Environmental Fascists Responsible For Oil Spill

[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.

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!

Not sure why you bothered to include my words, as you neglected to respond to them...

unless your agenda was simply to add what you like...

My words: "often deprived of the selection of sites ..."

 

[PoliticalChic]

An admission that you're really just trolling.


Ironic comment of the day.



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




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?


.



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?

My, oh, my...did I upset you?

Why? Because I made you appear the fool?
C'mon..You look like a fool with metronomic regularity.

Let's see which post it was:
This one?
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.


This?
So your defense is to persist in creating the strawman argument that I claimed that there is not any off shore drilling?


Was it this?
Obama said the government would seek aggressive new operating standards and requirements for offshore oil companies. For now, he said, the government was suspending planned oil exploration of two locations off the coast of Alaska, canceling pending lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and a proposed lease sale off Virginia, and halting for six months the issuance of new permits for deep-water wells.


No...I bet it was this little public spanking:
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.



Or maybe the review of my premise, this:
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.


C'mon...don't be upset: wear the appellation like a badge: fool. Could be worse...I guess.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

"The most popular and widest-ranging ideology in the West today is environmentalism, replacing not only Marxism but all the ideologies that intellectuals espoused in the 1920s. Most started life as legitimate complaints, but as political reforms dealt with reasonable demands, the demands transformed themselves into ideologies, thus illustrating a fact of human psychology: rage is not always proportionate to its occasion but can be a powerful reward in itself. Feminists continued to see every human problem as a manifestation of patriarchy, civil rights activists as a manifestation of racism, homosexual-rights activists as a manifestation of homophobia, anti-globalists as a manifestation of globalization, and radical libertarians as a manifestation of state regulation.

But it isn’t difficult to spot in environmentalists’ work something more than mere concern with a practical problem. Their writings often show themselves akin to the calls to repentance of seventeenth-century divines in the face of plague epidemics, but with the patina of rationality that every ideology needs to disguise its true source in existential angst."

Between Experience and Reflection by Theodore Dalrymple, City Journal 27 April 2009

 

[Bfgrn]

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

"The most popular and widest-ranging ideology in the West today is environmentalism, replacing not only Marxism but all the ideologies that intellectuals espoused in the 1920s. Most started life as legitimate complaints, but as political reforms dealt with reasonable demands, the demands transformed themselves into ideologies, thus illustrating a fact of human psychology: rage is not always proportionate to its occasion but can be a powerful reward in itself. Feminists continued to see every human problem as a manifestation of patriarchy, civil rights activists as a manifestation of racism, homosexual-rights activists as a manifestation of homophobia, anti-globalists as a manifestation of globalization, and radical libertarians as a manifestation of state regulation.

But it isn’t difficult to spot in environmentalists’ work something more than mere concern with a practical problem. Their writings often show themselves akin to the calls to repentance of seventeenth-century divines in the face of plague epidemics, but with the patina of rationality that every ideology needs to disguise its true source in existential angst."

Between Experience and Reflection by Theodore Dalrymple, City Journal 27 April 2009

PC, your very dark, sinister and dismissive view of other human beings reflects more of your psychological makeup then the people you dismiss. A drowning victim sees another human being only as land.

Your propaganda always falls on it's face the minute TRUTH shows up.

Rationalize THIS...

What is Body Burden?

Scientists estimate that everyone alive today carries within her or his body at least 700 contaminants, most of which have not been well studied (Onstot and others). This is true whether we live in a rural or isolated area, in the middle of a large city, or near an industrialized area. Because many chemicals have the ability to attach to dust particles and/or catch air and water currents and travel far from where they are produced or used, the globe is bathed in a chemical soup. Our bodies have no alternative but to absorb these chemicals and sometimes store them for long periods of time. Whether we live in Samoa or San Diego, Juneau, or Johannesburg, all our bodies are receptacles for a multitude of industrial chemicals. Wherever we live, we all live in a chemically contaminated neighborhood.
*Onstot J, Ayling R, Stanley J. Characterization of HRGC/MS Unidentified Peaks from the Analysis of Human Adipose Tissue. Volume 1: Technical Approach. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Toxic Substances (560/6-87-002a), 1987.

Some of the chemicals residing in our bodies are pesticides, and some are used in or produced by other forms of industrial production. Many are found in a wide variety of consumer products. Some chemicals like dioxins and furans are created unintentionally by industrial processes using chlorine and from the manufacture and incineration of certain plastics. Scientists estimate that there are many other unintentionally created by-products which have not yet been "discovered" since no tests have yet been developed that would fully identify or describe these by-products.

Q: How did this happen? How have I been exposed?

A: Humans are exposed to chemicals through the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the water we drink and bathe in. Chemicals often coat the surface of dust particles, which we handle or inhale. Contaminated dust is an especially important route of exposure for children who commonly put their hands into their mouths. We are also exposed to hundreds of chemicals in everyday products we use. Paints and varnishes, gasoline, glues, cosmetics, clothes dry-cleaned with solvents, plastic food containers, and home and garden pesticides are just a few examples. The chemical landscape created as a result of intensive and continuing chemical use during the 20th century has been internalized. Because the chemicals found within our bodies are not labeled with return addresses, it is difficult to identify where they come from.

For example almost all of the dioxin found inside your body got there from eating contaminated food. However, it may have originated in a local medical waste incinerator or it may have been created by a distant, chlorine-based, paper manufacturing plant located thousands of miles from your home. Whatever its source, somewhere it entered the food chain and made its way into the food you ate. Similarly, a pesticide found inside your body may have come from pesticide spraying done at a local school, in your garden or kitchen, or it may have arrived on foodstuffs grown with pesticides in the U.S. or abroad. Its origin will be difficult to identify.

 

[edthecynic]

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

i noticed PC again avoided your question when she replied to this post, so I'll answer it for her.

It's the same reason the oil monopoly has capped the drilled and proven oil wells in Alaska, to keep supply down and prices up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

i noticed PC again avoided your question when she replied to this post, so I'll answer it for her.

It's the same reason the oil monopoly has capped the drilled and proven oil wells in Alaska, to keep supply down and prices up.

I love having you around to parrot the party line!

Big Oil= Big Villain. In 2008, Exxon made $45.2 billion profit. Chevron made $23.9 billion in profit! Historic profit. Although it gives the anti-capitalists a field day, what’s with the knee-jerk assumption that profit makes them evil?
Of course the whole attack falls apart when one looks at data from 1986 to 2006, when the average price of crude was $25.95/ barrel. In 2007, the price skyrocketed to $72.30, and then hit $147.27 in July 2008. And “The industry’s net profit per dollar of revenue was just under 9 cents, compared to 13 cents for the S&P 500, meaning the “markup” for the oil and gas industry is below average.”
Perhaps the evil oil companies cut back on supply? Wrong again. “The worldwide average number of barrels produced per day was an estimated 84.8 million in 2007, compared to 72.4 million during the period 1986 – 2006.”
Robert Murphy : On Those Oil Profits - Townhall.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

"The most popular and widest-ranging ideology in the West today is environmentalism, replacing not only Marxism but all the ideologies that intellectuals espoused in the 1920s. Most started life as legitimate complaints, but as political reforms dealt with reasonable demands, the demands transformed themselves into ideologies, thus illustrating a fact of human psychology: rage is not always proportionate to its occasion but can be a powerful reward in itself. Feminists continued to see every human problem as a manifestation of patriarchy, civil rights activists as a manifestation of racism, homosexual-rights activists as a manifestation of homophobia, anti-globalists as a manifestation of globalization, and radical libertarians as a manifestation of state regulation.

But it isn’t difficult to spot in environmentalists’ work something more than mere concern with a practical problem. Their writings often show themselves akin to the calls to repentance of seventeenth-century divines in the face of plague epidemics, but with the patina of rationality that every ideology needs to disguise its true source in existential angst."

Between Experience and Reflection by Theodore Dalrymple, City Journal 27 April 2009

PC, your very dark, sinister and dismissive view of other human beings reflects more of your psychological makeup then the people you dismiss. A drowning victim sees another human being only as land.

Your propaganda always falls on it's face the minute TRUTH shows up.

Rationalize THIS...

What is Body Burden?

Scientists estimate that everyone alive today carries within her or his body at least 700 contaminants, most of which have not been well studied (Onstot and others). This is true whether we live in a rural or isolated area, in the middle of a large city, or near an industrialized area. Because many chemicals have the ability to attach to dust particles and/or catch air and water currents and travel far from where they are produced or used, the globe is bathed in a chemical soup. Our bodies have no alternative but to absorb these chemicals and sometimes store them for long periods of time. Whether we live in Samoa or San Diego, Juneau, or Johannesburg, all our bodies are receptacles for a multitude of industrial chemicals. Wherever we live, we all live in a chemically contaminated neighborhood.
*Onstot J, Ayling R, Stanley J. Characterization of HRGC/MS Unidentified Peaks from the Analysis of Human Adipose Tissue. Volume 1: Technical Approach. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Toxic Substances (560/6-87-002a), 1987.

Some of the chemicals residing in our bodies are pesticides, and some are used in or produced by other forms of industrial production. Many are found in a wide variety of consumer products. Some chemicals like dioxins and furans are created unintentionally by industrial processes using chlorine and from the manufacture and incineration of certain plastics. Scientists estimate that there are many other unintentionally created by-products which have not yet been "discovered" since no tests have yet been developed that would fully identify or describe these by-products.

Q: How did this happen? How have I been exposed?

A: Humans are exposed to chemicals through the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the water we drink and bathe in. Chemicals often coat the surface of dust particles, which we handle or inhale. Contaminated dust is an especially important route of exposure for children who commonly put their hands into their mouths. We are also exposed to hundreds of chemicals in everyday products we use. Paints and varnishes, gasoline, glues, cosmetics, clothes dry-cleaned with solvents, plastic food containers, and home and garden pesticides are just a few examples. The chemical landscape created as a result of intensive and continuing chemical use during the 20th century has been internalized. Because the chemicals found within our bodies are not labeled with return addresses, it is difficult to identify where they come from.

For example almost all of the dioxin found inside your body got there from eating contaminated food. However, it may have originated in a local medical waste incinerator or it may have been created by a distant, chlorine-based, paper manufacturing plant located thousands of miles from your home. Whatever its source, somewhere it entered the food chain and made its way into the food you ate. Similarly, a pesticide found inside your body may have come from pesticide spraying done at a local school, in your garden or kitchen, or it may have arrived on foodstuffs grown with pesticides in the U.S. or abroad. Its origin will be difficult to identify.

" How did this happen? How have I been exposed?"

VooDoo....Papa Doc good man! TonTonMacout!



"Humans are exposed to chemicals through the food we eat,..."

Simple solution: stop eating!

 

[Bfgrn]

"The most popular and widest-ranging ideology in the West today is environmentalism, replacing not only Marxism but all the ideologies that intellectuals espoused in the 1920s. Most started life as legitimate complaints, but as political reforms dealt with reasonable demands, the demands transformed themselves into ideologies, thus illustrating a fact of human psychology: rage is not always proportionate to its occasion but can be a powerful reward in itself. Feminists continued to see every human problem as a manifestation of patriarchy, civil rights activists as a manifestation of racism, homosexual-rights activists as a manifestation of homophobia, anti-globalists as a manifestation of globalization, and radical libertarians as a manifestation of state regulation.

But it isn’t difficult to spot in environmentalists’ work something more than mere concern with a practical problem. Their writings often show themselves akin to the calls to repentance of seventeenth-century divines in the face of plague epidemics, but with the patina of rationality that every ideology needs to disguise its true source in existential angst."

Between Experience and Reflection by Theodore Dalrymple, City Journal 27 April 2009

PC, your very dark, sinister and dismissive view of other human beings reflects more of your psychological makeup then the people you dismiss. A drowning victim sees another human being only as land.

Your propaganda always falls on it's face the minute TRUTH shows up.

Rationalize THIS...

What is Body Burden?

Scientists estimate that everyone alive today carries within her or his body at least 700 contaminants, most of which have not been well studied (Onstot and others). This is true whether we live in a rural or isolated area, in the middle of a large city, or near an industrialized area. Because many chemicals have the ability to attach to dust particles and/or catch air and water currents and travel far from where they are produced or used, the globe is bathed in a chemical soup. Our bodies have no alternative but to absorb these chemicals and sometimes store them for long periods of time. Whether we live in Samoa or San Diego, Juneau, or Johannesburg, all our bodies are receptacles for a multitude of industrial chemicals. Wherever we live, we all live in a chemically contaminated neighborhood.
*Onstot J, Ayling R, Stanley J. Characterization of HRGC/MS Unidentified Peaks from the Analysis of Human Adipose Tissue. Volume 1: Technical Approach. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Toxic Substances (560/6-87-002a), 1987.

Some of the chemicals residing in our bodies are pesticides, and some are used in or produced by other forms of industrial production. Many are found in a wide variety of consumer products. Some chemicals like dioxins and furans are created unintentionally by industrial processes using chlorine and from the manufacture and incineration of certain plastics. Scientists estimate that there are many other unintentionally created by-products which have not yet been "discovered" since no tests have yet been developed that would fully identify or describe these by-products.

Q: How did this happen? How have I been exposed?

A: Humans are exposed to chemicals through the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the water we drink and bathe in. Chemicals often coat the surface of dust particles, which we handle or inhale. Contaminated dust is an especially important route of exposure for children who commonly put their hands into their mouths. We are also exposed to hundreds of chemicals in everyday products we use. Paints and varnishes, gasoline, glues, cosmetics, clothes dry-cleaned with solvents, plastic food containers, and home and garden pesticides are just a few examples. The chemical landscape created as a result of intensive and continuing chemical use during the 20th century has been internalized. Because the chemicals found within our bodies are not labeled with return addresses, it is difficult to identify where they come from.

For example almost all of the dioxin found inside your body got there from eating contaminated food. However, it may have originated in a local medical waste incinerator or it may have been created by a distant, chlorine-based, paper manufacturing plant located thousands of miles from your home. Whatever its source, somewhere it entered the food chain and made its way into the food you ate. Similarly, a pesticide found inside your body may have come from pesticide spraying done at a local school, in your garden or kitchen, or it may have arrived on foodstuffs grown with pesticides in the U.S. or abroad. Its origin will be difficult to identify.

" How did this happen? How have I been exposed?"

VooDoo....Papa Doc good man! TonTonMacout!



"Humans are exposed to chemicals through the food we eat,..."

Simple solution: stop eating!

Simple minded people offer simple minded solutions...

Humans are exposed to chemicals through the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the water we drink and bathe in. Chemicals often coat the surface of dust particles, which we handle or inhale.

A State without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.
Edmund Burke

 

[Ravi]

Quite frankly, only an idiot would believe that more drilling on land would have prevented the oil companies from drilling in deep water.

But the right is full of idiots.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, your very dark, sinister and dismissive view of other human beings reflects more of your psychological makeup then the people you dismiss. A drowning victim sees another human being only as land.

Your propaganda always falls on it's face the minute TRUTH shows up.

Rationalize THIS...

What is Body Burden?

Scientists estimate that everyone alive today carries within her or his body at least 700 contaminants, most of which have not been well studied (Onstot and others). This is true whether we live in a rural or isolated area, in the middle of a large city, or near an industrialized area. Because many chemicals have the ability to attach to dust particles and/or catch air and water currents and travel far from where they are produced or used, the globe is bathed in a chemical soup. Our bodies have no alternative but to absorb these chemicals and sometimes store them for long periods of time. Whether we live in Samoa or San Diego, Juneau, or Johannesburg, all our bodies are receptacles for a multitude of industrial chemicals. Wherever we live, we all live in a chemically contaminated neighborhood.
*Onstot J, Ayling R, Stanley J. Characterization of HRGC/MS Unidentified Peaks from the Analysis of Human Adipose Tissue. Volume 1: Technical Approach. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Toxic Substances (560/6-87-002a), 1987.

Some of the chemicals residing in our bodies are pesticides, and some are used in or produced by other forms of industrial production. Many are found in a wide variety of consumer products. Some chemicals like dioxins and furans are created unintentionally by industrial processes using chlorine and from the manufacture and incineration of certain plastics. Scientists estimate that there are many other unintentionally created by-products which have not yet been "discovered" since no tests have yet been developed that would fully identify or describe these by-products.

Q: How did this happen? How have I been exposed?

A: Humans are exposed to chemicals through the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the water we drink and bathe in. Chemicals often coat the surface of dust particles, which we handle or inhale. Contaminated dust is an especially important route of exposure for children who commonly put their hands into their mouths. We are also exposed to hundreds of chemicals in everyday products we use. Paints and varnishes, gasoline, glues, cosmetics, clothes dry-cleaned with solvents, plastic food containers, and home and garden pesticides are just a few examples. The chemical landscape created as a result of intensive and continuing chemical use during the 20th century has been internalized. Because the chemicals found within our bodies are not labeled with return addresses, it is difficult to identify where they come from.

For example almost all of the dioxin found inside your body got there from eating contaminated food. However, it may have originated in a local medical waste incinerator or it may have been created by a distant, chlorine-based, paper manufacturing plant located thousands of miles from your home. Whatever its source, somewhere it entered the food chain and made its way into the food you ate. Similarly, a pesticide found inside your body may have come from pesticide spraying done at a local school, in your garden or kitchen, or it may have arrived on foodstuffs grown with pesticides in the U.S. or abroad. Its origin will be difficult to identify.

" How did this happen? How have I been exposed?"

VooDoo....Papa Doc good man! TonTonMacout!



"Humans are exposed to chemicals through the food we eat,..."

Simple solution: stop eating!

Simple minded people offer simple minded solutions...

Humans are exposed to chemicals through the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the water we drink and bathe in. Chemicals often coat the surface of dust particles, which we handle or inhale.

A State without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.
Edmund Burke

"Humans are exposed to chemicals through the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the water we drink and bathe in. Chemicals often coat the surface of dust particles, which we handle or inhale."

And many of these chemicals, it seems, eat brain cells: we finally have the explanation for your bizarre outlook!

Now I realize that you must be the guy with the bumper sticker "Desperate to be relevant."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Quite frankly, only an idiot would believe that more drilling on land would have prevented the oil companies from drilling in deep water.

But the right is full of idiots.

Now watch me put you in your place without use of the word 'idiot,' and you might actually develop a bit of class:

"On Sunday's "Meet The Press," NBC's David Gregory asked if environmental zeal might have also contributed to Deepwater Horizon. "Is the problem that we're drilling in water that's just too deep?" he asked Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy and former EPA administrator in the Clinton administration.

"Should you even rethink your own approach to the environment to say, 'Maybe in the Arctic Wildlife Reserve, we ought to be drilling there. We ought to be going into shallower waters so that this can be done more safely?'"

Browner tap-danced around the question by saying it was one of the things to think about while we shut down the domestic oil industry. Browner et al. should indeed think about the fact that if British Petroleum and others were not barred from drilling in ANWR or in the shallower water of the Outer Continental Shelf, we might not be having this conversation."

Environmentalists Also To Blame For Exxon Valdez And Gulf Spills - Political Hotwire: Political Forum

 

[Bfgrn]

" How did this happen? How have I been exposed?"

VooDoo....Papa Doc good man! TonTonMacout!



"Humans are exposed to chemicals through the food we eat,..."

Simple solution: stop eating!

Simple minded people offer simple minded solutions...

Humans are exposed to chemicals through the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the water we drink and bathe in. Chemicals often coat the surface of dust particles, which we handle or inhale.

A State without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.
Edmund Burke

"Humans are exposed to chemicals through the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the water we drink and bathe in. Chemicals often coat the surface of dust particles, which we handle or inhale."

And many of these chemicals, it seems, eat brain cells: we finally have the explanation for your bizarre outlook!

Now I realize that you must be the guy with the bumper sticker "Desperate to be relevant."

Intelligent people read to gain knowledge and to learn. You already KNOW, and read to find justification for the bizarre.


Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.
Edmund Burke

 

[Ravi]

Quite frankly, only an idiot would believe that more drilling on land would have prevented the oil companies from drilling in deep water.

But the right is full of idiots.

Now watch me put you in your place without use of the word 'idiot,' and you might actually develop a bit of class:

"On Sunday's "Meet The Press," NBC's David Gregory asked if environmental zeal might have also contributed to Deepwater Horizon. "Is the problem that we're drilling in water that's just too deep?" he asked Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy and former EPA administrator in the Clinton administration.

"Should you even rethink your own approach to the environment to say, 'Maybe in the Arctic Wildlife Reserve, we ought to be drilling there. We ought to be going into shallower waters so that this can be done more safely?'"

Browner tap-danced around the question by saying it was one of the things to think about while we shut down the domestic oil industry. Browner et al. should indeed think about the fact that if British Petroleum and others were not barred from drilling in ANWR or in the shallower water of the Outer Continental Shelf, we might not be having this conversation."

Environmentalists Also To Blame For Exxon Valdez And Gulf Spills - Political Hotwire: Political Forum

Quoting an idiot's blog post isn't helping disprove my statement. Nice try!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Simple minded people offer simple minded solutions...

Humans are exposed to chemicals through the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the water we drink and bathe in. Chemicals often coat the surface of dust particles, which we handle or inhale.

A State without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.
Edmund Burke

"Humans are exposed to chemicals through the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the water we drink and bathe in. Chemicals often coat the surface of dust particles, which we handle or inhale."

And many of these chemicals, it seems, eat brain cells: we finally have the explanation for your bizarre outlook!

Now I realize that you must be the guy with the bumper sticker "Desperate to be relevant."

Intelligent people read to gain knowledge and to learn. You already KNOW, and read to find justification for the bizarre.


Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.
Edmund Burke

How about that pic you've got there...didn't you know there's a new guy in office?

You should pick up a newspaper now and then.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Quite frankly, only an idiot would believe that more drilling on land would have prevented the oil companies from drilling in deep water.

But the right is full of idiots.

Now watch me put you in your place without use of the word 'idiot,' and you might actually develop a bit of class:

"On Sunday's "Meet The Press," NBC's David Gregory asked if environmental zeal might have also contributed to Deepwater Horizon. "Is the problem that we're drilling in water that's just too deep?" he asked Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy and former EPA administrator in the Clinton administration.

"Should you even rethink your own approach to the environment to say, 'Maybe in the Arctic Wildlife Reserve, we ought to be drilling there. We ought to be going into shallower waters so that this can be done more safely?'"

Browner tap-danced around the question by saying it was one of the things to think about while we shut down the domestic oil industry. Browner et al. should indeed think about the fact that if British Petroleum and others were not barred from drilling in ANWR or in the shallower water of the Outer Continental Shelf, we might not be having this conversation."

Environmentalists Also To Blame For Exxon Valdez And Gulf Spills - Political Hotwire: Political Forum

Quoting an idiot's blog post isn't helping disprove my statement. Nice try!

Of course it did.

And the continued use of 'idiot,' documenting your lack of ability to articulate, indicates that you are sensitive to the criticism.

A beginning, at least.

 

[Toro]

Not sure why you bothered to include my words, as you neglected to respond to them...

unless your agenda was simply to add what you like...

My words: "often deprived of the selection of sites ..."

That's relevant how?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not sure why you bothered to include my words, as you neglected to respond to them...

unless your agenda was simply to add what you like...

My words: "often deprived of the selection of sites ..."

That's relevant how?

Your statement: "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! "


Out west we may have what could be called a "Persia on the Plains." A Rand Corp. study says the Green River Formation covering parts of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming has the largest known oil shale deposits in the world, holding from 1.5 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil. It's all on dry land, but it's all locked up by federal edict.
Environmentalists Also To Blame For Exxon Valdez And Gulf Spills - Political Hotwire: Political Forum


The professional environmentalists and the Obama Administration are definitely to blame in this one. It is so obvious to anyone with common sense that the environmentalists have forced energy recovery from safe areas to the most dangerous (deep water). They are also responsible, thanks to their strangulation of America's energy industry. The first criminal investigation should be on the efforts to stop the planned burning of the crude and natural gas. As Obama said they have been in charge since day one. He along the environmentalist who put such harsh regulations on the industry should be investigated.

http://www.investors...ulf-Spills.aspx

Emphasis mine.

These are relevant to the discussion. Your comment, "The idea that "Big Green" is "forcing" oil companies into the Gulf is ridiculous." is, ridiculous.

 

[Bfgrn]

Not sure why you bothered to include my words, as you neglected to respond to them...

unless your agenda was simply to add what you like...

My words: "often deprived of the selection of sites ..."

That's relevant how?

Your statement: "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! "


Out west we may have what could be called a "Persia on the Plains." A Rand Corp. study says the Green River Formation covering parts of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming has the largest known oil shale deposits in the world, holding from 1.5 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil. It's all on dry land, but it's all locked up by federal edict.
Environmentalists Also To Blame For Exxon Valdez And Gulf Spills - Political Hotwire: Political Forum


The professional environmentalists and the Obama Administration are definitely to blame in this one. It is so obvious to anyone with common sense that the environmentalists have forced energy recovery from safe areas to the most dangerous (deep water). They are also responsible, thanks to their strangulation of America's energy industry. The first criminal investigation should be on the efforts to stop the planned burning of the crude and natural gas. As Obama said they have been in charge since day one. He along the environmentalist who put such harsh regulations on the industry should be investigated.

http://www.investors...ulf-Spills.aspx

Emphasis mine.

These are relevant to the discussion. Your comment, "The idea that "Big Green" is "forcing" oil companies into the Gulf is ridiculous." is, ridiculous.

Relevant...

Energy
Gas Industry Faces The Dangers Of Fracking

Christopher Helman, 09.28.09, 08:30 PM EDT

Politicians want to regulate the use of hydraulic fracturing in oil and gas wells. If the industry is smart, it will reform on its own.

HOUSTON -- Last week the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection shut down some operations of natural gas driller Cabot Oil & Gas after 8,000 gallons of toxic chemicals were spilled on the ground and into a creek in Susquehanna County.

Houston-based Cabot Oil & Gas ( COG - news - people ) says a hose ruptured during a process called hydraulic fracturing, a method used to break apart tight rock formations, allowing gas to escape, in which a million gallons of water mixed with sand and chemicals are shot down a well under immense pressure.

More than 80% of all wells drilled in the U.S. today use some kind of "fracking." And in the Marcellus basin, a shale rock formation that stretches across Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York and West Virginia, usage is more like 100%. Without the high flow rates created by the frack, the gas wouldn't be economical to go after. With the fracks, geologists figure the Marcellus has more than 50 trillion cubic feet of gas, enough to meet all of U.S. needs for two years.

But can hydraulic fracturing be trusted? This wasn't Cabot's first fracking fracas. Pennsylvania's DEP cited the company last February for contaminating wells used for drinking near drill sites.

In a 2007 case unrelated to Cabot, an Ohio house exploded from what state regulators determined was a buildup of methane bubbling up water pipes from wells polluted by drilling operations. Nineteen neighboring homes were evacuated. Last April at least 10 cows died in Louisiana after drinking fracking chemicals collected at a drilling site operated by Chesapeake Energy ( CHK - news - people ).

So what's in this stuff? Hydrochloric acid, solvents, surfactants, petroleum-based lubricants, corrosion inhibitors, microbe killers. Basically, it's a lot of the same carcinogenic chemicals found in household cleaners like Formula 409 and Drano.

Gas Industry Faces The Dangers Of Fracking - Forbes.com

 

[driveby]

Well, Chic, given the negligence that BP demonstrated in the operation, perhaps it is time to end off shore drilling, period. Time to put a serious tax on every barrel of oil produced or imported into the US with that money mandated to aid the people who have lost their living from this disaster, and also for R and D to replace the internal combustion engine with electric motors.

Thats the goal, never let a crisis go to waste ! ......

 

[Toro]

Not sure why you bothered to include my words, as you neglected to respond to them...

unless your agenda was simply to add what you like...

My words: "often deprived of the selection of sites ..."

That's relevant how?

Your statement: "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! "


Out west we may have what could be called a "Persia on the Plains." A Rand Corp. study says the Green River Formation covering parts of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming has the largest known oil shale deposits in the world, holding from 1.5 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil. It's all on dry land, but it's all locked up by federal edict.
Environmentalists Also To Blame For Exxon Valdez And Gulf Spills - Political Hotwire: Political Forum


The professional environmentalists and the Obama Administration are definitely to blame in this one. It is so obvious to anyone with common sense that the environmentalists have forced energy recovery from safe areas to the most dangerous (deep water). They are also responsible, thanks to their strangulation of America's energy industry. The first criminal investigation should be on the efforts to stop the planned burning of the crude and natural gas. As Obama said they have been in charge since day one. He along the environmentalist who put such harsh regulations on the industry should be investigated.

http://www.investors...ulf-Spills.aspx

Emphasis mine.

These are relevant to the discussion. Your comment, "The idea that "Big Green" is "forcing" oil companies into the Gulf is ridiculous." is, ridiculous.

PC, it doesn't matter if there are 1.5 trillion barrels of shale oil in the Green River Basin. I've read that study. They don't have the technology to extract it. By some estimates, they won't be able to pull more than a few million barrels a day out of there for another 20-30 years. It wouldn't matter if those lands were all open to federal drilling because they don't have the technology to extract it. Its irrelevant. Your argument is a canard. We've known about shale oil for decades. They are now able to pull natural gas out of shale. North Dakota is booming because of the the Bakken Formation. But they aren't pulling out much oil.

Oil companies have had the technology to punch holes in the bottom of the ocean for decades. There are deep water rigs in places like the North Sea, and off the coasts of West Africa, Brazil, Indonesia, etc. Even if the technology to extract shale oil existed, they would still be drilling in the deep water because they know how to do so and they can make money doing it. It has nothing to do with "environmental fascists."

And for the record, I have no problem drilling ANWR. I think they should drill there.