brain activity in that tiny little pea between your shoulders, or do you just spew right wing corporatist talking points in a catatonic state?

Yes, cause it pisses you off and you're funny when you're enraged.

Yea, the people that want to protect the environment are evil, and the people that want to exploit the environment for personal gain and profit are the good guys...

Shit... Hyperbole much? Nice white hat you got on there schmart guy. Oh boy! I made a profit! Let's hear it for evil. What kind of palaver is this stupidity. I wanna see a cost-effectiveness study for every dumbass environmental protection you collective greentards want to pass. Human kind is on top, not fucking nutria and slime molds. So if your green fantasies don't benefit us, or wreck our way of life, it ain't worth a pot to piss in.

Conservation, not environmentalism. Be a good steward of the Earth, not a slave to it. You econazis have forgotten that.

 

[Samson]

BP is responsible for this mess.

I thought conservatives were all for personal responsibility?

Where does this post fit in?

Have you seen some indication that anyone is suggesting that BP not pay for the 'mess.'

No, you have not: what you see is an indication that BP and other industry members are often deprived of the selection of sites by Big Green and their lackeys.

But since you have opened this can of worms, if it turns out to be true that the governor of Louisiana asked for certain assistance in the form of federal aid and OK's to build sand berms and the feds took 17 days to get back with the OK's, I wonder if BP has a leg to stand on as far as mitigation of damages.

The idea that "Big Green" is "forcing" oil companies into the Gulf is ridiculous. BP is there because there is a lot of oil in the Gulf. Full-stop. They'd still be there even if they could drill in ANWR et. al. Why? Because its there!

Correct.

And, BP pays the MMS fees assessed by the regulatory agency to inspect the rig to "ensure" safe and enviromentally sound operations. BP also pays the MMS for the lease:

Page 2/8

OCS Inspection Fee — The MMS Royalty and Offshore
Minerals Management account has traditionally been
credited with offsetting collections to help defray the cost
of MMS operations. These include certain rental receipts
and cost recovery fees. The 2010 budget includes a new
inspection fee on each OCS above-water oil and gas facility
that is subject to inspection except mobile offshore
drilling units. The MMS developed the fee structure to
defray increasing inspection costs. The fee amount is
based on the complexity of the facility, as determined
by the number of wells. The new fees will require OCS
energy developers to fund roughly 25 percent of MMS
compliance inspection costs. The MMS believes this
represents a reasonable contribution on the part of the
energy developers, who are beneficiaries of the OCS
development program. The fee would support Federal
efforts to provide services that not only ensure human
safety, but also protect the environment and conserve
energy and marine resources.

MMS utilizes about $6 million/yr of the Tens of Billions of revenues they receive for preparing for disasters like the one we see today.
Page 4/8

Oil Spill Research Program — This program supports
oil pollution research and other duties related to oil spill
prevention, as authorized by the Oil Spill Pollution Act
of 1990. The National Oil Spill Response Test Facility is
the only one of its type in the world providing full-scale
equipment and methodology testing in a safe, controlled
environment. The budget proposes total funding of $6.3
million in 2010, which is equal to 2009.

Once Obama shuts down offshore drilling, huge $$$$ will evaporate:

Revenues collected from onshore and offshore Federal
lands by MMS are one of the largest sources of non-tax
revenue to the Federal government. In 2008, MMS disbursed
about $23.4 billion in mineral revenues

Get ready for higher taxes to replace these lost revenues.

 

[paperview]

BP Was Not Forced To Drill In Deepwater
"I keep seeing posts in the forum and Sarah Palin tweets blaming environmental regulations for BP drilling for oil so far out in the Gulf of Mexico. But, is there actually any proof that this is why they drilled so far out?

Drilling in deepwater was a conscious strategy by BP because there was shiploads of oil there. Here are excerpts from a 2001 Forbes article describing BP's strategy -

For BP Amoco's soft-spoken CEO, Sir John Browne, deep water offers the prospect of the largest untapped reserves and the lowest-cost means of extraction. It could keep the company safely afloat even if oil prices, currently $30 a barrel, fall by half.

BP Amoco (which will drop "Amoco" from its name later this year) has spent the past decade buying up exclusive drilling rights in the world's most promising deepwater regions, setting up an assembly-line process to find new reserves, build rigs and get the oil out.

By 2005 BP expects to pull 1.3 million barrels of oil and the equivalent in gas a day from fields lying in waters more than 300 meters deep in places that include offshore Trinidad, the North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico—25% of its worldwide production, up from only 6% now. The total could climb dramatically as BP completes similar projects in Brazil and Angola. "This demonstrates what organic growth means," Browne says. "We found the resources ourselves, we're developing them ourselves, and we have a lot of legs. It goes and goes and goes."

The deep-sea plunge is the crucial element to achieving Browne's promise of turning in earnings growth of 10% a year even as revenue grows only half as fast.

Going deep - Forbes.com

So, if you have proof that BP chose to drill so far out in the Gulf because they were forced to and not because that area contained a very large reserve of oil, please present it."

^ Credit to Jimmyc123 for this.

 

[LuckyDan]

Paperview asked, "I keep seeing posts in the forum and Sarah Palin tweets blaming environmental regulations for BP drilling for oil so far out in the Gulf of Mexico. But, is there actually any proof that this is why they drilled so far out?"

Tax breaks for one:

But the expansion of deep-water drilling wasn’t solely a result of industry’s rushing into deeper waters and toward greater profit. According to the Los Angeles Times, it was also encouraged by the federal government, which gave oil companies tens of billions in tax breaks, subsidies and royalty relief.

Gov’t Subsidizes Deep-Water Drilling With Big Tax Breaks - ProPublica

Moratoria in the name of environmentalism:

For more than 25 years, the Atlantic coast has been off-limits to offshore oil and gas drilling. During that time, SELC has worked to protect our coastal resources, and today, our beaches and marshlands remain largely unspoiled and our fisheries are among the most productive in the world.

Offshore Oil Drilling - Not Worth the Risk

And the familiar Greenie whacko bullshit in California:

On July 22 and 23, 53 leading California environmental organizations sent letters to Governor Schwarzenegger to express their united opposition to the reported budget deal that would overturn the recent decision by the independent State Lands Commission denying the Tranquillon Ridge project proposal based on legitimate substantive reasons including concerns over a lack of enforceability. This proposal, if approved, will represent the first new offshore oil lease in California waters in over 40 years, and a major reversal of the Governor’s past assurances that there would be no new oil drilling off California’s coast.

53 Environmental Groups Oppose Use of Budget Process To Approve New Offshore Oil Drilling Project | California Progress Report

...and Florida

It used to be unthinkable that any politician from a state so dependent on beaches would advocate for more drilling. The change first began to emerge in 2005, when Congress began a new push for domestic oil and exploration.

The following year, U.S. Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Bartow, proposed allowing drilling as close as 50 miles from shore. He got 13 other Florida Republicans to go along and the measure passed the House.

But it died in the Senate, largely because of the work of Nelson, a Democrat, and Mel Martinez, a Republican. Eventually, a compromise opened 8.3 million acres in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and allowed exploration 125 miles south of the Panhandle but banned drilling within 234 miles of the Tampa Bay area through 2022.

Florida's political opposition to offshore drilling erodes - St. Petersburg Times

If an Oil Company CEO sees profits in deep water made possible by new technology, why wouldnt he take the path of least Green resistence - especially when the government encourages it?

Somebody posted a link to a tedious listing of offshore drilling sites, but all were in the Gulf. California has, as best I could tell, less than 30 rigs operating. No one can seriously deny environmentalism has played no part whatsoever in limiting the available options for exploration.