Cooler head is needed

[Hutzpa]

Do not rush to judgment on this oil spill, do not let the distractors win on this
issue.

Offshore drilling is as safe as sending astronauts to the space station.

I believe this is just a disaster cause by people who understands what the repercussion
would be once a disaster of this magnitude occur. Lack of concentration and responsibility.

Stand your grounds on this Mr President, you are on a winning strategy.




















:patriot:

[annabanana]

1. So Halliburton blew this up to . . .umm. .

Make Obama look bad?. . Make the "drill baby drill" people look bad?

[mikelgb]

2. K+R everybody should see this bullshit

[AuntPatsy]

3. I agree, there is more than meets the eye here...I honestly know of no other industry these days

whom are more safety conscience..but accidents do happen and they can occur within any frame of industrial enterprises...as are humans, machines are not infalible...though both at times beg to differ...nor is nature's fury that can cause catastrophic damage not only in loss of lives but in regards to destruction of environment something that can be foretold...

sad how many families are being affected by this horrific disaster as well as the destruction of our environment and the oceans habitants being so long term....I only hope we can learn how to fix what obviously went wrong in order to prevent any future such accident...

[Hutzpa]

6. I agree entirely

whats sad is when you get folks that have no knowledge of whats involved and how these
companies have taken immense precautions on keeping their workers safe that will use an
unfortunate incidents such as this would get a knee jerk reactions from those who do not \
want to see offshore drilling and those who wants high oil prices.

Nothing but an unfortunate accident caused by lapsed of judgment by an individual.

[LiberalAndProud]

7. Immense precautions.

Is the sarcasm tag implied? Because surely you can't be serious.

[Hutzpa]

8. Yes, IMMENSE PRECAUTIONS

because I know what I'm talking about, I am not relying on third party assertions
to influence my thinking on this occasion.

Just saying and NO there is no sarcasm included either.

[ShortnFiery]

10. Then why didn't THIS rig have a shut-off mechanism? MONEY is why. eom

[ShortnFiery]

11. BP didn't install the "fail safe" shutoff valve because at $500,000 it was deemed TOO EXPENSIVE.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-pope/drill-baby-drill----or-wh_b_558473.html

Early investigations have revealed that BP did not bother to install -- and that U.S. regulations do not require -- a backup device to provide another layer of protection in case the "fail-safe" shutoff valve failed (which is exactly what happened). Brazil requires such a device, and oil companies like Shell install it routinely even in the U.S. BP didn't because, at $500,000, it was "too expensive."

[Hutzpa]

12. That should be regarded as negligence

it is negligence and cost saving efforts that prevented BP from installing those valves,
assuming they where not installed, but, according to reports I have been monitoring those
valves where installed, buts failed to shut off once the explosion occurred.

There could be several reasons for this failure to occur, thats should be one of the focus
of investigation, why did the valve failed?

[ShortnFiery]

15. They weren't installed. And yes, it's NEGLIGENCE. Tell the dead wildlife that they were just ...

being "thrifty" for their beloved stockholders? Tell the fisheries who will LOSE their businesses? Tell the people who will have OIL BEACHES instead of white sand? :puke:

[Hutzpa]

26. This is the problem I've been seeing lately

people dramatizing disaster.

What we need is solutions not dramatization of what could have, would have, should have.

[ShortnFiery]

35. No, unless you choose not to believed what was published as fact, corroborated by BP.

No dramatization that they were so cheap they didn't want to insure the rig with a fail safe device costing $500,000.

There's no way to SPIN this case.

[Hutzpa]

42. I am not sure where you got spin from?

you sounded like a reporter to me. :shrug:

What I said is that I have seen other reports that said the valves failed, lets not get
ahead of ourselves here.

[ShortnFiery]

51. Read the article cited above again? You have nothing to base your arguments upon. eom

[Hutzpa]

57. You keep pointing to an article written by an Huffpost contributor

to base your assertion on, why not find me an article written by an expert that knows what they
are talking about instead of one that is claiming the oil spill to be 200,000 gallons per day
which in it self is an out right lie. Why should I use my energy and read that lie.


For you info only



https://www.piersystem.com/go/doc/2931/532235/



https://www.piersystem.com/go/doc/2931/534651/


Once again, know your facts not some third party advocates opinion on what they think is happening.

Okay....

[ShortnFiery]

74. Yes, you are an "expert" who ABOVE claimed the oil slick the size of New Orleans, when in fact ...

according to Reuters and the reports on WTOP, it's more like the size of the island nation of Jamaica.

Yes, such EXPERTISE. (see post #36) :eyes:

[Hutzpa]

77. Heck

well congratulations all round then for pushing so hard.

I shall now retire to my hole once again.

[LiberalAndProud]

30. It is an example of exactly how regulation functions to safeguard the public.

It is an expensive safeguard, and the valve was omitted because it didn't survive the cost v. benefit analysis.

If we have learned nothing else, the abject failure of industry (especially energy and banking) to police themselves should clearly illustrate that Deregulation often leads to Disaster.

[Dappleganger]

34. Well said, my thoughts exactly.

Somebody has to be the grownup.

[Dappleganger]

33. Then why don't you tell me why...

That WHSTF scenario happens, they don't have fail-safe valves in place OR have the 'dome' even BUILT (which will take THREE MONTHS) to cap off that line.

"Accidents happen" is NO excuse. My husband is a mechanical engineer in plant production, quite often using volatile chemicals, and was absolutely flabbergasted by the lack of preparation for the WHSTF scenario by the oil company. He's a conservative and was pro-drilling in the ocean but has quickly changed that tune after seeing this disaster. He also thought that companies/corporations could be trusted to "do the right thing."

Let me tell you there is NO "do the right thing" when companies only are trying to make money and not be at least a tiny bit responsible to the environment or people. That's why government is so necessary because corporations are driven only by squeezing every single last penny they can out of everything they do.

[Oregone]

13. "Nothing but an unfortunate accident caused by lapsed of judgment by an individual"

Is it not concerning that the lapse of judgment by an individual can cause this degree of damage to the economy and environment? But a system that allows this is still, in your view, safe? It seems like a very contradictory point of view.

[Hutzpa]

16. Why should that be contradictory?

Airplanes crashes right? do we call for captains to be banned or airlines to cease existing
because of a plane crash? :shrug:

[Oregone]

18. Yes, and when they do, do they cause this much widespread disaster?

No.

A nuclear reactor does. They have so many safeguards, even Homer Simpson couldn't take one down (what takes them down is neglect of their infrastructure and safety mechanisms)

[Hutzpa]

23. We are not talking about nuclear reactors here

this is an oil spill that should never have happened assuming BP had installed
the shut off valve. I said assuming because of conflicting reports of valves where
not installed and valves failed, depending on who you want to believe.

[Oregone]

25. We are talking about a "safe" industry a single idiot can fuck up to cause utter destruction.

Not contradictory...not a bit.

:rofl:

The nuclear bit was just to draw a comparative contrast (comparable on the destructive level somewhat, and contrasting in terms of safety). We aren't talking about airplanes either, right? :)

[Hutzpa]

29. Don't be ignorant dude

one person cannot fuck up an industry, surely that is not my point, what I would say to you though
is that a mistake by an individual can cause this much disaster considering all the flammables and
chemicals that are stored on rigs.

[ShortnFiery]

31. Thanks, you've made our argument for us. In this SCARY age of terrorism, ...

we should NOT build ANY MORE oil rigs or nuclear power plants.

Problem solved! :-)

[Hutzpa]

47. You cannot be serious?

for a second there I mistook you for a tea party advocate, that is something I would expect
from them, not you.

[ShortnFiery]

49. Stop with the labels. You want to make an inane argument, I'm just completing

your thought process for you.

I'm far from a teabagger, I'm a Kucinich type liberal democrat.

[Hutzpa]

61. It's laughable how you are quick to equate this to terrorism. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

76. No, NOTHING about this disaster is "laughable." eom

[Forkboy]

54. And denying evidence you can see with your own eyes is also something Teabaggers do.

:shrug:

[Hutzpa]

58. I am not denying anything

I am saying this is a disaster not a reason to prevent oil drilling.

[Forkboy]

66. Then you agree the spill IS bigger than New Orleans?

[Oregone]

32. "a mistake by an individual can cause this much disaster"

Exactly. Sounds "SAFE"

Oh yeah, I know there are "flammables and chemicals"...thats why they need to invest to make it idiot proof (aka safe). There are a plethora of industries with a lot more explosive and unstable materials than this who go to great lengths to idiot proof their facilities.

[Forkboy]

19. How much of the environment is destroyed in a plane crash?

Is it an area bigger than, say, New Orleans? :shrug:

[Hutzpa]

21. I think your assertion is based on the media exaggeration. n/t

[Forkboy]

24. I think you're blind.

Because the oil spill is bigger than New Orleans. A picture isn't "media exaggeration". I'd say "nice try", but it isn't. It's laughable, as is your OP.

[Hutzpa]

36. When the experts details the nautical miles

of the spill only then I will make such baseless assertions, not looking at a photo
and guessing that the size looks like New Orleans, again another display of media
exaggeration.

[Oregone]

41. Not my approach

Im going to gague the extent of the impact of the oil spill soley on what Obama says about it.

[Hutzpa]

43. I'm glad you realize how silly you sound and look.

nutter...


:*

[Forkboy]

46. After your repsonse to me above, you might want to look in the mirror and repeat that.

[Forkboy]

44. No "guessing" about it. Use your own eyes.

That gray area in the top left is New Orleans. You can see the spill. Is that spill bigger than N.O. or not, yes or no?



Please tell me you can do better than this because it's almost embarrassing to witness. Seriously. We're supposed to be the intelligent party, but like Repubs did under Bush, you're willing to deny evidence right in front of your very eyes to continue to push your faith in a man you support. To be blunt, it's fucking sad.

[Hutzpa]

52. Why is it fucking sad to believe in someone to do the right thing

So far he has shown just that, why should that be fucking sad??? My loyalty
stands firmly behind him, so get used to it.

[Forkboy]

53. It's sad that you deny reality in doing so, not that you support him in the first place.

So is that spill bigger than New Orleans, yes or no?

[Hutzpa]

60. Here is a photo of the actual spill

not some fancy looking photo.

https://www.piersystem.com/go/doc/2931/532235


On Edit

Your accusation of me not supporting Obama is just that, so I will ignore you said that.
You have no idea, but carry on with your insinuations and innuendos.

[Forkboy]

65. Thanks, that photo shows that it's even bigger than the one I posted did.

:rofl:

Your accusation of me not supporting Obama is just that, so I will ignore you said that.

Read it again. That wasn't an accusation of you not supporting Obama. :eyes:

You have no idea

Oh trust me, I have a real good idea about how much you support Obama.

not some fancy looking photo.

:rofl:

[Hutzpa]

68. You truely are a Forkboy.

:evilgrin:

[Forkboy]

72. Is that your final answer?

:)

Here, we'll put them up together....

Here's my pic again....



And here's the one you posted....



Why are you so afraid to answer the question I've been asking? Is this spill bigger than New Orleans or not?

[lumberjack_jeff]

70. Which individual forgot to install a shutoff valve?

Whack his peepee!

[kenny blankenship]

4. Don't worry! I'm sure he has no intention of actually rethinking his drill baby drill policy

He just has to let the story cool off for a while and pretend to give a shit about ecocide.

[ensho]

5. kick

nt

[tekisui]

14. They will find the 'problem' and 'fix' it so the future rigs will be 100% safe and clean!

:rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

9. Yes, be a "patriotic" Corporate American Citizen!

[Forkboy]

17. Oy vey.

:rofl:

[Jennicut]

20. The real issue is that most Americans refuse to go back to living the life of

the Puritans or first pioneers. Therefore, we have a big consumption of oil and coal. Don't want to get it from the Middle East? It needs to come from somewhere. Coal and oil will continue to be resources used until there are less expensive and operating renewables that are able to actually take the place of fossil fuels. There is, of course nuclear energy. But that has it's own drawbacks with the waste involved.

[ShortnFiery]

22. How about our President ask ALL OF US, included the bloated Oil Cartels, to wean off of this shit?

We could all "work together" to make this a cleaner planet.

He has NOT asked for any self-control on either the part of the corporations nor the people.

[Jennicut]

40. Ask people? Like Jimmy Carter did?

Most people do not want to limit their consumption. Therefore, we need something to take the place of oil and coal. I am not a big supporter of drilling more. It is a short term solution. It is inevitable that we need to find different sources of energy. However, are we ready to solely rely on renewable energy yet?

[ShortnFiery]

45. You have less faith in The American People than I do. If properly educated ...

without the corporate whore media spin, Americans can pull together.

We need Obama to be THAT leader to properly motivate all parties, not just promote policies which line the pockets of the political ruling elite.

[Jennicut]

50. You mean the American people that support the Immigration Law in Arizona?

People refuse to give up things until there is no alternative or they are forced. Not going to happen any time in the future.

Ask the Dem coal state Senators what they think of CO2 being considered a pollutant by Obama's EPA? Some of them are the "good" kind, the liberal kind.

[ShortnFiery]

55. That's no argument. There has been essentially NO leadership on this issue either.

Power abhors a vacuum.

If "the powers that be" truly CARED about the American people as much as they care about their "Wealth Management Portfolios" we'd see changes and focused leadership.

Unfortunately we are The Death Spiral of Crony Capitalism:

No pride in one's Nation NOR the People within it.

All that's important is WEALTH.

[Oregone]

27. What a silly assertion. Sustainable, environmental conscious living requires pioneer living?

[Jennicut]

37. Do we have the renewables in place yet?

Not that it cannot be done.
The argument is not that it cannot happen but that it is not around the corner in a year.

[ShortnFiery]

38. Then it's beyond time to get started IN A BIG WAY. End the occupations and invest

in renewable energy.

[Oregone]

39. Do we have market & political forces creating incentives to provide full alternatives?

No (and so long as we expand drilling, probably not ever).

Does the technology exist to do this? Probably (but there is a lot of political red tape people have to cut through first to get so much as a wind farm started these days).

While I believe it is in everyone's interests to reduce consumption and change lifestyles, this doesn't mean "regression". You can progressively change to find a balance between technology and sustainable living. But if an effort is made to control/restrict future growth and reduce consumption, paired with current green technologies, humans can find a comfortable existence that is nothing like the pioneers of yesteryear. There is no political and economic will to do this.

[Hutzpa]

48. So with that I assume that

you are perfectly fine with the idea of us continue buying oil from the middle east as
I think part of the reasoning behind Obama extending offshore drilling is to stop our
over reliant on middle east oil.

[Oregone]

56. No. Im perfectly fine with expanding green energy to phase this out quickly

Nice false dichotomy, strawman though.

Im also perfectly fine with no growth policies, but its political suicide and will never happen. No real solution will ever happen in my opinion, until a cataclysmic event forces mass change (and curtails the population at the same time)

[Hutzpa]

59. Yes I am for renewable energy

but in the mean time while they are working on new energy, wouldn't it be best that we utilize
what we have until we can get what we want. :shrug:

[Oregone]

63. "while they are working on new energy"

:rofl:

Define "working on it". :)

Are they working to do something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany ?

Because thatd be news to me

It would be best now if we start restructing now to a sane society & economy, and massively implementing green energy solutions.

It would not be best to increase supply of dirty fuels to satisfy the demand, and thereby remove incentives to deploy green energy.

[Hutzpa]

67. Nooooo

this one http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5juui7didNwh_vzBmJyrbjxkeF-IgD9FC9H000

[Oregone]

69. Ah..."working on it"...political ass-grabbery promoting ethanol and cap & trade-a-nomics.

That trumps Germany's results!

[asphalt.jungle]

73. the equivalent wiki link for the USA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States

[Hutzpa]

78. Hope he sees this

because I think he has not been paying attention lately.

[Dappleganger]

28. Because a space shuttle only explodes into narwhals and rainbows...

Ah, it all make sense to me now!

:rofl:

[gateley]

62. I kept scrolling down for the punch line, but... nt

[Hutzpa]

64. Not this time gate. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. A space shuttle carries eleven? n/t

[Lucky 13]

75. When the space shuttle blows up it doesn't destroy an entire ecosystem.

Ridiculous corporate pandering... and on DU. Disgusting.

No more drilling. Period.