Drill Baby Drill!!!

[bascule]

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/29/news/economy/offshore_drilling_spill/

 

Oops. Giant oil spill, thanks to offshore drilling.

 

Drill baby drill?

 

I apologize, this is an inauspicious beginning of a post given my recent complaints against poorly-started threads when Fox is involved, but seriously... does the quality of rhetoric presented by the advocates of offshore drilling really demand a more complex response than "oops, real-world examples of the consequences"?

[Pangloss]

This story is already turning into an "I told you so" moment for the left, but haven't both the left and right at SFN already agreed that some drilling will have to continue for many years to come no matter how fast we act about our oil dependency? And isn't it the position of the current administration that domestic production needs to be increased further?

 

So wouldn't this have happened anyway?

 

Even with today's massive expansion of the estimated rate, it would still take over 50 days to exceed the Exxon Valdez spill. The effected coastline is expected to be something like one-quarter of the Valdez-affected area. Certainly nothing to dismiss, because it's in arguably the worst possible place for it to happen (40% of the country's wetlands are right there). But it's also light-sweet crude, not the heavy crude that the Valdez dumped -- supposedly much easier to deal with.

 

I think we'll just have to wait, wade through the obligatory weeping Greenpeace activists and see just how bad it is.

[ParanoiA]

...does the quality of rhetoric presented by the advocates of offshore drilling really demand a more complex response than "oops, real-world examples of the consequences"?

 

Yes, because we can point to Chernobyl and other nuclear accidents as "oops, real-world examples of the consequences" when you advocate nuclear power.

 

Until we get solar or biofuels or what not advanced enough to ditch oil, we are going to have to get oil out of the earth. We can either buy it all, from a whole host of enemy states, and further demonstrate our utter dependence or we can do it ourselves. I prefer to do it ourselves.

[jryan]

I told you men were not supposed to fly, and 9/11 proved it!

 

Of course, we could also look at nickle and cadmium mines as evidence that we shouldn't use batteries....

[bascule]

This story is already turning into an "I told you so" moment for the left, but haven't both the left and right at SFN already agreed that some drilling will have to continue for many years to come no matter how fast we act about our oil dependency?

 

Sure Pangloss, but that's not the issue, so much as the absurdly massive amount of rhetoric surrounding domestic offshore drilling being a panacea for all of our energy woes (Newt Gingrich wrote a whole book on the subject)

 

Would you agree that this issue was not only massively hyped, but little to no attention was paid to potential drawbacks?

 

And isn't it the position of the current administration that domestic production needs to be increased further?

 

I mean, sort of?

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/energy-and-environment/

 

Securing our Energy Future

 

Our reliance on oil poses a threat to our economic security. Over the last few decades, we have watched our economy rise and fall along with the price of a barrel of oil. We must commit ourselves to an economic future in which the strength of our economy is not tied to the unpredictability of oil markets. We must make the investments in clean energy sources that will curb our dependence on fossil fuels and make America energy independent.

 

• Breaking Dependence on Oil. Promote the next generation of cars and trucks and the fuels they run on.
  
  
• Producing More Energy at Home. Enhance U.S. energy supplies through responsible development of domestic renewable energy,
  fossil fuels
  , advanced biofuels and nuclear energy.
  
  
• Promoting Energy Efficiency. Promote investments in the transportation, electricity, industrial, building and agricultural sectors that reduce energy bills.

 

Sure, it's in there... I guess. That certainly is not the focus of this administration's energy policy.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And apparently, not anymore!

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36865687/ns/us_news-environment/

 

Obama shelves new offshore drilling

'Must be done responsibly,' president says after rig disaster

 

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama on Friday directed that no new offshore oil drilling leases be issued unless rigs have new safeguards to prevent a repeat of the explosion that unleashed the massive spill threatening the Gulf Coast with major environmental damage.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Yes, because we can point to Chernobyl and other nuclear accidents as "oops, real-world examples of the consequences" when you advocate nuclear power.

 

A comparison to Chernobyl isn't apt. Chernobyl had a positive void coefficient which means a coolant failure can (and did) result in disaster. All modern nuclear reactors have a negative void coefficient, which means a coolant failure stops the reaction.

 

Meanwhile, offshore drilling will always carry with it the danger of oil spills.

[ParanoiA]

Oh yes, I see, so all nuclear accidents are impossible now that we have this "negative void coefficient"...

 

Sorry, I ain't buyin' it.

 

Hell, one terrorist act on a nuclear facility and all the neocons will point and say "told ya so". Real-world examples of accidents are just that...real world examples of accidents.

[jryan]

It's OK because we now have a "negative spill coefficient".

[insane_alien]

Oh yes, I see, so all nuclear accidents are impossible now that we have this "negative void coefficient"...

 

Sorry, I ain't buyin' it.

 

Hell, one terrorist act on a nuclear facility and all the neocons will point and say "told ya so". Real-world examples of accidents are just that...real world examples of accidents.

 

no it doesn't mean no nuclear accidents will occur BUT it does mean that you can't blow it up by fiddling with the settings or taking out the support systems.

 

as for the terrorist threat, well containment structure are bomb proof.

 

no really, very bomb proof.

 

it would take one hell of a blast to get through that. not something thats going to go unnoticed(a car bomb won't do it, even a good sized truck).

 

also this pretty much makes it plane proof as well.

 

all this because of structures to keep stuff in.

 

and anyway, even if they do breach the outer contaiment structure(which would be a feat and a half in itself) they'd still need a secondary blast/impact of greater magnitude to breach the core.

[padren]

I guess timing is everything.

 

That aside, I think the "I told you so" factor is an over reaction little, but it's an understandable one to the "The risks don't mean anything if nothing goes wrong" counter extreme in rationalizing the safety. It's a big event, and one worth saying "I told you so" if the "so" is with regards to the fact that accidents do happen and a lucky streak is not a safety strategy.

 

Otherwise it's the same ADD myopia just on the other side of the fence.

[bascule]

I guess timing is everything.

 

A new posting on the website of the U.S. Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service, or MMS, noted that the agency is busy and the unfolding tragedy that has cost lives and oil might conflict with the May 3 luncheon.

[Pangloss]

Sure, it's in there... I guess.[/b'] That certainly is not the focus of this administration's energy policy.

 

Spin in bold. Up until today the President advocated offshore drilling, and you've just acknowledged that point in announcing that he's now killing that project.

 

I didn't say it was his focus. I said he advocated increased production. And he still does. When the news cycle is over on this thing, the offshore drilling plan will return. Watch.

 

 

Sure Pangloss, but that's not the issue, so much as the absurdly massive amount of rhetoric surrounding domestic offshore drilling being a panacea for all of our energy woes (Newt Gingrich wrote a whole book on the subject)

 

Oh, so the "issue" is trashing Republicans again. Got it. Sorry, I thought we were talking about the politics of continued drilling vs the inevitability of more oil spills. My bad.

[bascule]

Oh yes, I see, so all nuclear accidents are impossible now that we have this "negative void coefficient"...

 

Aside from Chernobyl, none of these accidents (e.g. Three Mile Island, Windscale) has ever cost a human life, and none have had environmental impact remotely close to this oil spill.

[Pangloss]

First time for everything?

 

I guess we've heard the end of Democratic opposition to the wind farm off the beach from the Kennedy compound, then, right?

[bascule]

Spin in bold. Up until today the President advocated offshore drilling, and you've just acknowledged that point in announcing that he's now killing that project.

 

Yes, Pangloss, I entirely concede that offshore drilling was part of Obama's energy platform. However, you are glossing over the fact that this is a relatively minor part of his energy platform, and that the real focus is alternative energy.

 

Seriously, in the entire page on his energy policy, the only indication that he wanted more offshore drilling was mentioned in two words, and even that didn't specifically mention offshore drilling. And perhaps he was doing it as a hat tip to the massive Republican push towards offshore drilling?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I guess we've heard the end of Democratic opposition to the wind farm off the beach from the Kennedy compound, then, right?

 

I'd love a wind farm in my backyard. Windmills rule.

[Mr Skeptic]

I trust that the Democrats are far too honorable to use a disaster like this oil spill for political gain, like the Republicans did with the 9/11 attacks.

[Pangloss]

However, you are glossing over the fact that this is a relatively minor part of his energy platform, and that the real focus is alternative energy.

 

Actually what I said was that this would have happened regardless.

 

Certainly it's true that it's part of a larger focus on alternate energy, but how is that relevant to the current spill? You started this thread with the words "drill baby drill", which I assume is a reference to Republican energy policy or perhaps Sarah Palin.

 

So, by all means, show us the connection between that policy and the current spill, without showing that you were just making a partisan point about Republicans. I'm all ears.

 

 

Seriously, in the entire page on his energy policy, the only indication that he wanted more offshore drilling was mentioned in two words, and even that didn't specifically mention offshore drilling. And perhaps he was doing it as a hat tip to the massive Republican push towards offshore drilling?

 

Oh no, he was definitely pushing offshore drilling plans directly forward. From March 31st:

 

Offshore oil and gas drilling will move ahead in Atlantic waters from Virginia to mid-Florida, westward in the Gulf of Mexico from125 miles off Florida's coast, and off parts of Alaska's northern coast, President Obama announced Wednesday.

 

"Today we’re announcing the expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration – but in ways that balance the need to harness domestic energy resources and the need to protect America’s natural resources," Obama said in his prepared remarks.

 

Some environmentalists say that the president has betrayed his renewable-energy and environmental credentials. A few oil industry groups gave the announcement tepid support. But industry backers in Congress said the move fell far short of opening the the nation's offshore waters for energy development.

 

The president noted that his steps were sure to displease many, but the move was a compromise plan to boost domestic energy production in the interim before renewable energy was widely available, while creating jobs and still protecting the environment.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0331/Obama-seeks-compromise-in-offshore-drilling-plan

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Politico has an interesting piece up this afternoon about the awkward politics of the oil spill.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36620.html

 

Several Republicans on Friday reiterated their support for offshore drilling – and even Obama said the spill doesn’t change his support for oil exploration in the United States, as a way to replace offshore supplies.

 

But right now, it’s Obama who could face more short-term political trouble, experts said, since just weeks ago the president was announcing plans for greater use of offshore drilling – and dismissing the risks of a disaster.

 

Gotta love this quote:

 

Just a few weeks ago, Obama downplayed the idea of a leak like the one that is currently unfolding in the Gulf. “Oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced. Even during Katrina, the spills didn’t come from the oil rigs, they came from the refineries onshore,” Obama said during a Q-and-A session in North Carolina on April 2.

 

Oof!

 

Interestingly, Obama's biggest critics on this are Democrats. Since Republicans supported offshore drilling they're forced to give him a pass on this one and site quietly off to one side. Though there's a hint in the Politico piece about an unfortunate new Republican rallying cry of "spill baby spill".

 

But it's interesting that this seems to have produced possibly the closest thing to an intellectual statement ever issued by Sarah Palin:

 

“Even with the strictest oversight in the world, accidents still happen,” Former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) said in a statement posted on her Facebook page. “No human endeavor is ever without risk – whether it’s sending a man to the moon or extracting the necessary resources to fuel our civilization. I repeat the slogan “drill here, drill now” not out of naiveté or disregard for the tragic consequences of oil spills – my family and my state and I know firsthand those consequences.”’

 

She added: “How could I still believe in drilling America’s domestic supply of energy after having seen the devastation of the Exxon-Valdez spill? I continue to believe in it because increased domestic oil production will make us a more secure, prosperous, and peaceful nation.”

 

Gee, is that nuance?

Edited May 1, 2010 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.

[bascule]

Certainly it's true that it's part of a larger focus on alternate energy, but how is that relevant to the current spill? You started this thread with the words "drill baby drill", which I assume is a reference to Republican energy policy or perhaps Sarah Palin.

 

"Drill Baby Drill" is, for all intents and purposes, the centerpiece of Republican energy policy. My opinion is that it wouldn't have been part of the Obama plan had it not been so heavily pushed by Republicans during the 2008 election. And even then, it's not exactly a major component of his plan.

 

Oh no, he was definitely pushing offshore drilling plans directly forward.

 

Pangloss, was I unclear when I said "I entirely concede that offshore drilling was part of Obama's energy platform"? I thought I was, but apparently not. To reiterate, I entirely concede that offshore drilling was part of Obama's energy platform.

[Pangloss]

Okay, so you feel that Democrats have a better plan on offshore drilling, which, somehow completely unlike the Republican plan, is to do more of it. Got it.

 

Oh you weren't unclear at all, btw. You are quite clearly downplaying the President's clearly stated intention to expand offshore drilling:

 

Seriously, in the entire page on his energy policy, the only indication that he wanted more offshore drilling was mentioned in two words, and even that didn't specifically mention offshore drilling. And perhaps he was doing it as a hat tip to the massive Republican push towards offshore drilling?

 

Which is not reflective of the president's more recent words and deeds:

 

Offshore oil and gas drilling will move ahead in Atlantic waters from Virginia to mid-Florida, westward in the Gulf of Mexico from125 miles off Florida's coast, and off parts of Alaska's northern coast, President Obama announced Wednesday.

 

"Today we’re announcing the expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration – but in ways that balance the need to harness domestic energy resources and the need to protect America’s natural resources," Obama said in his prepared remarks.

 

Some environmentalists say that the president has betrayed his renewable-energy and environmental credentials. A few oil industry groups gave the announcement tepid support. But industry backers in Congress said the move fell far short of opening the the nation's offshore waters for energy development.

 

The president noted that his steps were sure to displease many, but the move was a compromise plan to boost domestic energy production in the interim before renewable energy was widely available, while creating jobs and still protecting the environment.

 

He stepped right into it, and it was very wet and squishy.

[bascule]

Hi Pangloss. To re-reiterate:

 

I entirely concede that offshore drilling was part of Obama's energy platform

 

Do you get the idea now?

 

No really, please keep telling me how offshore drilling was part of Obama's energy platform. I really want to know. That is relevant information to the argument I'm presenting, which is:

 

I entirely concede that offshore drilling was part of Obama's energy platform

 

Thank you for entirely ignoring any of the points presented, so you can drive home the fact that offshore drilling was part of Obama's energy platform. After all, it's not like:

 

I entirely concede that offshore drilling was part of Obama's energy platform

 

No, please keep arguing that point!

Edited May 1, 2010 by bascule

[ParanoiA]

The part you're missing is that offshore drilling was part of Obama's energy platform.

 

(sorry, that's about as lame as the person that just has to throw in "and many more..." at the end of the Happy Birthday song isn't it?)

 

I was watching the news last night, and I guess they're slamming the administration for being quick to send out the lawyers, and slow to respond to the clean up. Now the spill is headed for Louisiana and Florida, and once again, Louisiana is screwed by an inactive administration. They're comparing this to Katrina - and I'm not talking about Fox news either.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/us/politics/01obama.html

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64000320100501

 

http://www.malaysianews.net/story/629734

 

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0501/1224269476038.html

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/30/93231/gulf-oil-spill-brings-out-attorneys.html

 

And really, it's starting to sound like the left wants it both ways. The oil spill being a catastrophic event with terrible environmental consequences and loss of life - but not so bad that the administration should be held accountable for *not* acting like it.

 

 

Of course, the conservatives are criticizing the moratorium on offshore drilling, but that seems entirely practical to me. Until you find out what happened, it's difficult to approve new work. There may be additional requirements for an offshore rig, or a change in design - similar to bascule's comment about nuclear "negative void coefficient" to prevent another Chernobyl.

[jackson33]

bascule; Frankly, I don't think Obama, has any idea how anything in a Free Market Capitalism system/society actually works, is promoting and trying to enact a Socialist System, that he and his basic insider advisors feel will work and in their opinion, truly believing is best for any society. His latest off the cuff statement "I wonder when enough is enough" referring to earnings, pretty well say's it all. It's that excess wealth that's out their in the economy that Capitalism draws its ability to grow, not the Federal Government, which I believe he and again the Administration, would like to control.

 

As for his recent Statements on allowing off shore drilling in selected areas, it's my understanding, those selected leases were already available under Bush's plan and not acted on since they took over. Never the less, he was responding to Palin's "drill baby drill" which was getting more attention (politically) trying to show moderation for the 2010 elections and the primaries in many States, already being decided.

 

As for the Katrina comparisons, they are identical in many ways, but had to keep with in the Executives jurisdiction. That is both Bush and Obama could only work with the information available and IMO, in both cases were getting poor information from the source of the problems. I'm not happy with the Republicans on this, but I'm less happy with the Democrats, making this a political issue, already scheduling HEARINGS for BP Executives, so they can slam bang them with swear words to accommodate a political base.

 

My expected results; Off Shore Drilling, will be at a stand still, if not reduced by Monday, for years to come, that's Guithners policy of taking advantage of a crisis is essential in politics and will no doubt affect Nuclear Power Plants as well. We WILL have 4.00/5.00 Gasoline Prices in this Country, THIS summer and they will not go down in the fall, as the rest of the world recovers from the current SAID down turn. Both China and India are running REAL GDP growths of 7-10%. Drilling in the Gulf or off shore National Boundaries will continue, not by the US but by every other interested Country in the World. Worse yet, I expect to see power shortages THIS summer in many US areas, never seen before, you might also watch corn prices (largest single product used for food for humans AND animal food,feed) while they try to avoid the problems.

[Pangloss]

I entirely concede that offshore drilling was part of Obama's energy platform

 

I'm not talking about Obama's "energy platform", I'm talking about the actual approval of offshore drilling, which happened just a couple of weeks ago. You haven't acknowledged that at all.

[Dudde]

I don't regard this accident as something to destroy the plans for offshore drilling on - accidents are going to happen regardless of industry or location. Also, what's wrong with this quote:

 

Just a few weeks ago, Obama downplayed the idea of a leak like the one that is currently unfolding in the Gulf.

~~

they came from the refineries onshore,” Obama said during a Q-and-A session in North Carolina on April 2.

 

granted, it came at a very inopportune time to the future, but when it was stated, it was pretty true.

 

Okay, so you feel that Democrats have a better plan on offshore drilling, which, somehow completely unlike the Republican plan, is to do more of it. Got it.

 

...are you disagreeing that offshore drilling is beneficial to the U.S or trying to be facetious?

[bascule]

I'm not talking about Obama's "energy platform", I'm talking about the actual approval of offshore drilling, which happened just a couple of weeks ago. You haven't acknowledged that at all.

 

*facepalm*

 

Yes Pangloss, Obama actually approved of offshore drilling! I thought that was clear from my statement:

 

I entirely concede that offshore drilling was part of Obama's energy platform

 

But hey, if you want to continue to draw out arguments with people who agree with you, be my guest.

[Pangloss]

...are you disagreeing that offshore drilling is beneficial to the U.S or trying to be facetious?

 

I support more offshore drilling.

 

I think environmentalists should be careful what they wish for. This oil spill could be the biggest boost nuclear power has seen in decades.