Will an increase in off shore drilling

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

quadrupling the number of holes in the ground susceptible to spills in the ocean, increasing the number of tankers, having more platforms in more far-flung places, etc, etc. leads to more potential for oil spills.

only a moron could look at widespread increase of oil platforms and argue that there is LESS chance of an oil spill. At least, that's what you seem to be implying.

Come on, the others of us are having an honest discussion, so just stay out of this one.

Ok I'm a moron, but I am honest. Look, one Exxon Valdez is worth how many average spills from an offshore rig? ~7,000 bbls a YEAR now from offshore vs. ~1,700 bbls a DAY from natural fissures in No. america NOW. That was in your article, btw.

SO you can talk about the increase in risk. SUre, it goes up, some. But not much and not much above background natural spillage, even including two hurricanes that devastated the oil fields off the Gulf Coast.

I iwll go drool on my shirt while waiting for your next clever and pithy rejoinder.

[landpoke]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Tax 50% of the profit from all offshore oil rigs and apply them to conservation, including the purchase of western lands for permanent wildlife conservation.

Maybe we could make Star Valley a national park! I like it!

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by landpoke

Maybe we could make Star Valley a national park! I like it!

No, because then the wolves would have protection.

[landpoke]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

"Not one drop of oil was spilled in Katrina and Rita."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4275167.shtml

Lies.

Once again, so what? What calamity befell the Gulf Coast because of all these petroleum products that were spilled? Did you become bisexual swimming down by Galveston?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by creekster

Ok I'm a moron, but I am honest. Look, one Exxon Valdez is worth how many average spills from an offshore rig? ~7,000 bbls a YEAR now from offshore vs. ~1,700 bbls a DAY from natural fissures in No. america NOW. That was in your article, btw.

SO you can talk about the increase in risk. SUre, it goes up, some. But not much and not much above background natural spillage, even including two hurricanes that devastated the oil fields off the Gulf Coast.

I iwll go drool on my shirt while waiting for your next clever and pithy rejoinder.

See you use false logic. You compare one tanker spill to a future average offshore spillage, with no major accidents.

That's like comparing a known plane crash to the average number of deaths in a year on passenger trains....it's a stupid meaningless comparison.

First off, the Exxon Valdez, is "well down the list" of largest oil spills ever. Why do we know about it? Because it was recent, it was related to alcohol, and it had a devastating environmental impact that was easily visible.

The largest spills ever, '67 to '91: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov...26_spilldb.pdf

The point is that with more oil rigs, you get more chances for the rigs to spill oil, and you get more chances for the tankers that carry the oil from the rigs to spill oil.

So you don't contrast the risks from tankers and rigs, YOU ADD THEM.

Recent oil rig spill in Norway: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...HS1Q-lBK51G_Fg

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by landpoke

Once again, so what? What calamity befell the Gulf Coast because of all these petroleum products that were spilled? Did you become bisexual swimming down by Galveston?

Creekster has really shown his true self today. I'm glad to have seen it.

He aligns himself with people that actually welcome the extinction of animals, the destruction of ecosystems.

I may have to make another donation to the Sierra Club. And maybe Obama as well.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

See you use false logic. You compare one tanker spill to a future average offshore spillage, with no major accidents.

That's like comparing a known plane crash to the average number of deaths in a year on passenger trains....it's a stupid meaningless comparison.

First off, the Exxon Valdez, is "well down the list" of largest oil spills ever. Why do we know about it? Because it was recent, it was related to alcohol, and it had a devastating environmental impact that was easily visible.

The largest spills ever, '67 to '91: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov...26_spilldb.pdf


The point is that with more oil rigs, you get more chances for the rigs to spill oil, and you get more chances for the tankers that carry the oil from the rigs to spill oil.

So you don't contrast the risks from tankers and rigs, YOU ADD THEM.

Recent oil rig spill in Norway: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...HS1Q-lBK51G_Fg

But you seem to assume we will magically not use oil. If we get it from our offshore rigs,do we not then diminsh the number of oil tankers we need to come from the the strits of hormuz?

And I was not comparing the valsdez to the offshore rigs (although i agree it looked that way) my point was that even inlcuding spillage from Katrina, the natural release in No American tend ot give more oiln in two weeks that the offshore rigs did in a year. Heck, let's assume the rigs underpreoted by five times. It is still less in 10 weeks than a year of natural spillage. So what is the risk, really that we are tlaking about? How bad is it?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Creekster has really shown his true self today. I'm glad to have seen it.

He aligns himself with people that actually welcome the extinction of animals, the destruction of ecosystems.

I may have to make another donation to the Sierra Club. And maybe Obama as well.

What!?! donate to the Sierra club!?! that will show me.

I never said I aligned with anyone. But truth is truth, sin't it? The risk is just nto as bad as people say. If we are willign to allow for enormous economic dislocation, then fine, get rid of oil and don't drill off shore. But to fail to drill offshore becasue of this risk you are tlaking about seems silly to me. You want' to stop drilling for toehr reasopns? Go ahead. But spills? Just not that big of a risk in the scheme of things.

I used to be a member of the Sierra Club, btw, until I got pissed off at how inefficient the orgnization was. That is true.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by creekster

But you seem to assume we will magically not use oil. If we get it from our offshore rigs,do we not then diminsh the number of oil tankers we need to come from the the strits of hormuz?

And I was not comparing the valsdez to the offshore rigs (although i agree it looked that way) my point was that even inlcuding spillage from Katrina, the natural release in No American tend ot give more oiln in two weeks that the offshore rigs did in a year. Heck, let's assume the rigs underpreoted by five times. It is still less in 10 weeks than a year of natural spillage. So what is the risk, really that we are tlaking about? How bad is it?

again, you do not understand anything.

A pathologist once told me that "the solution to pollution is dilution."

1,700 barrels a day OVER THE ENTIRE COASTLINE OF NORTH AMERICA (please try to wrap your mind around how big of an area that is) is much different than 200,000 BARRELS IN ONE CONCENTRATED AREA. Katrina and Rita caused more than 200,000 barrels to be released.

By your logic, Valdez wasn't a big deal, because there is more oil released in one year, naturally, than all of Valdez.

We'll see where your logic takes you in life, cause it ain't working here.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

again, you do not understand anything.

A pathologist once told me that "the solution to pollution is dilution."

1,700 barrels a day OVER THE ENTIRE COASTLINE OF NORTH AMERICA (please try to wrap your mind around how big of an area that is) is much different than 200,000 BARRELS IN ONE CONCENTRATED AREA. Katrina and Rita caused more than 200,000 barrels to be released.

By your logic, Valdez wasn't a big deal, because there is more oil released in one year, naturally, than all of Valdez.

We'll see where your logic takes you in life, cause it ain't working here.

Have you been to Santa Barbara lately? How do the beaches look there?