What I'm trying to say that none of these candidates would have made good presidents.
Drill, baby, drill!!
- Thread starter anitram
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
What I'm trying to say that none of these candidates would have made good presidents.
AliEnvy
Refugee
It seems to me that in an effort to downplay the seriousness of the spill for as long as possible, Obama's absence of visible leadership was deliberate. HUGE backfire.
kramwest1
has a
CNN Headline News was showing BP's disaster preparedness plan (pre-Deepwater Horizon) this morning and how it was all but identical to the other major oil companies (Chevron, Exxon, etc.).
CNN said that their disaster operations plan was 9 pages long, and the media-relations disaster plan was 40 pages long.
The collusion amongst the regulators (Cheney) and the oil companies is sickening. I didn't see Obama's speech last night, but I'm assuming he didn't call out Bush and Cheney by name for blame.
I'm beginning to jump on the "Fire Salazar" bandwagon. Clean house in the Interior Dept. from the top down--Obama's main appointee through Bush and Cheney's appointees and civil servants.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Moser
Refugee
boom!
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Yeah I get that, but it's a ridiculous solution...
kramwest1
has a
Bigger explosions as a solution to anything* is ridiculous and belongs in the 20th Century. As does fossil fuel use.
*terrorism
*threatening asteroids
kramwest1
has a
Moser
Refugee
How come? I really don't know why its ridiculous. I find two months of gushing oil ridiculous. Are we just going with the "it's primitive" argument?
Perhaps, collapsing the well by explosives will create fissures in the oil cavern ceiling....well, then yes, the risk is ridiculous. But I really don't know why they don't go this route. I know it has been considered...but why turned down?
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
But...but...I thought America knew how to solve everything, Sarah! Remember, we're number one and all that jazz?
Look up the definition of the word "nightmare", she's right next to it.
Angela
Look up the definition of the word "nightmare", she's right next to it.
Angela
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Controled explosions are HUGELY risky underwater, it could possibly cause a much much worse opening.
Plus if you're suggesting atomic, like one poster said the Russians did then you are contaminating life and economies for decades.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
It's sad that Obama is getting beaten up by people from all sides, yet O'Reiley is the only one that seems to understand...
I hate when I agree with him.
YES, there are things that Obama could have done better to look like a better leader, with this I agree, but when we come down to the reality of closing this thing off, NO ONE HAS A FUCKING SOLUTION.
We have plans for Katrinas.
We have plans for war.
We have plans for epidemics.
NO ONE has a plan for this.
I hate when I agree with him.
YES, there are things that Obama could have done better to look like a better leader, with this I agree, but when we come down to the reality of closing this thing off, NO ONE HAS A FUCKING SOLUTION.
We have plans for Katrinas.
We have plans for war.
We have plans for epidemics.
NO ONE has a plan for this.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Exactly. It is interesting the people you find yourself in agreement with sometimes in a crisis-I agreed with Bill, too. He was even shaking his head a bit at Sarah, there was a debate going on. Kinda nice to see that.
Something else to consider, too, I guess BP operates under a foreign flag. So even if Obama did try and put some control on them, technically he really can't do much if anything there because they aren't under U.S. control, they're under Marshall Islands control. It's another clever way for an oil company to sneak past that pesky regulation stuff.
Thank you, and I fully understand that mindset. I absolutely do. I too want future generations to be able to enjoy the very same things we've been lucky enough to enjoy in this world-clean beaches, clear air, lush forests, all sorts of fantastic and curious wildlife, all that good stuff. And I have absolutely no problem with the idea of holding the Obama adminstration responsible for whatever decisions they make about anything. They shouldn't get a free pass, either, no question there. Every government is subject to criticism and scrutiny, and I do appreciate you and other people calling them out on things that I agree are valid arguments, like the vacations and leisure activities and such. I have no disagreement with you on any of this, and I can definitely understand it from a personal standpoint. It's a lot easier to say what you say if you're not so intimately involved in the matter, after all.
And since you live in that area I enjoy hearing your specific opinion, as you know better than I do the way that part of the country operates and can see firsthand the effects of this tragedy. I think it's safe to say I speak for everybody here when I say that I am incredibly sorry for what your area is going through. You guys have been through way too much shit in recent years, and you definitely deserve better
. I will be more than happy to help in any way I can think of, donating money when I have it to aid the cleanup efforts, animal rescue people, I can share links I find to spread the word so others can help, etc. I hope they do find a solution, and you all have your way of life back as soon as possible.
I definitely never thought of you as some "right-wing loon", and apologize if any of what I said ever insinuated that, you do seem very middle-of-the-road to me, which is good. We could use more of that. I think you are spot on with all your observations. I don't think we got the results of the 2008 election wrong, but I think you're right in that everything did happen a bit fast for Obama. I think he was slightly naive and thought that Americans would actually maybe start coming together and that the Republican Party wouldn't play such lowball tactics and that some of the racist tangents of the extreme right wouldn't be nearly as strong and that he had more support from more politicians than he thought or something. He has a lot of fantastic ideas, there's a reason he won in 2008 and that was it, and if he can manage to get all those ideas to be law then hey, we're on the happy train to good times. But, and I can relate to this, as this is a problem I have sometimes, too, he comes up with all these big picture plans and sometimes tends to forget about the boring, tiring, small-detail elements of getting those plans to be a reality.
Surrounding yourself with good people is absolutely important. Like I said, we desperately need campaign finance reform, because it's hard to tell anymore who are the genuinely good political officials and who are just in it for the money and the power and the prestige. Obama could try and seek out the purest people possible to surround hiimself with, and he would be lucky to get maybe five people at best that could fit that criteria. Fixing our political system would do wonders for future governments. I've made my feelings about a Palin presidency quite known here, so you and I are completely in sync there
. Again, I do understand your viewpoint, and you make a lot of excellent arguments, and I apologize again if things got a bit heated here and there . It's a stressful topic, I don't blame people for getting angry one bit.
Angela
Something else to consider, too, I guess BP operates under a foreign flag. So even if Obama did try and put some control on them, technically he really can't do much if anything there because they aren't under U.S. control, they're under Marshall Islands control. It's another clever way for an oil company to sneak past that pesky regulation stuff.
Great Post
Since I live here I think that what makes me so angry. I look at it as a way of life that will be indefinitely altered, I mean for decades this will have effects in the Gulf, it's very sad. You bring up the young people, as you grow older and understand that the policies and actions that we as a generation take will have impacts on future generations. We have a responsibility to leave the world a better place than when we were kids. If you read my earlier posts you can definitely see where I've had a lot of problems with Bush and his Administration's failures but I want to hold Obama's to the same scrutiny and from where I am sitting he has failed on this issue. Maybe BVS is right, maybe living so close to this catastrophe eschews my vision of this and I'm not looking at it from a total objective view and I admit that.[/B]
Thank you, and I fully understand that mindset. I absolutely do. I too want future generations to be able to enjoy the very same things we've been lucky enough to enjoy in this world-clean beaches, clear air, lush forests, all sorts of fantastic and curious wildlife, all that good stuff. And I have absolutely no problem with the idea of holding the Obama adminstration responsible for whatever decisions they make about anything. They shouldn't get a free pass, either, no question there. Every government is subject to criticism and scrutiny, and I do appreciate you and other people calling them out on things that I agree are valid arguments, like the vacations and leisure activities and such. I have no disagreement with you on any of this, and I can definitely understand it from a personal standpoint. It's a lot easier to say what you say if you're not so intimately involved in the matter, after all.
And since you live in that area I enjoy hearing your specific opinion, as you know better than I do the way that part of the country operates and can see firsthand the effects of this tragedy. I think it's safe to say I speak for everybody here when I say that I am incredibly sorry for what your area is going through. You guys have been through way too much shit in recent years, and you definitely deserve better
. I will be more than happy to help in any way I can think of, donating money when I have it to aid the cleanup efforts, animal rescue people, I can share links I find to spread the word so others can help, etc. I hope they do find a solution, and you all have your way of life back as soon as possible.I definitely never thought of you as some "right-wing loon", and apologize if any of what I said ever insinuated that, you do seem very middle-of-the-road to me, which is good. We could use more of that. I think you are spot on with all your observations. I don't think we got the results of the 2008 election wrong, but I think you're right in that everything did happen a bit fast for Obama. I think he was slightly naive and thought that Americans would actually maybe start coming together and that the Republican Party wouldn't play such lowball tactics and that some of the racist tangents of the extreme right wouldn't be nearly as strong and that he had more support from more politicians than he thought or something. He has a lot of fantastic ideas, there's a reason he won in 2008 and that was it, and if he can manage to get all those ideas to be law then hey, we're on the happy train to good times. But, and I can relate to this, as this is a problem I have sometimes, too, he comes up with all these big picture plans and sometimes tends to forget about the boring, tiring, small-detail elements of getting those plans to be a reality.
Surrounding yourself with good people is absolutely important. Like I said, we desperately need campaign finance reform, because it's hard to tell anymore who are the genuinely good political officials and who are just in it for the money and the power and the prestige. Obama could try and seek out the purest people possible to surround hiimself with, and he would be lucky to get maybe five people at best that could fit that criteria. Fixing our political system would do wonders for future governments. I've made my feelings about a Palin presidency quite known here, so you and I are completely in sync there
. Again, I do understand your viewpoint, and you make a lot of excellent arguments, and I apologize again if things got a bit heated here and there . It's a stressful topic, I don't blame people for getting angry one bit.Angela
deep
Blue Crack Addict
.
O'Reiley is the only one that seems to understand...
I hate when I agree with him.
.
Moser
Refugee
Well, nuclear devices are optional. And there are low radiation nuclear devices for that matter.
There is a 15,000 foot long pipe gushing oil out uncontrollably. Drill a hole a few thousand feet down, place some shaped charged explosives, and you may end up shearing rock enough to pinch the pipe shut.
Nuclear is probably overkill. A conventional charge is probably enough to do it. I doubt it will rip open a fifteen thousand foot trench through solid rock. The only thing stopping anyone is probably the list of unknowns.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Like I said very risky.
Moser
Refugee
Elaborate, because you haven't presented any reasons why it is so risky.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
I had a similar suggestion ^
I guess the reservation is that after the explosion, there may be enough pressure from the tapped oil reserve to displace the exploded materials
much like water through a garden hose can be used to bore a hole in the ground
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Your post was full of so many "mays", "unknown"s, and "probably"s that I'm suprised you're not seeing the risk.
When using an explosion as a means to solve a problem, "mays", "unknown"s, and "probably"s are not words that need to be in the equation. If there isn't a scientific model that can be rendered then it's not worth the risk. What if one of the unknowns was to cause a larger leak? No engineer worth their salt would take that job with so many unknowns in play.
popshopper
Acrobat
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 459
Exactly. It is interesting the people you find yourself in agreement with sometimes in a crisis-I agreed with Bill, too. He was even shaking his head a bit at Sarah, there was a debate going on. Kinda nice to see that.
Something else to consider, too, I guess BP operates under a foreign flag. So even if Obama did try and put some control on them, technically he really can't do much if anything there because they aren't under U.S. control, they're under Marshall Islands control. It's another clever way for an oil company to sneak past that pesky regulation stuff.
Thank you, and I fully understand that mindset. I absolutely do. I too want future generations to be able to enjoy the very same things we've been lucky enough to enjoy in this world-clean beaches, clear air, lush forests, all sorts of fantastic and curious wildlife, all that good stuff. And I have absolutely no problem with the idea of holding the Obama adminstration responsible for whatever decisions they make about anything. They shouldn't get a free pass, either, no question there. Every government is subject to criticism and scrutiny, and I do appreciate you and other people calling them out on things that I agree are valid arguments, like the vacations and leisure activities and such. I have no disagreement with you on any of this, and I can definitely understand it from a personal standpoint. It's a lot easier to say what you say if you're not so intimately involved in the matter, after all.
And since you live in that area I enjoy hearing your specific opinion, as you know better than I do the way that part of the country operates and can see firsthand the effects of this tragedy. I think it's safe to say I speak for everybody here when I say that I am incredibly sorry for what your area is going through. You guys have been through way too much shit in recent years, and you definitely deserve better
I definitely never thought of you as some "right-wing loon", and apologize if any of what I said ever insinuated that, you do seem very middle-of-the-road to me, which is good. We could use more of that. I think you are spot on with all your observations. I don't think we got the results of the 2008 election wrong, but I think you're right in that everything did happen a bit fast for Obama. I think he was slightly naive and thought that Americans would actually maybe start coming together and that the Republican Party wouldn't play such lowball tactics and that some of the racist tangents of the extreme right wouldn't be nearly as strong and that he had more support from more politicians than he thought or something. He has a lot of fantastic ideas, there's a reason he won in 2008 and that was it, and if he can manage to get all those ideas to be law then hey, we're on the happy train to good times. But, and I can relate to this, as this is a problem I have sometimes, too, he comes up with all these big picture plans and sometimes tends to forget about the boring, tiring, small-detail elements of getting those plans to be a reality.
Surrounding yourself with good people is absolutely important. Like I said, we desperately need campaign finance reform, because it's hard to tell anymore who are the genuinely good political officials and who are just in it for the money and the power and the prestige. Obama could try and seek out the purest people possible to surround hiimself with, and he would be lucky to get maybe five people at best that could fit that criteria. Fixing our political system would do wonders for future governments. I've made my feelings about a Palin presidency quite known here, so you and I are completely in sync there
Angela
There's plenty of American companies involved which the US government could directly target. BP basically owned the majority rights to the well, but leased out the actual production to Transocean (a swiss-american company who actually owned and operated the rig) and Halliburton who produced and installed the casing which failed. BP have a lot of failing in the whole mess, but there's been a bit of US xenophobia about the whole thing. BP may have owned and drove the car when the brakes failed but there were two other mechanics playing about them before they set off.
The main problem here is that the whole shebang was regulated so lightly. The market heads towards a cost floor so cannot regulate itself, safety gets less and less important against the need for profit. This would never have happened in the North Sea, where remote shutoffs for blowout preventers are legally required.
I actually think if the casing is found to be substandard Halliburton will end up paying for most of this anyway.
Moser
Refugee
Well, yes, there is the risk of making the situation worse. I speak with uncertainty because I am not an expert. But the tactic has been used with success before. But still, no one has offered any reason WHY this idea isn't considered more and more when no other quick solution exists, except of the easy "It can make things worse" argument without offering any evidence on why. I asked why we haven't collapsed the well with explosives, and that's all I have heard. "It can make things worse." HOW? "It just can. We don't know anything about it."
Well, why don't you looked into the issue a little more? Why do you think I asked?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Your line of logic is perplexing. You say I'm not offering any evidence of why, but you're only offering that it might work.
If you don't know all the variables then here are two biggest concerns: the collapse doesn't result in closing the opening but instead opens it up even further. You have to understand everything underneath that surface to know for sure it will close up the opening. And two, like Deep mentioned the pressure has to go somewhere. The well is tapped now it has to go somewhere, you can't exactly reverse the flow.
Another thing to consider is that if the explosion doesn't seal off the opening now you have the main part of the leak under rubble and you've made it harder to access.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Doh, that's right, yes, I forgot about Haliburton being involved. Lots of people to share the blame here, definitely, thank you for elaborating on that. Will be interesting to see how that all plays out, if prosecutions do go ahead, which I can't imagine they won't.
They've got their heads on straight in the North Sea, then, that's reassuring to hear somebody out there gets it. Yeah, this is obviously a case of lack of proper regulation, and just further illustrates precisely why it's so important to have it, why we can't just be so laissez-faire with businesses. It's amazing and sickening what gets neglected in the rush for profits nowadays.
Oooh. Good. I hope so, they deserve to pay up their part of this, too. I'd love to see Haliburton get punished for once.
Angela
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
kramwest1
has a
"he's more machine now, than man. twisted, and evil."
Is it wrong for me to want to waterboard him
coolian2
Blue Crack Supplier
don't you love the race to the bottom? capitalism ftw!
Moser
Refugee
From your answers, it sounded like you didn't want a bomb used because you didn't know what was going on. Now, let me re-explain my perplexing logic.
a) An explosive is a quite simple stop solution to the oil spill. It has been used in effect before.
b) It has been considered and dropped. How come? Why did they drop the idea? What are the technical problems? Exactly, why can it make things worse?
I came searching for good answers, wondering if anyone who has the knowledge on the situation has good reasons, not the same half-baked answers I have found all over the net "It can make things worse by creating new ruptures." Why do you say that? "There are so many things to be considered." Like what? This is what I actually want to know. But anyway, I feel like I'm rephrasing everything to just find out no one here actually knows anything. I don't blame you. I don't either.
For example, this is what I was looking for:
OK, here is quite a damn good reason to not use a bomb. If the bore casing is fractured, then a bomb won't help at all. The oil plumes are a good sign that oil is working its way through fissures from breaks in the casing.
But others say the plumes are just oil that won't float to the surface. They are very dilute (0.5 parts per million) from what I have read recently. So that would mean the oil is only leaking from one source. That would mean an explosion can have obvious consequences:
Pro: Can seal the well by shearing the rock.
Con: Fail to seal the well. Weaken the seabed...create more leaks (a consequence I'm well aware of)
I'm only asking if anyone has real information on the structural integrity of the bore casing, geological information of the sea bed (i.e., specifically how porous is the rock, can the high pressure oil erode through the rock). How can explosion shear the rock? You know....ACTUAL INFORMATION, not assumptions.
coolian2
Blue Crack Supplier
you're asking how introducing radioactive materials to an oil spill will make things worse?
are you thinking the people of the gulf coast aren't happy with black beaches, but they will be happy with glow in the dark green ones?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Moser, I thought I made myself very clear, I wasn't proceeding on assumptions. If you don't know all the variables than a bomb is not the choice. I'm not sure how much clearer one can make that.
Like I said:
Your quote says the exact same thing.
Like I said:
Your quote says the exact same thing.
