darthtang aw
Active Member
Off shore drilling has been approved for the east coast.
I am a tad bit surprised.
I am a tad bit surprised.
Just heard.
- Thread starter darthtang aw
- Start date
silverado61
Well-Known Member
Which means gas prices will soar again till the oil rigs are built to cover the cost of construction. You don't think they'll pay for it out of their own pockets do you?
reefraff
Active Member
Funny how that works. People don't go into business to lose money so they price their product to cover the price of production with a profit added in. Thank God you car doesn't run on pharmaceuticals, The major drug companies make 6 or 7 times the profit margin oil companies do.
geridoc
Well-Known Member
If you are interested in east coast drilling, watch over the next few years. There was just a report of thousands of methane vents in the tectonically stable seabed off of the Carolinas. This means that there are hydrocarbon stores deep below, and the oil companies are beginning to show an interest.
2quills
Well-Known Member
Just a show of hands. How many people here believe that more drilling will lead to lower prices at the pump?
As long as people are reliant on petroleum based products then nothing suprises me. It isn't a question of if we will drill. More a question of when.
Aside from the spills the use of sonic cannons for exploration poses a deadly threat to see life as well.
As long as people are reliant on petroleum based products then nothing suprises me. It isn't a question of if we will drill. More a question of when.
Aside from the spills the use of sonic cannons for exploration poses a deadly threat to see life as well.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Have you loomed at the affects of the oil spill currently? Non existant. Areas in the gulf with oil rigs show better coral reef growth as well as an u usually high population of various fish. Fishing around oil platforms have a higher success rate than fishing in areas without oil platforms.
There is oil constantly seeping into the ocean in higher quantities than ten bp oil spills.
2quills
Well-Known Member
Huh?
The locals seem to disagree with your assessment of non existant effects. They still get tar balls washing up on shore after storms.
The US Acadamy of Science is the authority on the study of natural seeps have done three comprehensive studies starting back in 1975, 85 and 2003 and all three have estimated that natural seeps account for less oil entering the oceans than man made ones.
NOAA would also disagree that spills and the use of chemical dispersants have no damaging effects on reefs.
And untill there is a comprehensive study done on the areas close to the deep horizon spill I don't see how you can make those claims.
Gulf shrimp are still being found with oil in their bodies, tumors and disfigurement that is most likely a result of the highly toxic dispersant that were used to sink the oil. Out of site, out of mind.
darthtang aw
Active Member
That's interesting you say gulf shrimp are still found with oil in their bodies, The FDA’s Gulf Coast Seafood Laboratory, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Seafood Inspection Laboratory, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, along with similar agencies from neighboring Gulf coast states, have methodically and repeatedly tested Gulf seafood for cancer-causing “polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.”
“Not a single sample [for oil or dispersant] has come anywhere close to levels of concern,” reported Olivia Watkins, executive media advisor for the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.
“All of the samples have been 100-fold or even 1,000-fold below all of these levels,” reports Bob Dickey, director of the FDA’s Gulf Coast Seafood Laboratory. “Nothing ever came close to these levels.”
In case you are wondering, The levels found are far lower than the the hydrocarbon exposureyou recieve upon filling up your car with fuel.
As to your oil seeps comment, You are a bit outdated. I will leave you with this link to start with and you can continue further research from there.
http://www.livescience.com/5422-natural-oil-spills-surprising-amount-seeps-sea.html
and for the hell of it here is a link to a California website that wants to figureout how to stop the oil seeps...lol. But it holds some good data.
http://www.soscalifornia.org/the-facts/
“Not a single sample [for oil or dispersant] has come anywhere close to levels of concern,” reported Olivia Watkins, executive media advisor for the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.
“All of the samples have been 100-fold or even 1,000-fold below all of these levels,” reports Bob Dickey, director of the FDA’s Gulf Coast Seafood Laboratory. “Nothing ever came close to these levels.”
In case you are wondering, The levels found are far lower than the the hydrocarbon exposureyou recieve upon filling up your car with fuel.
As to your oil seeps comment, You are a bit outdated. I will leave you with this link to start with and you can continue further research from there.
http://www.livescience.com/5422-natural-oil-spills-surprising-amount-seeps-sea.html
and for the hell of it here is a link to a California website that wants to figureout how to stop the oil seeps...lol. But it holds some good data.
http://www.soscalifornia.org/the-facts/
2quills
Well-Known Member
Darth, I see where you are coming from but your link is equating oil seepage 80 times the equivalent to exon Valdez over a span of hundreds of thousands of years. That's a little different than dumping a tanker full near the coast in the matter of days.
I am aware that BP, and some federal and state agencies are eager to get back to business as usual. That's understandable. We can sit here and cherry pick data to fit our arguments. But the fact of the matter is the fishing industry along the north, north east and eastern gulf have been devastated. There are literally still thousands of open cases still pending against BP. And local fishermen are dropping out of the business like flies because they say the fishing just isn't the same.
I'm not an anti drill guy by any means. But there is just as much independent data out there supporting the devastating effects.
Most scientists seem to agree that we are still in our infancy of understanding those effects. Personally I would think it irresponsible to act like all is well and it's no big deal. Because to the tens of thousands of people who's lives were effected by it think it is a big deal.
I would rather be honest about it so that we can have open discussion as to how we can better prevent and respond to such events.
I don't think using Corexit is a good idea. Seems more logical to let nature take it's course.
I am aware that BP, and some federal and state agencies are eager to get back to business as usual. That's understandable. We can sit here and cherry pick data to fit our arguments. But the fact of the matter is the fishing industry along the north, north east and eastern gulf have been devastated. There are literally still thousands of open cases still pending against BP. And local fishermen are dropping out of the business like flies because they say the fishing just isn't the same.
I'm not an anti drill guy by any means. But there is just as much independent data out there supporting the devastating effects.
Most scientists seem to agree that we are still in our infancy of understanding those effects. Personally I would think it irresponsible to act like all is well and it's no big deal. Because to the tens of thousands of people who's lives were effected by it think it is a big deal.
I would rather be honest about it so that we can have open discussion as to how we can better prevent and respond to such events.
I don't think using Corexit is a good idea. Seems more logical to let nature take it's course.
darthtang aw
Active Member
True. I have a saying i use when it comes to pollution control. I equate it to taking a bath. When you take a bath you will make the water dirty. It is inevitable. But you dont crap in your bathtub.
However, i do have a question. Do you believe we should remove ourselves from world affairs. By this i mean keep our military home. No more further middle east involvement. No longer "interfering" in foreign countries affairs such as ukraine/russia, iraq/afghnistan/syria?
However, i do have a question. Do you believe we should remove ourselves from world affairs. By this i mean keep our military home. No more further middle east involvement. No longer "interfering" in foreign countries affairs such as ukraine/russia, iraq/afghnistan/syria?
2quills
Well-Known Member
Not to go out of my way to debunk your earlier claims about studies showing healthy shrimp etc, but...
I think the key thing you missed is that those studies only reflect areas that have been opened and cleared for fishing. Many areas have been slow to open and some are still closed to fishing and in much part to scientific study. It's also ridiculously expensive to conduct those studies in deep water. My guess is it will take many years to put the pieces together.
Interfering in people's affairs is one thing. Being provoked with violence is another. I have no sympathy for ISIL or Hammas. The blood of innocence is on their hands and it certainly seems intentional. I would help my friends if they were ready for it and willing to help themselves.
santamonicahelp
Member
Great debate you guys 
And yes we should shrink the military but that's just me
And yes we should shrink the military but that's just me
darthtang aw
Active Member
You want to stop being global police then we have to stop participating in the global economy. To many of our economic interest sit in unstable regions. To many of our economic opponents would meddle against us without a military precence from us.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Define worse.