Trust us...We'll be safe....

Do you know what we have in place now as far as inspections of the rigs and their compliance with safety regs? Is this done by the government, an independent agency, or the oil companies themselves? I can find precious little information on it, then again I may be looking in the wrong place. I can be google challenged at times. I know money is tight, but it seems to me to be a wise investment to have some kind of safety compliance officer on each and every oil rig, especially in the gulf. Like you said, a lot of people depend on the Gulf to make a living, and I would be very upset myself if the steady supply of Gulf oysters were to disappear......

Nmysys wrote:

Oil spills cost money.....our money....

So do Tomahawk Missiles, but you don't complain about that, only corporations. How convenient!!!!!

You don't complain about our $$$$$$ being given away to Brazil so they can improve their oil output, shall I go on????

Oh darn it, I forgot, the END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IMO, ya missed the point, I think, missiles are made by corperations, but we can only use them if the evil corperation that made the missiles, don't make a profit. Same with Brazil, except they can make a profit, because it's NOT the U.S.
HAAA Hell I'm confused again. :Censored

I must have missed something in this report from The Times-Picayune. Are we really getting all upset over a 'spill' of 3.72 gallons of crude oil, and requesting massive inspections based upon that?

jf1aCAI:

Yes, they are getting upset over the small spill because it deflects from the REAL ISSUES that are going on, like our firing over 100 Tomahawk Missiles because there war hating President started us into another war in the Middle East, picking and choosing which one to. They have had absolutely no defense for any of it, so they picked this to be outraged over. It looks like they have even enlisted the Infamous NavyCPO7 to assist them to tell me to shut the hell up. He doesn't get it though so as he loves to pick on me, he joins in.

Gee, since I wasn't in the Navy, I didn't have to take orders then from a Chief Petty Officer, I don't have to now.

They want to debate because Archer says so, but won't debate any of the important issues, because there isn't any defense of them.

jf1acai wrote: I must have missed something in this report from The Times-Picayune. Are we really getting all upset over a 'spill' of 3.72 gallons of crude oil, and requesting massive inspections based upon that?

If it was only "3.72 gallons" we probably wouldn't be getting upset.

I guess we can continue to try to post in words of not more than 2-syllables so that some parties who can't follow more than 2 topics at-a-time can attempt to follow...

Or, in the words of the immortal .......

Nmysys wrote: Since when do you dictate what anyone can post or reply about??
Or can't your mind adapt to more than one thing at a time?

OK, if it is more than 3.72 gallons, how much are we really talking about, and where is the credible documentation of it?

I'm trying to get some idea of what the real scope of this is, and I haven't found anything that defines it yet.

Yet we don't hear about this:
"A wrecked ship is threatening to cause an environmental disaster on an island which is home to endangered penguins, conservationists have warned. The vessel has grounded on Nightingale Island, part of the Tristan da Cunha UK overseas territory in the South Atlantic, causing an oil slick around the island which is home to nearly half the world's population of northern rockhopper penguins. Some 1,500 tonnes of heavy crude oil from the MS Olivia, which was shipping soya beans between Rio de Janeiro and Singapore, is leaking into the sea. According to the RSPB, oil now surrounds Nightingale Island and extends into a slick eight-miles offshore, threatening the endangered penguins and the economically important rock lobster fishery. Hundreds of penguins have already been seen coming ashore covered in oil, said the wildlife charity. The shipwreck could also lead to any rats onboard colonising the island and posing a huge risk to the native seabird populations - whose chicks and eggs could be eaten by the invasive rodents. The Tristan da Cunha islands, in particular Nightingale and its neighbour Middle Island, are home to millions of nesting seabirds and there are more than 200,000 northern rockhopper penguins on the island. RSPB research biologist Richard Cuthbert said: "The consequences of this wreck could be potentially disastrous for wildlife and the fishery-based economy of these remote islands. "Nightingale is one of two large islands in the Tristan da Cunha group that are rodent-free. If rats gain a foothold their impact would be devastating." Tristan conservation officer Trevor Glass said: "The scene at Nightingale is dreadful as there is an oil slick encircling the island. Members of the Tristan conservation team are doing all they can to clean up the penguins that are currently coming ashore. It is a disaster."

Why? http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/woalert_read.php?cid=30014

What do you mean "we don't hear about it"? It was on the news last night, and it's on any number of news websites?

You need to get out more...

LadyJazzer wrote: What do you mean "we don't hear about it"? It was on the news last night, and it's on any number of news websites?

You need to get out more...

Heck, I just read about it on some local site in the mountains...


Oh, wait....



Nevermind.

Oh so, if you just read about it on "some local site in the mountains", then why the insinuation that "we don't hear about it"???

Actually, it WAS on the news last night, and here is the link the report... 3/22/11:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/2 ... 38909.html

Please try to stay up...