Obama gets overturned and spanked by a Judge!

archer wrote:

The Viking wrote: Yes one major spill in 50 years so lets shut down billions of dollars, unemploy tens of thousands, and send our rigs and up to 150,000 jobs to other shores. That makes a lot of sense. This judge is using common sense. Obama is having a knee jerk reation for the environmentalists.

Not exactly correct Viking. admittedly these are not all from wells, but it's the same issue....how much safety are we requiring? and is it enough?

1979
· June 3, Gulf of Mexico: Exploratory well Ixtoc 1 blows out, spilling some 140 million gallons of crude into the open sea.

1990
· June 8, off Galveston: Mega Borg releases 5.1 million gallons of oil some 60 nautical miles south-southeast of Galveston after a pump room explosion and fire.

2000
· Nov. 28, Mississippi River south of New Orleans: Tanker Westchester loses power and runs aground, dumping 567,000 gallons of crude oil. The spill was largest in U.S. waters since Exxon Valdez in 1989.

2005
· August-September, New Orleans: The Coast Guard estimates that more than 7 million gallons of oil spilled from various sources during Hurricane Katrina.

2006
· June 19, Calcasieu River, La.: Some 71,000 barrels of waste oil are released from the CITGO refinery during a violent storm.

2008
· July 25, New Orleans: A 61-foot barge, carrying 419,000 gallons of heavy fuel, collides with a 600-foot tanker in the Mississippi River. Hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel leak from the barge, halting all river traffic.

2009
· September, Houston Ship Channel: An oil spill prompted a three-day closure to accommodate cleanup efforts. A 458-foot vessel was trying to turn around when it struck a barge, gouging a hole in the vessel's fuel tank and leaking 10,500 gallons of oil.
· October, 40 miles offshore of Galveston, Texas: a supply vessel crashed against a Liberian-flagged oil tanker, resulting in an 18,000 gallon oil spill.

2010
· January 23, Port Arthur, Texas: About 462,000 gallons of oil spilled when an 800-foot tanker headed for an Exxon Mobil Corp. refinery in Beaumont collided with a vessel pushing two barges.

http://oilonthebeach.blogspot.com/2010/ ... story.html

Again, you tell me, how many is too many before we hold the oil companies accountable BEFORE a spill happens instead of after?

Other than Katrina most of those are tanker accidents. What does that have to do with shutting down refineries?

It's about safety, regulations, and accountability Viking. We have been letting the oil companies self regulate, the oversight has been atrocious, we make recommendations but do not REQUIRE that those companies that can adversly effect our environment and the very way of life on the Gulf Coast adhere to the highest safety standards. Shutting it down certainly sends a strong message that it will no longer be "business as usual". What would you suggest we do? Just let the oil companies continue on as they have until we have another major spill....and another?

archer wrote: It's about safety, regulations, and accountability Viking. We have been letting the oil companies self regulate, the oversight has been atrocious, we make recommendations but do not REQUIRE that those companies that can adversly effect our environment and the very way of life on the Gulf Coast adhere to the highest safety standards. Shutting it down certainly sends a strong message that it will no longer be "business as usual". What would you suggest we do? Just let the oil companies continue on as they have until we have another major spill....and another?

I know this is switching subjects but where was all the outrage when Clinton deregulated the lending industry in 1999 that led to this recession and possibly something we may never recover from.

Back on topic now.......

There are accidents and disastors in every industry and they don't shut down whole parts of that industry just because of one accident. When 9/11 happened, they had no clue how they did it but they opened airports within 3 days. Environmentalists and many liberals just hate big oil companies so they want to treat them differently. Although ironically every one of you could not survive without oil.

Science Chic wrote:

The Viking wrote: I know this is switching subjects but where was all the outrage when Clinton deregulated the lending industry in 1999 that led to this recession and possibly something we may never recover from.

Yes, that is a whole other topic, and yes, us liberals are outraged over the deregulation, let's discuss it in another thread rather than bring it up here. Here it merely tries to serve as a distraction to the topic at hand.

Back on topic now.......

There are accidents and disastors in every industry and they don't shut down whole parts of that industry just because of one accident. When 9/11 happened, they had no clue how they did it but they opened airports within 3 days. Environmentalists and many liberals just hate big oil companies so they want to treat them differently. Although ironically every one of you could not survive without oil.

They haven't shut down the entire industry - merely the deep offshore oil wells (not shallow offshore oil wells, not coal mining, not natural gas mining, etc) which is a prudent measure in light of this disaster. There needs to be a review of materials and procedures before we start them up again. The difference: tanker spills are a small, finite quantity. Deep oil wells tap into huge reserves that aren't easily rectified (as evidenced by 2 months of efforts on this disaster) if something goes wrong. Yes, smart procedures should have been in place from the get-go on these types of wells, but that's a moot point now - they obviously weren't and we need to analyze the current situations and institute effective safety measures, back-up plans, emergency contingency plans, etc before future use of these types of wells again. It's the practical, smart, risk-management way of doing things.

P.S. What's with ignoring the fact that the judge who overturned the moratorium has ties to the oil/energy industry. People get up in arms about Al Gore's ties to carbon offset companies and him making a profit off of his environmental agenda, but no one cares about a judge clearing the way for more oil profits for himself? That doesn't p!$$ anyone off?

If you just think for a moment, you would realize that 1) Our government does not have the expertise to dictate safety issues. 2) Every oil company has a vested interest in not having a blown well... it's simple economics. How long do you suppose it will take BP to recover from the economic losses this disaster inflicts on it? 3) It is the only blow out of a well that has happened out of the tens of thousands that have been drilled and are producing HC. (this excludes the Mexican well) 4) Deep water wells are no different than shallow water wells in terms of operations and safety requirements it's the technology and execution of the back up plans, etc that is the challenge and government is not in a position to do better.

It just amazes me the assumptions advocates for government intervention make, namely, that every oil company does not have effective safety measures, back-up plans, emergency contingency plans, etc. Are you really so naive to think that a company would enter a high risk drilling project without due consideration of the situation? High risk ventures will have failures, no matter how many safety regulations are in place. Take the space program as an alternative example. It's safety checks are better known by all, yet people loose their lives there too due to accidents.

Coal mining, "gas" mining??? these have nothing to do with the oil industry.

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

Science Chic wrote:

The Viking wrote: I know this is switching subjects but where was all the outrage when Clinton deregulated the lending industry in 1999 that led to this recession and possibly something we may never recover from.

Yes, that is a whole other topic, and yes, us liberals are outraged over the deregulation, let's discuss it in another thread rather than bring it up here. Here it merely tries to serve as a distraction to the topic at hand.

Back on topic now.......

There are accidents and disastors in every industry and they don't shut down whole parts of that industry just because of one accident. When 9/11 happened, they had no clue how they did it but they opened airports within 3 days. Environmentalists and many liberals just hate big oil companies so they want to treat them differently. Although ironically every one of you could not survive without oil.

They haven't shut down the entire industry - merely the deep offshore oil wells (not shallow offshore oil wells, not coal mining, not natural gas mining, etc) which is a prudent measure in light of this disaster. There needs to be a review of materials and procedures before we start them up again. The difference: tanker spills are a small, finite quantity. Deep oil wells tap into huge reserves that aren't easily rectified (as evidenced by 2 months of efforts on this disaster) if something goes wrong. Yes, smart procedures should have been in place from the get-go on these types of wells, but that's a moot point now - they obviously weren't and we need to analyze the current situations and institute effective safety measures, back-up plans, emergency contingency plans, etc before future use of these types of wells again. It's the practical, smart, risk-management way of doing things.

P.S. What's with ignoring the fact that the judge who overturned the moratorium has ties to the oil/energy industry. People get up in arms about Al Gore's ties to carbon offset companies and him making a profit off of his environmental agenda, but no one cares about a judge clearing the way for more oil profits for himself? That doesn't p!$$ anyone off?

If you just think for a moment, you would realize that 1) Our government does not have the expertise to dictate safety issues. 2) Every oil company has a vested interest in not having a blown well... it's simple economics. How long do you suppose it will take BP to recover from the economic losses this disaster inflicts on it? 3) It is the only blow out of a well that has happened out of the tens of thousands that have been drilled and are producing HC. (this excludes the Mexican well) 4) Deep water wells are no different than shallow water wells in terms of operations and safety requirements it's the technology and execution of the back up plans, etc that is the challenge and government is not in a position to do better.

It just amazes me the assumptions advocates for government intervention make, namely, that every oil company does not have effective safety measures, back-up plans, emergency contingency plans, etc. Are you really so naive to think that a company would enter a high risk drilling project without due consideration of the situation? High risk ventures will have failures, no matter how many safety regulations are in place. Take the space program as an alternative example. It's safety checks are better known by all, yet people loose their lives there too due to accidents.

Very well stated RockDoc. I was trying to figure out how to say it but I can't top that one.

I just realized how dirty the title of this thread sounds.

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

Science Chic wrote:

The Viking wrote: I know this is switching subjects but where was all the outrage when Clinton deregulated the lending industry in 1999 that led to this recession and possibly something we may never recover from.

Yes, that is a whole other topic, and yes, us liberals are outraged over the deregulation, let's discuss it in another thread rather than bring it up here. Here it merely tries to serve as a distraction to the topic at hand.

Back on topic now.......

There are accidents and disastors in every industry and they don't shut down whole parts of that industry just because of one accident. When 9/11 happened, they had no clue how they did it but they opened airports within 3 days. Environmentalists and many liberals just hate big oil companies so they want to treat them differently. Although ironically every one of you could not survive without oil.

They haven't shut down the entire industry - merely the deep offshore oil wells (not shallow offshore oil wells, not coal mining, not natural gas mining, etc) which is a prudent measure in light of this disaster. There needs to be a review of materials and procedures before we start them up again. The difference: tanker spills are a small, finite quantity. Deep oil wells tap into huge reserves that aren't easily rectified (as evidenced by 2 months of efforts on this disaster) if something goes wrong. Yes, smart procedures should have been in place from the get-go on these types of wells, but that's a moot point now - they obviously weren't and we need to analyze the current situations and institute effective safety measures, back-up plans, emergency contingency plans, etc before future use of these types of wells again. It's the practical, smart, risk-management way of doing things.

P.S. What's with ignoring the fact that the judge who overturned the moratorium has ties to the oil/energy industry. People get up in arms about Al Gore's ties to carbon offset companies and him making a profit off of his environmental agenda, but no one cares about a judge clearing the way for more oil profits for himself? That doesn't p!$$ anyone off?

If you just think for a moment, you would realize that 1) Our government does not have the expertise to dictate safety issues. 2) Every oil company has a vested interest in not having a blown well... it's simple economics. How long do you suppose it will take BP to recover from the economic losses this disaster inflicts on it? 3) It is the only blow out of a well that has happened out of the tens of thousands that have been drilled and are producing HC. (this excludes the Mexican well) 4) Deep water wells are no different than shallow water wells in terms of operations and safety requirements it's the technology and execution of the back up plans, etc that is the challenge and government is not in a position to do better.

It just amazes me the assumptions advocates for government intervention make, namely, that every oil company does not have effective safety measures, back-up plans, emergency contingency plans, etc. Are you really so naive to think that a company would enter a high risk drilling project without due consideration of the situation? High risk ventures will have failures, no matter how many safety regulations are in place. Take the space program as an alternative example. It's safety checks are better known by all, yet people loose their lives there too due to accidents.

Coal mining, "gas" mining??? these have nothing to do with the oil industry.

Excuse me? These companies drill based on calculated risk and they and their many investors were willing to take that risk. This blowout has effectively shut down the Gulf of Mexico and we can't even begin to measure the impact.

1) Our government does not have the expertise to dictate safety issues. Are you willing to work in a country like India or China? I bet the small people/roughnecks are affected by OSHA standards and their safety will be impacted if the gov't doesn't review it too.

2) Every oil company has a vested interest in not having a blown well... it's simple economics. How long do you suppose it will take BP to recover from the economic losses this disaster inflicts on it?

I am not willing to assume ANY oil company "has effective safety measures, back-up plan, emergency contingency plans, etc." If they have it prove it. Government intervention, review and regulation is just another risk to add to their calculation. How long will it take the coasts to recover? As for BP's economic recovery you know they will declare bankruptcy and keep on drilling under another name. BP's CEO Tony Hayward won't lose his yacht.

When they need the Government to clean up this mess they will want want the same deal as the Banksters onWall Street -- nooo, nooo we don't want any regulations just bail out our blow out.

Science Chic wrote: Yeah, and no surprise that it was by a judge with ties to oil - no conflict of interest in that ruling!
http://slabbed.wordpress.com/2010/06/22 ... ng-in-oil/
Katrina’s “who dat Judge Martin Feldman” now dabbling in oil!
June 22, 2010

Feldman, “a true blue outcome-oriented judicial activist who led the law where he wanted it to go” in Katrina litigation, definitely knows where he’s going with the decision he will make in this case. Anyone doubting the outcome need only to look at his Financial Disclosure Report: http://www.judicialwatch.org/jfd/Feldma ... C/2008.pdf

And the uproar that the moratorium will cause long-term economic harm, will it truly...
http://apnews.excite.com/article/201006 ... FTDO1.html

The government also challenged contentions the moratorium will lead to long-term economic harm. Although 33 deepwater drilling sites were affected, there are still 3,600 oil and natural gas production platforms in the Gulf.

I support a moratorium, at least until we understand why the backup blowout protector did not work (or do we already know?). If the backup doesn't work, how do we know the other deep water drilling operations are safe? And if the Obama administration lets drilling continue and another accident occurred, I could only imagine the outrage. My guess is even the Bush administration would of called for a temporary moratorium.

I did look at those links, though, and I don't get it. They attack the judge based on his financial disclosure and it's clear the judge is quite weathly, but it seems a rather simplistic attack based on the fact he owns some oil investments (hey, oil has been profiting from us and one stategy to counter that is to invest part of your portfolio in them, if you can afford it and want to take the risk) . The oil stuff is a small minority of his investments, and by far most of that is income in the 0-$2500 range. And even in the $15000 range, it's still a minority, and looks like a very small minority of the overall portfolio. So is it OK for those site to call him names for that? Like I said, he's obviously wealthy

And it's an investment. I don't think it's in the same class as a campaign contribution from oil companies where you accept money for "nothing", meaning political favors may be expected.

The attacks just seem like cheap shots to me. How much oil money has the Obama administration taken in as contributions? Do those count too?

pineinthegrass wrote:

Science Chic wrote: Yeah, and no surprise that it was by a judge with ties to oil - no conflict of interest in that ruling!
http://slabbed.wordpress.com/2010/06/22 ... ng-in-oil/
Katrina’s “who dat Judge Martin Feldman” now dabbling in oil!
June 22, 2010

Feldman, “a true blue outcome-oriented judicial activist who led the law where he wanted it to go” in Katrina litigation, definitely knows where he’s going with the decision he will make in this case. Anyone doubting the outcome need only to look at his Financial Disclosure Report: http://www.judicialwatch.org/jfd/Feldma ... C/2008.pdf

And the uproar that the moratorium will cause long-term economic harm, will it truly...
http://apnews.excite.com/article/201006 ... FTDO1.html

The government also challenged contentions the moratorium will lead to long-term economic harm. Although 33 deepwater drilling sites were affected, there are still 3,600 oil and natural gas production platforms in the Gulf.

I support a moratorium, at least until we understand why the backup blowout protector did not work (or do we already know?). If the backup doesn't work, how do we know the other deep water drilling operations are safe? And if the Obama administration lets drilling continue and another accident occurred, I could only imagine the outrage. My guess is even the Bush administration would of called for a temporary moratorium.

I did look at those links, though, and I don't get it. They attack the judge based on his financial disclosure and it's clear the judge is quite weathly, but it seems a rather simplistic attack based on the fact he owns some oil investments (hey, oil has been profiting from us and one stategy to counter that is to invest part of your portfolio in them, if you can afford it and want to take the risk) . The oil stuff is a small minority of his investments, and by far most of that is income in the 0-$2500 range. And even in the $15000 range, it's still a minority, and looks like a very small minority of the overall portfolio. So is it OK for those site to call him names for that? Like I said, he's obviously wealthy

And it's an investment. I don't think it's in the same class as a campaign contribution from oil companies where you accept money for "nothing", meaning political favors may be expected.

The attacks just seem like cheap shots to me. How much oil money has the Obama administration taken in as contributions? Do those count too?

Left wing SOP. If you can not argue the legal ruling attack the man.