Opening the offshore to drilling. Whose lame idea was it to begin with?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ozmar
  • Start date Start date
More independence than we had without an additional well which only needs to provide oil until we have transitioned to alternative fuels. 20 years or so is my guess. It will also help us keep oil prices more stable since we will be less reliant on foreign sources. We'd need to build some additional refineries though.
 
show me where it is the responsibility of the federal government to have all this gear.
 
"Reliable source"? If so, it should be available outside OT.

It should be accessible by a Google search. Last time I checked, Google required no subscription.

Go to it, Junior. Back it up, or back the fuck up.
 
Actually a lot of what you just said is correct. BP was aware of potential issues with the BOP up to three days in advance and were definitely aware of it the morning OF the disaster but continued completion operations.

This entire fiasco appears to be the result of great negligence on the part of BP. There were so many corners cut on this well that it is astounding and disturbing that an organization like BP would engage in some of the irresponsible cost cutting methods used in this particular instance. They have tarnished the reputation of a great US industry. Hopefully the government doesn't over react and get pushed around by the tree hmping idiots and ban all off shore and/or deepwater drilling.

They should however ban BP from drilling and leasing in US waters for a period of at least 10 years should all the documentation dug up so far prove to be accurate.

The list of mistakes and negligence in which BP initiated is truly stunning.
 
20 years my ass. annual consumption in this country is 7 billion barrels. estimates are out there for the oil off the coast of virginia; there is not that much. not even estimated to be 1 billion.
 
NYTimes and the WSJ both had front page articles this week, both were great pieces of investigative journalism, you should check them both out. Warning, they are LONG articles.
 
You're assuming they violated regulations, when it's at least as likely the regulations were flawed due to lobbying and/or regulatory incompetence.
 
BP needs to be crucified as an example to the industry of what the penalty is for cutting costs on safety and regulations. The MMS needs to be abolished and an independent organization empowered to break their foot off in the ass of any company found with egregious infractions of regulations.
 
Nor should they. Stopping offshore oil production because of a big nasty spill is a bit like vowing to never ride in a car again because your best friend died in an auto accident. Yes, what happened was horrible, and maybe this is suddenly a risk you would rather not deal with anymore, but tragedy doesn't change reality. Oil is a requirement of our way of life just like timber and food, until something exists to replace it, and we aren't anywhere near that yet.
 
Yea but I don't think BP "violated" any regulations, it was a culmination of doing the bare minimum that led to this disaster.

They cut corners in a variety of areas and blatantly disregarded recommendations from Halliburton, Schlumberger and Transocean.
 
and who would lobbied the govt for weak oil regulations?

it doesn't make sense.. you can argue If BP was going to be on the hook for any damage they caused, it seems reasonable to think they would be pretty careful. But since they had govt regulation to fall back on theyre not liable for the incident.

If the govt requires safety device X (at a cost of 100k) on oil rigs but device XXX(at a cost of 500k) is much better and more reliable why WOULDN'T a company whose business is potentially extremely dangerous on multiple levels NOT buy device XXX especially when they bring in BILLIONS MONTHLY not yearly MONTHLY. BP rang up $6 billion in profit in just the first three months of 2010.
 
Back
Top