Alaska Darin Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 They been drilling offshore Louisiana since the 1930's without a spill of this magnitude,I guess the administration should have seen it coming You don't have to tell me. My former company is one of the largest in the oil field services industry, including a gigantic presence in that area. That doesn't change the fact that the "environmental" party is all about expanding this kind of drilling while ignoring areas with far less chance of real impact in the event something goes wrong.
WisconsinBillzFan Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 People love to poke fun at environmentalists, and there's no question the left-wing crazies give the whole movement a bad image, but I hope people realize when you demand that we drill oil off our shores what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico is always a real possibility. Stuff happens. Mistakes occur. The loss of lives is bad enough but the environmental clusterf**k is just getting started. Politicians say stuff like this and people eat it up, but no one ever takes a second to think about the possible outcomes. PTR And BP is going to pay WITH THEIR OWN MONEY to clean it up. No bailouts. What's the big deal? Alot of it breaks ups and sinks to the bottom on its own anyways. Its not like toxic waste or anything oil is a natural substance.
Magox Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 And BP is going to pay WITH THEIR OWN MONEY to clean it up. No bailouts. What's the big deal? Alot of it breaks ups and sinks to the bottom on its own anyways. Its not like toxic waste or anything oil is a natural substance.
WisconsinBillzFan Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 The rest of the oil that doesn't get cleaned up evaporates, breaks up and floats on the surface, or sinks to the bottom, Graham said. http://www.livescience.com/environment/gul...-up-100429.html
DC Tom Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 And BP is going to pay WITH THEIR OWN MONEY to clean it up. No bailouts. What's the big deal? Alot of it breaks ups and sinks to the bottom on its own anyways. Its not like toxic waste or anything oil is a natural substance. Wow. This is actually more stupid than your typical racist bull ****. Just...wow. Really. Wow.
WisconsinBillzFan Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 Wow. This is actually more stupid than your typical racist bull ****. Just...wow. Really. Wow. http://www.livescience.com/environment/gul...-up-100429.html What doesn't get clean up breaks up or sinks on its own.
DC Tom Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 http://www.livescience.com/environment/gul...-up-100429.html What doesn't get clean up breaks up or sinks on its own. History attests to the lingering problem of oil spills. Exxon Valdez, one of the worst oil spills ever, dumped more than 10 million gallons of crude into Prince William Sound, Alaska, on March 24, 1989. And there's still a lot of oil that didn't get cleaned up, which has continued to impact wildlife in the area for the past 20 years, experts say. That's the effect of the stuff that "breaks up or sinks on its own". That's from your own link, you preternatural dumbass.
WisconsinBillzFan Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 That's the effect of the stuff that "breaks up or sinks on its own". That's from your own link, you preternatural dumbass. That was 20 years ago. BP is using new chemicals/techniques that weren't around then. This isn't a good thing but not nearly as bad as liberals are trying ro make it out to be.
DC Tom Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 That was 20 years ago. BP is using new chemicals/techniques that weren't around then. This isn't a good thing but not nearly as bad as liberals are trying ro make it out to be. "Breaks up or sinks on its own", because BP makes it do so? Shut the !@#$ up, moron.
WisconsinBillzFan Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 "Breaks up or sinks on its own", because BP makes it do so? Shut the !@#$ up, moron. In addition to. They can't clean up it all. They can clean up a lot of it but not all of it. What they can't will break up or sink.
drnykterstein Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 And BP is going to pay WITH THEIR OWN MONEY to clean it up. No bailouts. What's the big deal? Alot of it breaks ups and sinks to the bottom on its own anyways. Its not like toxic waste or anything oil is a natural substance. Not true. There is and has been a large amount of federal cash used to help pay for cleanup.
Chef Jim Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 Not true. There is and has been a large amount of federal cash used to help pay for cleanup. Now here's the million dollar question. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
DC Tom Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 In addition to. They can't clean up it all. They can clean up a lot of it but not all of it. What they can't will break up or sink. And do you know what it means when an oil slick "breaks up or sinks?" It doesn't disappear. It stays in the ocean and causes long-term environmental damage. Seriously...you're really this stupid? Really? You think it just somehow goes away for ever and ever?
billfan63 Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 You don't have to tell me. My former company is one of the largest in the oil field services industry, including a gigantic presence in that area. That doesn't change the fact that the "environmental" party is all about expanding this kind of drilling while ignoring areas with far less chance of real impact in the event something goes wrong. Just seems like Monday Morning QB'ing to me. In my lifetime there have been two monumental diasters due to drilling. One currently from offshore drilling and one from a tanker taking crude from the safer option you propose to a refinery. Both accidents, both environmental nightmares, so what makes one method safer than the other?
Alaska Darin Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 Just seems like Monday Morning QB'ing to me. In my lifetime there have been two monumental diasters due to drilling. One currently from offshore drilling and one from a tanker taking crude from the safer option you propose to a refinery. Both accidents, both environmental nightmares, so what makes one method safer than the other? There have been far more than two...
Alaska Darin Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 Aside from that weird thing from the Kennedy's and their pretty scenery... my understanding is that this environmental party wants minimal drilling and vastly expanded use of wind and solar power.
RkFast Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 That was 20 years ago. BP is using new chemicals/techniques that weren't around then. This isn't a good thing but not nearly as bad as liberals are trying ro make it out to be. Are you !@#$ing kidding me? You CANNOT be serious.
billfan63 Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 There have been far more than two... Wasn't talking worldwide, The Valdez was the one of biggest in US history in terms of gallons spilled but was considered the worst in the world in terms of damage to the environment.,,,,,, until this week
pBills Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 Clearly you don't understand anything about the environmental issues surrounding offshore drilling. More oil is released into the ocean annually through normal offshore drilling operations than will be released in this one freak accident. May be true. However, those who realllllly love to scream drill baby drill should report for clean up duty.
Wacka Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 May be true. However, those who realllllly love to scream drill baby drill should report for clean up duty. So now you are for taking away union jobs?
Recommended Posts