What the hell?

[CajunTim]

You have to pick and choose which questions the candidates can answer that means the most to you.

Call me dumb; but I look at what is best for the country not myself. I'm flexible and wear a gumby suit so I can ride with the tide and roll with the flow.

Is your number one concern out of all of the issues the economy?

My number one issue is National Security. I feel that it starts at home with securing our borders, I know, I know. OB has said some good things; but in the end I don't feel the guy can be trusted.

I would rather be associated with a warmonger than a supporter of freeloaders.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and this is just mine.

 

[Pops]

Call me dumb; but I look at what is best for the country not myself. I'm flexible and wear a gumby suit so I can ride with the tide and roll with the flow.

Is your number one concern out of all of the issues the economy?

My number one issue is National Security. I feel that it starts at home with securing our borders, I know, I know. OB has said some good things; but in the end I don't feel the guy can be trusted.

I would rather be associated with a warmonger than a supporter of freeloaders.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and this is just mine.

Obama supports amnesty for illegals . He also supports giving drivers licenses to illegals . Both will create many more problems .

 

[swagge1]

Simply put, I feel that the quality of life for my family and I would go down more if Obama was elected rather than McCain. Don't get me wrong, McCain leaves a lot to be desired as well, but I think that many people do not realize what Obama could and would ultimately do to this country.

 

[penguin]

And this is why this country is great, because we all have our own opinions and there isn't anything the government can do about that.

And CajunTim, when you say "Call me dumb; but I look at what is best for the country not myself. " that is what I am purporting. The best answers for the questions I pose are answers to questions that are posed to the country as a whole. And I don't have a number one issue. I have several issues that are weighted the same, but each have different answers. I don't like McCain's stance on the economy or security. I think his security will keep our economy down for years to come. We are in trillions of dollars of debt and the US doesn't manufacture anything anymore. We need to get out of that mindset. I don't think you can say anything is black and white insofar as the issues are concerned. I think each overlaps each other. Therefore you have to make concessions. That's a fact of life. Hell, I don't like my wife getting a Coach bag every week, but I can tell you that I get a day without her while she's out shopping. See, concessions.

 

[CEHollier]

And what impact survey has done that? Large corporations and their PACs said that there would be no real environmental impact to Louisiana's wetlands with the drilling and canals that needed to be dredged to bring in oil. How are our wetlands doing now?



You haven't provided any evidence that there wouldn't be an environmental impact. And if you want to know why we can't drill off of Florida, ask Bush and his brother, Jeb. Jeb requested a moratorium on drilling because of his environmental concerns and big brother approved it. http://www.farallones.org/e_newsletter/2006-03/Offshoredrillingplan.htm
Shortly after that, Bush now wants to drill almost everywhere (see above report).

You have not posted proof oil exploration has a negative impact on Louisiana's wetlands. If a person is against responsible oil exploration I dont care what his/her political affiliation is. They are putting this country in a vunerable position.

You make it sound like drilling/producing oil/gas fields will always have a negative impact on the environment. Please post scientific proof of this. Prior to becoming a physical therapist my first degree was as an engineer in the petrochemical field. We had a zero hydrocarbon discharge policy offshore. It was so strict if you urinated off of the platform in Mobile Bay you violated discharge policy. Discharge systems were monitored daily and problems were corrected immediately. Our platforms made excellent artificial reefs for fish. A record red snapper was caught off of our platform. I worked in the industry and witnessed first hand the lengths Chevron took to protect the environment. If you oppose responsible domestic exploration put your money where your mouth is. Do not use any form of transportation that uses gasoline/diesel. You can't have it both ways.

 

[penguin]

You have not posted proof oil exploration has a negative impact on Louisiana's wetlands. If a person is against responsible oil exploration I dont care what his/her political affiliation is. They are putting this country in a vunerable position.

There are hundreds of articles and studies. Here is one study. Of course, you'll be able to find a counter argument by the O&G industry; however, IMHO based upon the numerous surveys I've reviewed, it's pretty cut and dry. Again, I defer to those professionals. Insofar as the term responsible is used; I am against irresponsible exploration. Would it be responsible to drill in an area where environmental studies show severe impact, where it is one of the most inhospitable places on earth but is next to one of the largest stocks of commercial foods for the US but yet there is no way to re-mediate a spill should it happen? Does this sound responsible? That would be akin to saying "Look, we have gas on the moon but to get to it we would have to drill with a nuclear bomb. We are pretty sure that nothing bad could happen, but if it did we would have no way of fixing it and it would cause great harm to the economy". There are other places to drill and I am not against new drilling - just not in Alaska.

You make it sound like drilling/producing oil/gas fields will always have a negative impact on the environment.

I didn't say they always will.

Please post scientific proof of this.

Want a real fast list on some spills? Here you go:

http://www.marinergroup.com/oil-spill-history.htm

And that's through 2004. Further, that's not the thousands of minor environmental issues with the O&G. When I was out of high school I worked at the LPG tank farms for Brown and Root Braun at Chevron Pascagoula. That place had a melt down every other week. We'd be sitting in our nomex' on the levee for hours waiting for the all clear from OSHA.

Prior to becoming a physical therapist my first degree was as an engineer in the petrochemical field. We had a zero hydrocarbon discharge policy offshore. It was so strict if you urinated off of the platform in Mobile Bay you violated discharge policy. Discharge systems were monitored daily and problems were corrected immediately. Our platforms made excellent artificial reefs for fish. A record red snapper was caught off of our platform. I worked in the industry and witnessed first hand the lengths Chevron took to protect the environment.

So, with such strict policies nothing ever happens, right? I am a certified accident investigator, licensed maritime, casualty, property and worker's comp (no license needed for WC) adjuster am a licensed safety inspector (the guys who came out to make sure you were following the OSHA/USCG rules) and a certified paralegal who has been involved in more law suits than I care to know. So to give me the bluebirds and butterflies version of nothing ever happens is without merit. I'm not saying every company is like this, but I bet every single one of them has millions in fines. I've had to deal with them for years. Hell, I had to spend way too much time at MMS in the Yenni building on the westbank dealing with maritime BS than I care to remember.

If you oppose responsible domestic exploration put your money where your mouth is. Do not use any form of transportation that uses gasoline/diesel. You can't have it both ways.

I don't plan on it. I never said I oppose responsible domestic exploration. I said Alaska isn't responsible and I oppose drilling there.

 

[jmcrawf1]

If drilling off of Fla and all over AK means I pay less for gas, well then fire up the BBQ pit, cuz it's time for polar bear burgers,loggerhead steaks, and snow owl shishkabob!!
Humans > animals

I don't need to read about Osama's policies. He's a taxocrat. He want's to take MY hard earned dollars and give them to those "poor unfortunate people" who don't want to work themselves. It's not their fault. As they are being driven on the bus to the polls , I'm sure they hear all about those "evil" white Republicans and how they're gonne get them and their money. **** 'EM!Just like poison ivy, you cut the stalk and the vine withers, we should do the same to the welfare rolls.

You know, I was gonna post a reply, but Dave summed it up for me.



Im coming over for polar bear steaks.

 

[CEHollier]

Penguin - You stated Alaska is not responsible and you oppose drilling there. Just curious why not? I agree there are accidental leaks and discharges but those are not the norms. To do anything there are risks of accidents. You understand as an insurance adjuster the best we can do is minimize these risks.

Our government needs to come up with a comprehensive energy policy with short term 5-10 years and long term goals 20-25 years. It needs to use oil/gas E&P to stop gap while technology catches up. I think there should be significant tax breaks to people who use renewable energy technology to offset it's costs. If there were tax incintives to accelerate rocouping the upfront costs of these technologies I would jump on it. For example a green tax reduction from federal taxes on homeowners/businesses who use solar/wind technologies. Why not drop all sales taxes on hybirds. The tax savings would make up for some of the cost. The goal should be in 25 years the USA imports no oil. I don't think our government is serious about this issue. They are too busy keeping the sheeple divided to stay in power. Both parties suck. But to me the Republicans suck less...

 

[Dave328]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/oil.html

Excerpted from the above site:

If oil is spilled into rivers or oceans it can harm wildlife.When we talk about "oil spills" people usually think about oil that leaks from ships when they crash. Although this type of spill can cause the biggest shock to wildlife because so much oil is released at one time, only 2 percent of all oil in the sea comes from ship or barge spills. The amount of oil spilled from ships dropped a lot during the 1990's partly because new ships were required to have a "double-hull" lining to protect against spills. While oil spills from ships are the most well-known problem with oil, more oil actually gets into water from natural oil seeps coming from the ocean floor. Or, from leaks that happen when we use petroleum products on land. For example, gasoline that sometimes drips onto the ground when people are filling their gas tanks, motor oil that gets thrown away after an oil change, or fuel that escapes from a leaky storage tank. When it rains, the spilled products get washed into the gutter and eventually go to rivers and the ocean. Another way that oil sometimes gets into water is when fuel is leaked from motorboats and jet skis.

The taxocrats answer to the above fact is simple, BAN/TAX MOTHER NATURE TO HER KNEES!!!!

Now I'm going back to my polar bear marinade. Jim bring some tater salad.

 

[Born4spd]

THE government doesnt need to do ****, hakf the problems in this country area with the people themselves.

 

[penguin]

Penguin - You stated Alaska is not responsible and you oppose drilling there. Just curious why not? I agree there are accidental leaks and discharges but those are not the norms. To do anything there are risks of accidents. You understand as an insurance adjuster the best we can do is minimize these risks.

As a risk manager, one of the things we look at is how to minimize risk; or alternatively, discuss ways that will mitigate the loss once it happens. The issue with Alaska is that although the risk of a loss is not high, should it happen there is no known way to remediate it in that region. There are no companies that are willing to work there to remediate a spill and the technology that we have now has no way to counter a spill. As such, should a spill occur, there is no way to clean up a spill in the region where Bush wants to drill. No one knows exactly how much oil is even there. Let's say that they can't find sufficient oil in that 8%. Then the argument will be made to look at another 8%. Ok, this debate has convinced me that should there be a comprehensive plan with appropriate technology that could mitigate a loss should it occur, I would agree to the 8% of the drilling. If you can show me a company that can do that, I will defer my argument.

Our government needs to come up with a comprehensive energy policy with short term 5-10 years and long term goals 20-25 years.

I agree with this.

It needs to use oil/gas E&P to stop gap while technology catches up. I think there should be significant tax breaks to people who use renewable energy technology to offset it's costs.

The problem is that the GOP has consistently blocked renewable energy tax breaks and credits. Only this year has there been an increase in funding.

If there were tax incintives to accelerate rocouping the upfront costs of these technologies I would jump on it. For example a green tax reduction from federal taxes on homeowners/businesses who use solar/wind technologies. Why not drop all sales taxes on hybirds. The tax savings would make up for some of the cost. The goal should be in 25 years the USA imports no oil.

I think those are great ideas. And in some states you can get green credits on your tax and breaks from utility companies.

I don't think our government is serious about this issue. They are too busy keeping the sheeple divided to stay in power. Both parties suck. But to me the Republicans suck less...

I agree with that with the exception of the last sentence. The problem is corporations. It always will be.

 

[penguin]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/oil.html

Excerpted from the above site:

If oil is spilled into rivers or oceans it can harm wildlife.When we talk about "oil spills" people usually think about oil that leaks from ships when they crash. Although this type of spill can cause the biggest shock to wildlife because so much oil is released at one time, only 2 percent of all oil in the sea comes from ship or barge spills. The amount of oil spilled from ships dropped a lot during the 1990's partly because new ships were required to have a "double-hull" lining to protect against spills. While oil spills from ships are the most well-known problem with oil, more oil actually gets into water from natural oil seeps coming from the ocean floor. Or, from leaks that happen when we use petroleum products on land. For example, gasoline that sometimes drips onto the ground when people are filling their gas tanks, motor oil that gets thrown away after an oil change, or fuel that escapes from a leaky storage tank. When it rains, the spilled products get washed into the gutter and eventually go to rivers and the ocean. Another way that oil sometimes gets into water is when fuel is leaked from motorboats and jet skis.

The taxocrats answer to the above fact is simple, BAN/TAX MOTHER NATURE TO HER KNEES!!!!

Now I'm going back to my polar bear marinade. Jim bring some tater salad.

I see that you get your information from kids sites. I'll explain it as I would explain it to my daughter, then:

If 90% of the people go potty in a bathroom and it gets flushed but 10% of the people go potty on your bed and rubbed it in, would you be upset sweetie?

 

[CajunTim]

These are the type of questions that must be answered then scrutinized then usually taken to court, so I would imagine they would have to answer them for drilling in Alaska.

1. a discussion demonstrating that the potential and real adverse environmental effects of the facility have been avoided to the maximum extent possible;
2. a cost-benefit analysis demonstrating that the social and economic benefits of the facility outweigh the environmental-impact costs;
3. a discussion and description of possible alternative projects that would offer more protection to the environment without unduly curtailing nonenvironmental benefits;
4. a discussion of possible alternative sites that would offer more protection to the environment without unduly curtailing nonenvironmental benefits; and
5. a discussion and description of the mitigating measures which would offer more protection to the environment than the facility, as proposed, without unduly curtailing nonenvironmental benefits.

 

[Dave328]

I see that you get your information from kids sites. I'll explain it as I would explain it to my daughter, then:

If 90% of the people go potty in a bathroom and it gets flushed but 10% of the people go potty on your bed and rubbed it in, would you be upset sweetie?

WOW! What a typical and predictable liberal response. When faced with factual evidence contrary to their position, most liberals resort to weak attempts at witty/derogatory comments. Interesting, to see a much talked about phenomenon in real life is truly eye opening. Thank you!

And try these:
http://www.mms.gov/omm/pacific/enviro/seeps2.htm
...One of the most intensively studied seepage area lies off Coal Oil Point, in Santa Barbara County. Seeps in this area release an estimated 11 to 160 barrels (450 to 6,700 gallons) of oil per day, along with a large volume of natural gas. At Mobil’s (formerly ARCO’s) innovative Coal Oil Point sea floor containment project (a large concrete structure placed over a large seep on the seafloor), over 1 million cubic feet of natural gas is collected each day.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/bya6g7r7ceebanrl/
...Abstract Recent global estimates of crude-oil seepage rates suggest that about 47% of crude oil currently entering the marine environment is from natural seeps, whereas 53% results from leaks and spills during the extraction, transportation, refining, storage, and utilization of petroleum. The amount of natural crude-oil seepage is currently estimated to be 600,000 metric tons per year, with a range of uncertainty of 200,000 to 2,000,000 metric tons per year. Thus, natural oil seeps may be the single most important source of oil that enters the ocean, exceeding each of the various sources of crude oil that enters the ocean through its exploitation by humankind

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/170/3961/974
...Natural Oil Seepage at Coal Oil Point, Santa Barbara, California
Alan A. Allen 1, Roger S. Schlueter 1, and Paul G. Mikolaj 2
1 General Research Corporation, Santa Barbara, California 93105
2 Department of Chemical Engineering, University of California, Santa Barbara 93106



Aerial, surface, and underwater investigations reveal that natural seeps off Coal Oil Point, California, introduce about 50 to 70 barrels (approximately 8,000 to 11,000 liters) of oil per day into the Santa Barbara Channel. The resulting slicks are several hundred meters wide and are of the order of 10-5 centimeters thick; tarry masses within these slicks frequently wash ashore.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1993/93JC01289.shtml
...

Abstract
Natural oil seepage in the Gulf of Mexico causes persistent surface slicks that are visible from space in predictable locations. A photograph of the sun glint pattern offshore from Louisiana taken from the space shuttle Atlantis on May 5, 1989, shows at least 124 slicks in an area of about 15,000 km2; a thematic mapper (TM) image collected by the Landsat orbiter on July 31, 1991, shows at least 66 slicks in a cloud-free area of 8200 km2 that overlaps the area of the photograph. Samples and descriptions made from a surface ship, from aircraft, and from a submarine confirmed the presence of crude oil in floating slicks. The imagery data show surface slicks near eight locations where chemosynthetic communities dependent upon seeping hydrocarbons are known to occur on the seafloor. Additionally, a large surface slick above the location of an active mud volcano was evident in the TM image. In one location the combined set of observations confirmed the presence of a flourishing chemosynthetic community, active seafloor oil and gas seepage, crude oil on the sea surface, and slick features that were visible in both images. We derived an analytical expression for the formation of floating slicks based on a parameterization of seafloor flow rate, downstream movement on the surface, half-life of floating oil, and threshold thickness for detection. Applying this equation to the lengths of observed slicks suggested that the slicks in the Atlantis photograph and in the TM image represent seepage rates of 2.2–30 m3 1000 km−2 d−1 and 1.4–18 m3 1000 km−2 d−1, respectively. Generalizing to an annual rate suggests that total natural seepage in this region is of the order of at least 20,000 m3 yr−1 (120,000 barrels yr−1).

Received 15 December 1992; accepted 15 April 1993.


I could cite these for pages and pages, are these enough for you, sweetie?

 

[dantheman]

Somehow , it's all George Bush's fault .

 

[penguin]

WOW! What a typical and predictable liberal response. When faced with factual evidence contrary to their position, most liberals resort to weak attempts at witty/derogatory comments. Interesting, to see a much talked about phenomenon in real life is truly eye opening. Thank you!

I was countering your (not the GOP's) statement:

"The taxocrats answer to the above fact is simple, BAN/TAX MOTHER NATURE TO HER KNEES!!!!"

So spare your holier-than-thou attitude. If you can dish it out, so can I. Typical hypocritical attitude.

And try these:
http://www.mms.gov/omm/pacific/enviro/seeps2.htm
...One of the most intensively studied seepage area lies off Coal Oil Point, in Santa Barbara County. Seeps in this area release an estimated 11 to 160 barrels (450 to 6,700 gallons) of oil per day, along with a large volume of natural gas. At Mobil’s (formerly ARCO’s) innovative Coal Oil Point sea floor containment project (a large concrete structure placed over a large seep on the seafloor), over 1 million cubic feet of natural gas is collected each day.

Not one cite is newer than 1992...

http://www.springerlink.com/content/bya6g7r7ceebanrl/
...Abstract Recent global estimates of crude-oil seepage rates suggest that about 47% of crude oil currently entering the marine environment is from natural seeps, whereas 53% results from leaks and spills during the extraction, transportation, refining, storage, and utilization of petroleum. The amount of natural crude-oil seepage is currently estimated to be 600,000 metric tons per year, with a range of uncertainty of 200,000 to 2,000,000 metric tons per year. Thus, natural oil seeps may be the single most important source of oil that enters the ocean, exceeding each of the various sources of crude oil that enters the ocean through its exploitation by humankind

Hmmm...this seems to counter the argument in the DOE website that you posted;

"Recent global estimates of crude-oil seepage rates suggest that about 47% of crude oil currently entering the marine environment is from natural seeps, whereas 53% results from leaks and spills during the extraction, transportation, refining, storage, and utilization of petroleum."

The DOE seems to think only 4% of spills comes from the leaks and spills during the extraction, transportation, refining, storage, and utilization of petroleum. So, who's right? I mean, you are quoting both as factual. I will bolster your side and say the cite that you quoted above does not discuss end-user spills.

Abstract
Natural oil seepage in the Gulf of Mexico causes persistent surface slicks that are visible from space in predictable locations. A photograph of the sun glint pattern offshore from Louisiana taken from the space shuttle Atlantis on May 5, 1989, shows at least 124 slicks in an area of about 15,000 km2; a thematic mapper (TM) image collected by the Landsat orbiter on July 31, 1991, shows at least 66 slicks in a cloud-free area of 8200 km2 that overlaps the area of the photograph. Samples and descriptions made from a surface ship, from aircraft, and from a submarine confirmed the presence of crude oil in floating slicks. The imagery data show surface slicks near eight locations where chemosynthetic communities dependent upon seeping hydrocarbons are known to occur on the seafloor. Additionally, a large surface slick above the location of an active mud volcano was evident in the TM image. In one location the combined set of observations confirmed the presence of a flourishing chemosynthetic community, active seafloor oil and gas seepage, crude oil on the sea surface, and slick features that were visible in both images. We derived an analytical expression for the formation of floating slicks based on a parameterization of seafloor flow rate, downstream movement on the surface, half-life of floating oil, and threshold thickness for detection. Applying this equation to the lengths of observed slicks suggested that the slicks in the Atlantis photograph and in the TM image represent seepage rates of 2.2–30 m3 1000 km−2 d−1 and 1.4–18 m3 1000 km−2 d−1, respectively. Generalizing to an annual rate suggests that total natural seepage in this region is of the order of at least 20,000 m3 yr−1 (120,000 barrels yr−1). Received 15 December 1992; accepted 15 April 1993.

I could cite these for pages and pages, are these enough for you, sweetie?

Thanks for that cite from 1993...

 

[CEHollier]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/oil.html

Excerpted from the above site:

If oil is spilled into rivers or oceans it can harm wildlife.When we talk about "oil spills" people usually think about oil that leaks from ships when they crash. Although this type of spill can cause the biggest shock to wildlife because so much oil is released at one time, only 2 percent of all oil in the sea comes from ship or barge spills. The amount of oil spilled from ships dropped a lot during the 1990's partly because new ships were required to have a "double-hull" lining to protect against spills. While oil spills from ships are the most well-known problem with oil, more oil actually gets into water from natural oil seeps coming from the ocean floor. Or, from leaks that happen when we use petroleum products on land. For example, gasoline that sometimes drips onto the ground when people are filling their gas tanks, motor oil that gets thrown away after an oil change, or fuel that escapes from a leaky storage tank. When it rains, the spilled products get washed into the gutter and eventually go to rivers and the ocean. Another way that oil sometimes gets into water is when fuel is leaked from motorboats and jet skis.

The taxocrats answer to the above fact is simple, BAN/TAX MOTHER NATURE TO HER KNEES!!!!

Now I'm going back to my polar bear marinade. Jim bring some tater salad.

Polar bear is especially good with spotted owl gravy...

 

[dantheman]

Ever tried pickled Snail Darters ?

 

[penguin]

There used to be a website where you could buy lion, bear etc in cubes to eat but they are closed now. I wanted to try some lion-kabobs.

 

[Dave328]

Old abstracts in no way make the evidence any more refutable. It just means that this has been established 15 years ago, yet people still try to state the opposite as fact.