View Full Version: NO to offshore drilling!

Al Gore Support Center Online Forum 2008 :: A Reality Based Organization Fighting For Al Gore! > President Barack Obama > NO to offshore drilling!

Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Title: NO to offshore drilling!
Description: This is NOT the change I can believe in!


hangingchad - April 27, 2010 02:48 AM (GMT)
:o

Hi, all:

I'm typing this with two thumbs on my iPhone, plus I have to be up extra early in the morning, so I'll make this short and sweet: WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH OBAMA?

No no no no NO to opening up any more coastal areas for offshore drilling! Look what just happened in the Gulf of Mexico! No no no no! NO!

We need clean, renewable, sustainable energy, NOT MORE DRILLING AND SPILLS AND FINITE, DIRTY, POLLUTING, STUUUUU-PIT FOSSIL FUEL!!!

Is the argument supposed to be, once again, as I was supposed to buy with his healthcare plan, that he is being "practical and pragmatic", as this throwing a bone to the right will then somehow, magically or otherwise, get them to accept a climate bill? Puh-LEEZ!

President Obama: Stop cow-towing to Big Business! I always knew your slogans were hollow, but do you have to keep proving me right in such devastating ways?! God, I'd love to be proven wrong about you, Obama, just once, especially on something as literally earth-shatteringly imprtant as climate/energy policy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

President Obama, this is wrong and I will fight you on this with every passionate, creative fiber of my earth-respecting being!!!!!! I've had it with you and your "pragmatism". Take your hollow, big-business-butt-kissing pragmatism and shove it where the sun don't shine! And while you are doing that, BACK THE HELL AWAY FROM THE COAST!

I have two final thoughts for you, President Obama:

1. Solar
2. Wind

Texan for Gore - April 27, 2010 02:44 PM (GMT)
Welcome back, Chad. user posted image

I understand your frustration over the oil-drilling issue. I feel it too and it sounds like Gore isn't too thrilled either, given his recent comments.

I am struggling to understand Obama's rationale for this. During the campaign, it was said that he was trying to reach across the aisle. Well, given the right's refusal to compromise or meet halfway on anything, I'd say it's futile to try to compromise with them on the climate issue. At this rate, it will just set back any progress we could make on the climate issue.

But I'd say this issue goes further than Obama. Too many of our legislators are too busy cowtowing to the lobbyists, big business, the insurance companies, etc. Until they can break away from that, I guess the interest of the American people will continue to take a back seat.

And yes, wind and solar, what could be better than to use our most natural resources as our form of energy. As Gore puts it, it is just ludicrous to borrow money from China, to buy dirty forms of pollution from countries that don't even like us to turn around and use it to dirty our environment. That is just the craziest notion when we have what we need right here that would create jobs that would stay right here and it would preserve our environment. Now you tell me who's crazy - those "wacko" environmentalists or those "wacko" oil and gas people!! <_<

Wayne in WA State - April 27, 2010 03:14 PM (GMT)
Like it or not, politicians have to operate within the realm of what's politically possible. Opening some of the areas doesn't even mean they will ever be used for offshore drilling. It's all part of a dance so that a bipartisan climate energy deal might have a chance of getting through a wall of 41 obstinate, ignorant Republican senators.

See what happened in Australia because of their Senate
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8645767.stm

But Chad, you wouldn't want to miss an opportunity to find any excuse to slam President Obama

earthmother - April 27, 2010 06:15 PM (GMT)
Exactly, Wayne. It's what I've been saying all along. Politics is about the art of the compromise. If we were to insist that everything be done the way it should be done, we'd never get anywhere.

It can be annoying and frustrating, and often it can seem as if the leaders we elected to run this country are selling out, but it's important to keep in mind what's possible vs. what's impossible. Is it better to stand on principle and get nowhere, or is it better to give a little and get somewhere, even if it's baby steps? I go with the latter, because I know it's the only way to get things done.

Texan for Gore - April 27, 2010 09:02 PM (GMT)
I get what you're saying, EM, and of course, some progress is better than none. But yes, it is irksome when politicians campaign on changing this or that - not cowtowing to big business, etc. but then when they get in there, it's not at all like that. Why make campaign promises if there is no realistic possibility of it happening? Guess it just sounds good.

And speaking of what's possible and what's not - shouldn't we try to make our voices heard and try to change the "what's not possible" to "the possible?"

You know, people accused Dennis Kucinich of being a traitor or not sticking with the party - yet he was fighting for something he believed in. Yet, when he "flipped" his vote, everyone cheered that he was on board. It was about intimidation, imo. When someone in politics does try to change the status quo, they get raked over the coals for trying to do so. So in essence, nothing will change when people are "booed" for standing by their principle - so it makes one wonder why even bother.

hangingchad - April 28, 2010 12:31 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Texan for Gore @ Apr 27 2010, 04:02 PM)
I get what you're saying, EM, and of course, some progress is better than none. But yes, it is irksome when politicians campaign on changing this or that - not cowtowing to big business, etc. but then when they get in there, it's not at all like that. Why make campaign promises if there is no realistic possibility of it happening? Guess it just sounds good.

And speaking of what's possible and what's not - shouldn't we try to make our voices heard and try to change the "what's not possible" to "the possible?"

You know, people accused Dennis Kucinich of being a traitor or not sticking with the party - yet he was fighting for something he believed in. Yet, when he "flipped" his vote, everyone cheered that he was on board. It was about intimidation, imo. When someone in politics does try to change the status quo, they get raked over the coals for trying to do so. So in essence, nothing will change when people are "booed" for standing by their principle - so it makes one wonder why even bother.

Fantastic post, TfG!!! In a way, it is up to all of us to be leaders, in that we all must stand up for what we believe is important. Ghandi said "you must be the change you wish to see in the world." I really appreciate you saying:

"But I'd say this issue goes further than Obama. Too many of our legislators are too busy cowtowing to the lobbyists, big business, the insurance companies, etc. Until they can break away from that, I guess the interest of the American people will continue to take a back seat."

Exactly!!!!!!!!

Wayne, we are talking about the health and future of our planet and ourselves, here. As I type this, I am breathing noxious fumes from the oil rig disaster that is hundreds of miles away from me. This cannot go on.

For the record, I really tried to see what you guys and pretty much all my fellow liberals see in Obama. I tried since 2004 when he first burst onto the national scene and I could not see what all the fuss was about. 2004 to 2010. That is six years of trying, by my calculations. I dearly hoped I was wrong about him. But when he came out with this offshore drilling proposal, that was the end of that for me. Color me DONE. I so do not enjoy being on the outs with so many of my fellow liberals, but I have to stand up for what I feel is important and climate change is my number one issue in terms of how important I feel it is. And yes, my utter disgust with Obama was expressed too, because that is a part of this. The man talks about being for climate change and energy legislation, but then all he says is "nuclear", "clean-coal", and "offshore drilling". And I'm not supposed to be outraged? I'm not supposed to say anything? Hell no, I'll bear the remarks and rifts from folks like you whom I respect because this is too important.

hangingchad - April 28, 2010 12:34 AM (GMT)
P.S. Pragmatism is one thing. Selling out is another.

JamesAquila - April 28, 2010 12:52 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (earthmother @ Apr 27 2010, 02:15 PM)
Exactly, Wayne. It's what I've been saying all along. Politics is about the art of the compromise. If we were to insist that everything be done the way it should be done, we'd never get anywhere.

It can be annoying and frustrating, and often it can seem as if the leaders we elected to run this country are selling out, but it's important to keep in mind what's possible vs. what's impossible. Is it better to stand on principle and get nowhere, or is it better to give a little and get somewhere, even if it's baby steps? I go with the latter, because I know it's the only way to get things done.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

JamesAquila - April 28, 2010 12:53 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wayne in WA State @ Apr 27 2010, 11:14 AM)
But Chad, you wouldn't want to miss an opportunity to find any excuse to slam President Obama

:clap: :clap: :clap:

hangingchad - April 28, 2010 12:55 AM (GMT)
P.P.S. Wayne, read the following link and then dare to suggest that I am just slamming Obama's proposal and him for the fun of it. FYI, last night I should have been asleep in preparation for facing a very busy, stressful day at work today, but instead I reluctantly forced myself to stay up waaaaay too late and painstakingly type the dang post with two thumbs and knowing I'd be slammed for dissenting from Obama's pary line because THIS IS IMPORTANT! This is far from enjoyable for me on any level, and far from some nothing "excuse" for anything, this is, again, the future of our planet and ourselves. I mean, hello.

Dang, I would think all of you, of all people in the world, would be with me on this issue. On this we Goristas should clearly be one, yes? Just read this (and God bless Senator Bill Nelson--I love him!):

http://m.newsherald.com/thenewsherald/pm_7...ntguid=X0wR4N7N

hangingchad - April 28, 2010 02:28 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (earthmother @ Apr 27 2010, 01:15 PM)
Exactly, Wayne.  It's what I've been saying all along.  Politics is about the art of the compromise.  If we were to insist that everything be done the way it should be done, we'd never get anywhere.

It can be annoying and frustrating, and often it can seem as if the leaders we elected to run this country are selling out, but it's important to keep in mind what's possible vs. what's impossible.  Is it better to stand on principle and get nowhere, or is it better to give a little and get somewhere, even if it's baby steps?  I go with the latter, because I know it's the only way to get things done.

Earth, u know I love you, but opening up the coastal areas for more drilling is not a baby step toward anything but ecological disaster, continued reliance on a finite resource, continued refusal to make green energy a priority and, I must again say, ECOLOGICAL DISASTER.

Do I have it straight that both Wayne and EM are okay with this? Because if so, the world as I thought I knew it has definitely slipped off it's axis.

Guys? You're fine with this?

Well, I'm not. I'm with our hero, Al Gore on this one. As we speak, Florida is bracing for the oil from the oil rig disaster in the Gulf to reach our sensitive coastal ecosystem/shore. It is already IN THE AIR I'M BREATHING AS I WRITE THIS.

Why are Goristas not ONE on this? Dang.

Wayne in WA State - April 28, 2010 05:49 AM (GMT)
Hangingchad, it is good to hear from you, even when we have different takes on an issue. I never said I thought it was a good idea to allow more offshore drilling. In a perfect world if it was up to me I would not. However, I try and understand the reasons behind policies that seem to be compromising too much. I have to think President Obama did this for valid reasons, even if I disagree. Look what happened in Australia, the well intentioned prime minister ends up getting nothing. I'll take a dollop of progress ahead of a bushel of good intentions. I know you've never been a fan of Barack and that's fine, I don't expect everyone is going to see things like I do, even people that I have a great deal of respect for.

Here are some reviews of his first years environmental progress

http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/1638/oba...onmental-record

http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/11/obam...year-in-office/

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.c...feature/id/1765

http://www.good.is/post/the-top-10-environ...-rookie-season/

All things considered, the man is doing a heck of a job. We need to keep pushing, but also give credit where credit is do and realize these are not problems that can be quickly solved by the stroke of a pen.

Wayne in WA State - April 28, 2010 06:10 AM (GMT)
IMO worth spelling out from the above link

The Top 10 Environmental Plays of Obama's Rookie Season

He's getting killed from all sides, but Obama's first-year environmental record is unprecedented.

Perhaps you've heard—Obama's first year has been a big flop. Guantanamo is still open, public health care ain't happening, Don't Ask-Don't Tell still has soldiers closeted, and he's sat and fiddled while the world burns. Well I'm here to tell you that that last bit, at least, is a crock.

Maybe he hasn't been quite as transformative as many people hoped, and maybe the change hasn't been expansive enough, but on the energy and environment front, we've really never seen anything like Obama's rookie season. "This is by far the best first year on the environment of any president in history, including Teddy Roosevelt," said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club. "Most presidents have done their best environmental work late in their term. This is a very, very strong opening."

Keeping in mind that his time and energy have been necessarily fixed on some serious inherited ills—the worst economy in 70 years, a couple of wars, and an opposition party completely opposed to cooperation—Obama's environmental accomplishments straight out of the gate are actually damn impressive. So what's he done? Here are ten acts, in no particular order, that got me excited.

1. Stimulating Green Change: Sure, it could have been an even greater share, but as part of the stimulus package, the administration devoted more than $80 billion to energy efficiency, renewable energy, public transit, and clean energy jobs. In real world terms, this will double the generation of clean energy (wind, solar, and geothermal power) by 2011 (pdf). It also provides funds to weatherize and retrofit 1 million homes by 2012.

2. California Cars: For the first time in over 20 years, gas mileage standards have been increased for cars and light trucks, as Obama struck a deal with Detroit and the United Auto Workers to accept California's CAFE standards. The 40-percent increase, up to 35 mpg from today's 25 mpg by 2016, will save at least 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the life of the program, which is, according to the White House, the equivalent of taking 177 million cars off the road or shutting down 194 coal plants.

3. Clear and Present Danger: Under Obama's watch, the Environmental Protection Agency has, for the first time, identified carbon dioxide and five other potent greenhouse gasses as pollutants that pose a threat to the health and safety of Americans. In December, this endangerment finding, the result of meticulous scientific and legal research, was formally announced and pollution limits will be set for about 7,500 large emitters. (Despite the moans of fossil fuel lobbyists, farms, small businesses, and other relatively small emitters will be excluded.)

4. Don't Drill Wilderness: The Bush administration had been opening up leases along the California coast and for thousands of acres of Utah's wildlands to new oil and gas drilling. Obama's Interior Department has canceled the sales and moved to protect the land and marine wildernesses.

5. Wide Open Spaces: In March, President Obama signed a bill that established 2.1 million acres of new federally protected wilderness, the largest swath since Clinton signed the Desert Protection Act in 1994, banning logging, mining, and road-building in public forests and deserts across nine states, including parts of Joshua Tree and Sequoia National Parks.

6. De-smogging Smokestacks: Just this month, the EPA issued new, stricter smog standards to cut local air pollution from coal- and oil-burning power plants, which the Bush EPA had deemed "not necessary or appropriate."

7. Riding the Rails: I've got a Biden-esque love of trains, so I'm a little biased about this one. But the administration's plans for development of a new high-speed intercity rail network isn't only the biggest transportation infrastructure investment since the Interstate Highway System, it'll also eventually eliminate more than 6 billion pounds of carbon dioxide emissions every year, equal to taking 1 million cars off the road.

8. Teaming Up with the Dragon: I wrote about this in more detail back in November, but Obama's historic trip to China produced a "positive, cooperative, and comprehensive" energy plan and could mark the day when the world's two largest greenhouse gas polluters—together responsible for 40-percent of global emissions—got serious about phasing out fossil fuels.

9. Copenhagen Crisis Management: OK, so most of us weren't all that satisfied with the results, and his speech on the final night of COP15 felt more like an American pep rally than a diplomatic gesture to the international community, but Obama did go to Copenhagen as we asked him to, risking more politically back home than most could comprehend. And he did barge into a meeting with China, India, Brazil, and South Africa and, by most accounts, basically rescue the talks from imminent collapse. The Copenhagen Accord wasn't what we wanted, nor did Obama offer nearly enough to satisfy climate activists and the international community. But he was there, was engaged, and did show that the United States will take its responsibility in the global climate arena seriously. And that's something Americans have never before been able to say about a president.

More at link below
http://www.good.is/post/the-top-10-environ...-rookie-season/

Texan for Gore - April 28, 2010 02:30 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (hangingchad @ Apr 27 2010, 06:31 PM)
QUOTE (Texan for Gore @ Apr 27 2010, 04:02 PM)
I get what you're saying, EM, and of course, some progress is better than none.  But yes, it is irksome when politicians campaign on changing this or that - not cowtowing to big business, etc. but then when they get in there, it's not at all like that.  Why make campaign promises if there is no realistic possibility of it happening?  Guess it just sounds good.

And speaking of what's possible and what's not - shouldn't we try to make our voices heard and try to change the "what's not possible" to "the possible?"

You know, people accused Dennis Kucinich of being a traitor or not sticking with the party - yet he was fighting for something he believed in.  Yet, when he "flipped" his vote, everyone cheered that he was on board.  It was about intimidation, imo.  When someone in politics does try to change the status quo, they get raked over the coals for trying to do so.  So in essence, nothing will change when people are "booed" for standing by their principle - so it makes one wonder why even bother.

Fantastic post, TfG!!! In a way, it is up to all of us to be leaders, in that we all must stand up for what we believe is important. Ghandi said "you must be the change you wish to see in the world." I really appreciate you saying:

"But I'd say this issue goes further than Obama. Too many of our legislators are too busy cowtowing to the lobbyists, big business, the insurance companies, etc. Until they can break away from that, I guess the interest of the American people will continue to take a back seat."

Exactly!!!!!!!!

Wayne, we are talking about the health and future of our planet and ourselves, here. As I type this, I am breathing noxious fumes from the oil rig disaster that is hundreds of miles away from me. This cannot go on.

For the record, I really tried to see what you guys and pretty much all my fellow liberals see in Obama. I tried since 2004 when he first burst onto the national scene and I could not see what all the fuss was about. 2004 to 2010. That is six years of trying, by my calculations. I dearly hoped I was wrong about him. But when he came out with this offshore drilling proposal, that was the end of that for me. Color me DONE. I so do not enjoy being on the outs with so many of my fellow liberals, but I have to stand up for what I feel is important and climate change is my number one issue in terms of how important I feel it is. And yes, my utter disgust with Obama was expressed too, because that is a part of this. The man talks about being for climate change and energy legislation, but then all he says is "nuclear", "clean-coal", and "offshore drilling". And I'm not supposed to be outraged? I'm not supposed to say anything? Hell no, I'll bear the remarks and rifts from folks like you whom I respect because this is too important.

Thank you, Chad. That's a great quote from Ghandi and very true. We have to do our part in the world to make change possible. Btw, did ya notice we didn't get any applause? Guess there's no reward for thinking outside the box. :rolleyes:

I think it is important for all of us to try and understand where each of us are coming from. Of course, we won't always agree, but a little diplomacy goes a long way. I came across this quote the other day by Caskie Stinnett (whoever that is) that says: "A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you actually look forward to the trip." :laugh: I think diplomacy is very lacking in politics these days. Even in the White House when you have someone like Joe Wilson shouting "You lie!" How on earth can anything be accomplished when there is such a lack of tolerance? And to be fair, Obama and our democratic Congress have really tried to work across the aisle. My main gripe though has been their failure to listen to their constituents as to what kind of health care reform there should be. I'll still hold out hope that things will improve with time.

As for Wayne's post on Obama's environmental record - that's a pretty impressive record. Those are some good accomplishments. We'll see what happens with this oil-drilling issue. Maybe we're expecting too much too soon?

earthmother - April 28, 2010 04:14 PM (GMT)
Ditto what Wayne said in his last post. I, and obviously Wayne, certainly do NOT approve of opening up more off-shore drilling. But like I said before, in politics, compromises are necessary or we get nothing. Maybe there would've been other ways to handle this, but obviously we're not privy to all the stuff that goes on behind the scenes with these things.

I would much rather that the drilling wasn't opened up, but then I would much rather that the wind farm wasn't placed smack in the middle of Nantucket Sound, too. The lesser of two evils?

earthmother - April 29, 2010 09:07 PM (GMT)
In light of our discussion about opening up more off-shore drilling . . .

Oil slick just a few miles from Louisiana coast
By the CNN Wire Staff
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

* NEW: Oil slick is now just a few miles away from the mouth of the Mississippi River
* Oil slick covers some 600 square miles of water, officials estimate
* President Obama says feds will use "every single resource at our disposal"
* Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal declares state of emergency as oil spill nears

(CNN) -- A 120-mile oil slick advanced to within a few miles of the mouth of the Mississippi River on Thursday as authorities scrambled to keep the spill from damaging sensitive coastal wetlands along the Gulf of Mexico.

As of late Thursday morning, southeasterly winds had driven the slick to about three miles off the Louisiana coast, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration spokesman Charlie Henry told reporters.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal declared a state of emergency Thursday as authorities scrambled to mitigate its environmental effects.

Oil company BP, whose ruptured well is at the heart of the spill, and state and federal agencies have strung floating booms around the leading edge of the shoreline in an effort to contain the spill, but authorities said it could begin affecting some areas of the coast by Thursday evening.

An effort to burn off part of the oil slick on Wednesday destroyed about 100 barrels, said Doug Suttles, chief operating officer of BP. But the technique "clearly worked," and larger burns are planned when weather conditions make them possible.

"We believe we can now scale that up and burn between 500 and 1,000 barrels at a time," Suttles said.

The slick covered some 600 square miles of water, state officials estimated earlier Thursday. Ten wildlife refuges or management areas in Mississippi and Louisiana are in the oil's likely path; the first likely to be affected is the Pass-a-Loutre Wildlife Management Area at the tip of the Mississippi River.

Oil spill could be disaster for wildlife

At the White House, President Obama said the federal government will use "every single resource at our disposal" to help contain the oil spill. Obama has called the governors of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida to discuss the spill, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters.

Federal authorities, including Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, pledged a robust response. At a White House briefing, Napolitano said she has designated the leak a "spill of national significance," meaning officials can draw down assets from other areas to combat it.

A command center already is open in Robert, Louisiana. A second will be opened in Mobile, Alabama, Napolitano said. She said she will travel Friday to the Gulf Coast, along with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson.

"Everything's on the table," as far as options under consideration, said David Hayes, deputy interior secretary.

iReport: How is the oil spill affecting you? Share images, information

The government has asked the Defense Department whether it could provide expertise or assets in addition to other tactics being deployed, Napolitano said.

The Coast Guard had hoped to conduct another controlled burn of the oil slick Thursday, but sea and wind conditions were preventing it, Rear Adm. Sally Brice-O'Hara told reporters.

"As soon as there is an appropriate window, we will continue the controlled burn activity," she said.

Gulf Coast braces for an oily mess

Officials said late Wednesday the estimated amount of oil spewing into the Gulf from three underwater leaks after the oil rig explosion has increased to as much as 5,000 barrels, or 210,000 gallons, a day -- five times more than what was initially believed.

The cause of the explosion remains under investigation, and search efforts have been halted for 11 missing workers.

Rear Adm. Mary Landry told reporters late Wednesday that the increased estimate is based on analysis from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Florida senator calls for temporary drilling halt

"This is not an exact science when you estimate the amount of oil," Landry said, noting there are a lot of variables in calculating the rate of the spill.

"However, NOAA is telling me now that they prefer we use the 5,000 barrels a day as an estimate of what has actually leaked from this well and will continue to leak until BP secures the source."

Some 250,000 gallons of oily water have been collected from the scene, she said.

BP is the owner of the well, while Transocean Ltd. owns and operates the rig.

"I do not disagree with the admiral's estimate that it could be 5,000 barrels a day -- it's clearly within the range of uncertainty," said Doug Suttles, chief operating officer for BP, who joined Landry at Wednesday's news conference.

iReport: BP tries to protect Alabama coast

Under the 1990 Oil Pollution Act, passed a year after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, BP, as the responsible party, is required to fund the cost of response and cleanup operations, and is doing so, officials said.

The military could be enlisted to drop or spray more dispersants on the oil, although specifics are still being developed, Cost Guard Chief Petty Officer Erik Swanson said.

Top operations planners briefed Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Thursday morning in anticipation of the possible request for assistance from the Coast Guard, said spokesman Capt. John Kirby.

Military planners on Wednesday night began examining options to provide assistance to the Coast Guard in cleaning up the spill, said James Graybeal, a spokesman for U.S. Northern Command in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The Northern Command is responsible for coordinating and providing military assistance inside the United States.

The military could put a ship in the Gulf to support and resupply other vessels in the region or provide aircraft to help map the spill.

The military also may offer to establish a supply base along the coast to stage equipment and other supplies for the Coast Guard and the overall cleanup effort, according to a U.S. military source. The military has larger bases and the ability to stage equipment for a longer-term operation, the source said. In addition, the U.S. Navy has booming equipment it can use.

Officials are trying to get resources on land, place booming equipment around the spill and have personnel ready to go when the oil reaches land.

Drilling a relief well -- a second well drilled up to a mile or two away that would enter the leaking well at an angle to help plug it -- takes time, Swanson said.

The first rig to be used for drilling the relief well will begin drilling about a half-mile from the leaking well Friday, NOAA said. However, the relief well will not be complete for months, it said.

In addition, a collection dome will be deployed to the seafloor to collect oil as it leaks from the well, NOAA said. "This method has never been tried at this depth before," it said.

The oil spill has the potential to become one of the worst in U.S. history, the Coast Guard's Landry said earlier.

The head of BP Group told CNN's Brian Todd in an exclusive interview Wednesday that the accident could have been prevented, and he focused blame on rig owner Transocean.

CEO Tony Hayward said that Transocean's blowout preventer failed to operate before the explosion. A blowout preventer is a large valve at the top of a well, and activating it will stop the flow of oil. The valve may be closed during drilling if underground pressure drives up oil or natural gas, threatening the rig.

"That is the ultimate fail-safe mechanism," Hayward said. "And for whatever reason -- and we don't understand that yet, but we clearly will as a consequence of both our investigation and federal investigations -- it failed to operate.

"And that is the key issue here, the failure of the Transocean BOP," Hayward said, describing the valve as "an integral part of the drilling rig."

A Transocean spokesman on Wednesday declined to respond to Hayward's comments in the CNN interview, citing pending litigation against both companies.

However, Transocean Vice President Adrian Rose has said its oil rig had no indication of problems before the explosion.

CNN's Barbara Starr contributed to this report.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/29/louisiana...dex.html?hpt=T1

TNblue - April 30, 2010 04:39 AM (GMT)
Spill baby, spill. :angry:

Texan for Gore - April 30, 2010 01:56 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (TNblue @ Apr 29 2010, 10:39 PM)
Spill baby, spill. :angry:

If Palin is stupid enough to run for Prez. this should be her new campaign slogan. <_<

Texan for Gore - April 30, 2010 02:01 PM (GMT)
Btw, got this from DU from what Bill Maher said on twitter. Let's see if any of these report for duty. <_<

BILL MAHER TODAY VIA TWITTER:

"Every A-Hole who ever chanted 'Drill Baby Drill' should have to report to the Gulf Coast today for cleanup duty."

user posted image

INCLUDED IN THE ROLL CALL:


“So, do you want to put your country first?,” asked former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele. “Then let’s reduce our dependency on foreign sources of oil and promote oil and gas production at home. In other words: Drill, baby, drill! And drill now!,” he said.


Egged-on by delegates on the floor of the Xcel Center Rudy Giuliani said, “Drill, baby, drill,” a little tentatively at first, which was then followed by a more robust “Drill, baby, drill.”


Senators who once were tempted to expand offshore drilling are raising alarms instead about a destroyed well that is spewing a thousand barrels of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico. “The continued failure to stop the leak threatens to wreak untold damage on Florida’s coastlines,” Florida Senator George LeMieux warned this week. “The federal government needs to make this their immediate, number-one priority...” Just a few weeks ago, LeMieux was talking hopefully about the revenue potential of allowing expanded drilling closer to the shores of Florida. His Republican colleague Richard Shelby has long favored offshore drilling if it brings revenue to his state of Alabama.


...Political figures like former Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) chanted the popular cry: “Drill Here, Drill Now!”


Said Sarah Palin: "That’s why we must develop our own domestic supplies of oil and gas. Though the chant of 'Drill, baby, drill' was much derided, it expressed the need to confront this issue head-on before it reaches a crisis point."

Isn't this terrible?

user posted image

user posted image

You can view more of these pictures at this link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ess=389x8241206

earthmother - April 30, 2010 04:02 PM (GMT)
I guess my problem is . . . what's the answer? We're not yet ready to be independent of all oil, and if we're trying to get off foreign oil, how will we power America? Wind farms and solar farms are great, but we're nowhere near ready to rely on them in any kind of meaningful way. So what do we do in the meantime? Coal? Nuclear? All have their very large problems. And the truth is, when you get down to it, ALL sources of energy besides "clean" energy like wind and solar have major problems tied to them. Coal is filthy and also carries with it a big risk to the miners who have to extract it from the earth. Nuclear is unstable and leaves behind radioactive waste we don't yet have a way to safely dispose of . . . and, it carries with it the risk of nuclear material ending up in the wrong hands, which is Al Gore's main concern with it.

I'm not in favor of drilling off-shore or in Alaska anymore than any other person who's concerned about the environment. But, as I said, what is the answer, then, for the short-term? I don't see Americans doing their part to use less power. I'm sure we could radically reduce the amount of power we use if we really put our minds to it, but few people are doing that. Yes, we could all be a little warmer in the summer and cooler in the winter, and we can all use CFL lightbulbs, and we can use power strips that actually turn off all those pesky appliances like computers and stereos that use energy even when we've turned them "off." We can buy more energy efficient appliances and cars, we can walk or ride bicycles more often, etc. But we will still have a need for large amounts of power as a country. And until we've got more alternative power sources in place, we need to rely heavily on oil, coal, or nuclear power. That's just a fact.

Texan for Gore - April 30, 2010 06:35 PM (GMT)
Other than it being a transitional process, why can't we work toward using wind and solar energy? What are the downfalls of wind and solar power? I can't remember his exact words on this, but I thought Gore said that wind could provide a lot of energy. As he says, all it takes is political will - and motivation btw, which a spill like this should be motivation enough to really start thinking seriously about clean energy.

Of course, going to a new kind of infrastructure will take time and working out any flaws, like with making better lithium batteries and electric cars. And prices need to come way down. I say all those running for political office should donate a huge chunk of their campaign money toward clean energy. :D It is so wasteful to spend all that money on campaigning.

And Wayne listed some great things that Obama has done already - such as devoting 80 billion toward clean energy. The use of wind turbines need to be agressively pursued, and of course, implementing the smart grid down the road.

As for using coal, Gore has discussed the idea of trying to sequester and recycle coal. That possibility should be actively pursued.

The hardest thing is probably going to be breaking the oil and gas habit, economy-wise, because as much as we might rant about it sometime, this industry provides a lot of jobs. If this issue could be adequately addressed and if those jobs could be replaced in equal numbers with clean energy jobs, it would certainly make the process easier.

But I suppose it's a lot easier to talk about these things than it is to actually get them done. And it would take a lot of getting used to and working out the kinks in electric cars - making them more efficient. Guess the task does seem pretty daunting. :blink: But when you listen to Gore, he makes it sound like anything is possible . . .

TNblue - May 1, 2010 03:53 AM (GMT)
This was a plot to finish off NOLA. :!: :blink: <_<

Eww, windmills are ugleee! Oil rigs are pretteee.

JamesAquila - May 1, 2010 12:33 PM (GMT)
This may be very cynical of me but long term I think this might be a win for environmentalists. Because of this disaster, no one will ever drill off shore this country again. Plus, since President Obama was willing to make the concession in the first place, which now will not be followed through on, he's already gotten concessions from the other side for green energy projects.

BTW Weren't we supposed to have this my now?
user posted image

earthmother - May 2, 2010 03:10 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (JamesAquila @ May 1 2010, 12:33 PM)
Because of this disaster, no one will ever drill off shore this country again. Plus, since President Obama was willing to make the concession in the first place, which now will not be followed through on, he's already gotten concessions from the other side for green energy projects.

Makes sense to me . . .

hangingchad - May 4, 2010 02:35 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (TNblue @ Apr 29 2010, 11:39 PM)
Spill baby, spill. :angry:

TNblue, that is brilliant. Did u make that up? I'm going to have to tweet and Facebook and everything else that one, giving you credit, of course. Absolutely brilliant, as the truth always shines bright, even when it is such a sad, chilling light.

Funny how things have unfolded since I posted this thread. Not funny ha ha. Funny tragic of epic proportion. You remember how earthmother said a while back, very endearingly and understandably and hilariously and honestly, that she was no longer capable of having a rational conversation about Sarah Palin? Well, that's about where I am if anyone were now to say
that we should still be open to opening up more of our coastal areas to drilling in the future. I'll say what I said before his ecological holocaust unfolded, only with even more passion: not just no but hell no. And that's the last time I'll say it. Because next time I would scream it and I don't want to do that, so I'll borrow a page from EM when it comes to Palin and just walk away if that comes up.

Meanwhile, I agree with James that the one bittersweet silver lining to this is that the proposal to open up more coastal areas for offshore drilling is now dead. Thank God, yet oh, at such an epic cost.

I can't describe what I feel as I sit here on the Gulf Coast of Florida. I've been too outraged about the spill to even trust myself to come back to this thread, let alone post about it, for days. But now I'm finally checking in and reporting to base camp, and all I can say to even approximate how I feel is...we are bracing. Holding our breaths, horrified and powerless to stop this ecological holocaust, and knowing that they haven't even been able to stop the spill yet, nor do they expect to be for quite some time. So much for the newer rigs, like this one, being clean and safe. I am profoundly horrified, sickened, sad for the wildlife, for what this will do to the ecosystem for decades to come, and outraged. Who the BLEEP do we (humankind) think we are?

"Whatever mankind does to the interconnected web of life, he does to himself."

ReElectAlGore2016 - May 4, 2010 11:15 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (JamesAquila @ May 1 2010, 07:33 AM)
This may be very cynical of me but long term I think this might be a win for environmentalists. Because of this disaster, no one will ever drill off shore this country again. Plus, since President Obama was willing to make the concession in the first place, which now will not be followed through on, he's already gotten concessions from the other side for green energy projects.

BTW Weren't we supposed to have this my now?
user posted image

this is my thoughts.

Texan for Gore - May 4, 2010 04:41 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (hangingchad @ May 3 2010, 08:35 PM)
QUOTE (TNblue @ Apr 29 2010, 11:39 PM)
Spill baby, spill. :angry:

TNblue, that is brilliant. Did u make that up? I'm going to have to tweet and Facebook and everything else that one, giving you credit, of course. Absolutely brilliant, as the truth always shines bright, even when it is such a sad, chilling light.

Funny how things have unfolded since I posted this thread. Not funny ha ha. Funny tragic of epic proportion. You remember how earthmother said a while back, very endearingly and understandably and hilariously and honestly, that she was no longer capable of having a rational conversation about Sarah Palin? Well, that's about where I am if anyone were now to say
that we should still be open to opening up more of our coastal areas to drilling in the future. I'll say what I said before his ecological holocaust unfolded, only with even more passion: not just no but he'll no. And that's the last time I'll say it. Because next time I would scream it and I don't want to do that, so I'll borrow a page from EM when it comes to Palin and just walk away if that comes up.

Meanwhile, I agree with James that the one bittersweet silver lining to this is that the proposal to open up more coastal areas for offshore drilling is now dead. Thank God, yet oh, at such an epic cost.

I can't describe what I feel as I sit here on the Gulf Coast of Florida. I've been too outraged about the spill to even trust myself to come back to this thread, let alone post about it, for days. But now I'm finally checking in and reporting to base camp, and all I can say to even approximate how I feel is...we are bracing. Holding our breaths, horrified and powerless to stop this ecological holocaust, and knowing that they haven't even been able to stop the spill yet, nor do they expect to be for quite some time. So much for the newer rigs, like this one, being clean and safe. I am profoundly horrified, sickened, sad for the wildlife, for what this will do to the ecosystem for decades to come, and outraged. Who the BLEEP do we (humankind) think we are?

"Whatever mankind does to the interconnected web of life, he does to himself."

That post blew me away, Chad. You know, for all the varying opinions around here, I have to say that I really respect you standing by your principles. That's not always an easy thing to do when some opinions are met with disdain and criticism. And yes, I'll be the first one to admit that I often found your opinion of Obama objectionable. :rolleyes: But I have since learned that Obama is not perfect - not that he should be - but despite supporting him, I don't agree with every decision he has made.

Anyway, this spill is really a sad state of affairs for our environment. I shudder to think of the havoc it is wreaking on our wildlife and marine life. What the eff were people thinking??? And then you've got our lame-ass Texas governor making these kinds of statements. :mad:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36691.html

I hope to hell he is run out on a rail come this November. The last poll I saw had Bill White, the democratic candidate, making a good showing, though he was still a few points behind Perry. Good ol Bill White, who was Governor of Houston and helped out victims of Hurricane Katrina in their time of need. And ironically, NO may be victim to another terrible disaster, thanks to those that think offshore drilling is the way to go. <_<

Ditto the sentiments you expressed in the above post. :unsure:

hangingchad - May 5, 2010 12:47 AM (GMT)
Quote by TfG: "That post blew me away, Chad."

:wub: Well, if the post blew u away, consider this: I typed it using only two thumbs (iPhone). Yup. Just think what I could do with a full keyboard! The mind boggles! I could have been a contender!
:lol:

Texan for Gore - May 5, 2010 02:58 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (hangingchad @ May 4 2010, 06:47 PM)
Quote by TfG: "That post blew me away, Chad."

:wub: Well, if the post blew u away, consider this:  I typed it using only two thumbs (iPhone). Yup. Just think what I could do with a full keyboard!  The mind boggles! I could have been a contender!
:lol:

:lol: Yeah, I think we better keep you away from a full keyboard, Two-thumb. ;)

On a brighter note, a client just told me about some relatives of his being in the wind turbine installation business. :clap: They build them from the ground up and he said they just installed some in Buffalo, NY. Supposedly, they had been in the oil business off the coast and had been wanting to get in the wind turbine business for about 5 years. Very good news indeed and hopefully the start of more good environmental projects to come. :good:

earthmother - May 5, 2010 05:12 PM (GMT)
So, are we supposed to boycott BP now? We have a BP station here that I normally go to (as opposed to Exxon/Mobil) because I'd always heard BP was an environmentally responsible company. Guess that all changes now. Only other choice locally besides Exxon is Sunoco. Are they okay? Well, now I know they're all bad. Geez, their profits are obscene every year. But the reality is that we need to put gas in our cars. Any input on this?

Texan for Gore - May 6, 2010 12:13 AM (GMT)
I don't know about others, but I'm certainly not advocating boycotting BP. Despite the desire to see our world go toward clean sources of energy, I am well aware that perhaps we owe a bit of gratitude to the oil and gas industry for providing us with gas for our cars and electricity for our homes. And realistically, going toward clean energy is not going to happen overnight.

My main gripe has been the climate deniers who have fought feverishly any attempts to go in this direction.

And do you remember when cars got a whole lot more miles per gallon. Heck, I had a Ford Escort in 1989 that got 45-50 mpg. Now you're lucky if they get 23 mpg. What was the reason that the gas mileage was cut down? So more money could be made? At the expense of the environment?

Anyway, all I'm suggesting is what Gore has been suggesting all along - to make a gradual transition to wind, solar, biofuels, geothermal - all those kind of energies. And sure, things need to be improved on, but where is the motivation to go forward if climate deniers keep shouting that climate change doesn't exist?

Just my two cents. Well, maybe that was five cents. :lol:

Wayne in WA State - May 6, 2010 07:04 AM (GMT)
user posted image


JamesAquila - May 6, 2010 01:40 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wayne in WA State @ May 6 2010, 03:04 AM)
user posted image

:clap: :clap: :clap:

JamesAquila - May 6, 2010 01:41 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Texan for Gore @ May 5 2010, 08:13 PM)
I don't know about others, but I'm certainly not advocating boycotting BP.

I have to agree with Texan here. Despite this problem, BP is one of the better oil companies.

earthmother - May 6, 2010 02:42 PM (GMT)
Okay, I was just asking. I like BP better than the other companies overall, but this spill has been such a huge disaster. I suppose it's not their fault per se; it's an inherent risk with off-shore drilling.

Btw, TfG, you mentioned why cars got better mileage years ago. My first car, back in 1971, got 45-50 mpg. But it was totally stripped down. Cars didn't weigh as much in those days, partly because they weren't required to have all the safety features, etc., that cars have today. We just got a Hyundai Elantra for my kids to share (the fight will come later when one of them moves out :rolleyes: ), and it gets almost 40 mpg on the highway, which is about as good as my husband's hybrid Altima, although granted, the Altima is somewhat bigger and heavier. In any case, with cars today having air bags all around, crumple zones, reinforced sides, to say nothing of almost all cars having air conditioning, they're heavier than they were some years ago. The Hyundai we recently got is almost exactly the same size as my first car was (which was a 1600 BMW, bought long before BMW's were snooty cars--it cost under $1,900 new, which was cheap even then, had no A/C, no sound system--just four seats, an AM/FM radio, and seat belts). Anyway, I think that's one of the big reasons cars get lower mileage these days. And size does matter. Even years ago, if you were driving a big Cadillac, you didn't get good mileage, but if you were driving a Toyota Corolla, you did pretty well. Also, foreign-car-manufacturers have historically been ahead of us in making cars that get good mileage. When oil was cheap, there was no incentive to do otherwise (likewise, houses built decades ago weren't insulated, had single-pane windows, etc., because it didn't matter, and most people weren't concerned about the environment then).

Well, to get back to the topic, I suppose I will continue buying BP gas, although when I saw that the company had profits of $9 billion last year, I was stunned. That's PROFIT, not gross intake.

Texan for Gore - May 6, 2010 07:49 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wayne in WA State @ May 6 2010, 01:04 AM)
user posted image

That's an understatement. :rolleyes:

Texan for Gore - May 6, 2010 07:53 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (JamesAquila @ May 6 2010, 07:41 AM)
QUOTE (Texan for Gore @ May 5 2010, 08:13 PM)
I don't know about others, but I'm certainly not advocating boycotting BP.

I have to agree with Texan here. Despite this problem, BP is one of the better oil companies.

And from what I understand, according to the BP CEO, it wasn't their fault but rather the drill rig equipment that failed. And that rig belongs to Transocean Ltd.

But despite this, BP was willing to take responsibility for the cleanup.

Texan for Gore - May 6, 2010 08:06 PM (GMT)
EM, thanks for that detailed explanation for what gas mileage has decreased. I hadn't really stopped to think about all the changes in safety requirements such as airbags, etc. and AC as well. I do remember reading the claim somewhere that when people started wanting cars/trucks with more power, that led to bigger engines which in turn led to decreased mpg.

But I guess it's easy to assume the worst sometimes such as the desire for increased profits.

Anyway, as Chad aptly put it, the bittersweet silver lining in all this is that it will probably put a halt to opening up more areas to offshore drilling - and hopefully start opening the door for more clean energy.

earthmother - May 7, 2010 12:12 AM (GMT)
I don't think that it's ALL because of cars being heavier with all that extra equipment. Some of it is just the insatiable lust of Americans for big, gas-guzzling cars. And some of it is certainly greed on the part of the auto makers, or if not greed, let's be kind and say that without motivation to clean up their act, they've just gone along making the same dinosaurs they've made for years.

In any case, whatever the cause, auto makers will have to start making ALL of their cars more fuel efficient, by law.

ErinB - May 7, 2010 03:35 AM (GMT)
We need electric cars, more wind and solar energy! The technology has been there for decades but the greedy powers that be would rather keep selling their poison. It is the year 2010 and we still use gasoline-powered engines. The oil is going to run out one day in the near future. Its not going to be pretty.

Today my mother said, "The Gulf Coast is gone." I hope that is not true.




* Hosted for free by InvisionFree