Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

THE FUCKING HOLE WON'T BE FIXED BY THEM FFS.

This oil well is DEEP. It's an important deposit.

IT'S NOT THEIR FIRST FUCKUP. THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE BEING DISTRACTED FROM. They macguyver'd other drilling attempts, and "plugged" those. Always follow the money and who's involved.

There's cracks EVERYWHERE. They CAN'T nuke it. One little shift, and they're boned. Think of this deep oil deposit as a form of lube in a giant engine. Not like some random deposit like all those other ones. This one's USED.

I said back on January 10th that the 6.5 off cali was a domino. I warned about the next one being pretty terrible. The next one was haiti. The haiti one didn't make for good times on the gulf floor.

So yeah, this whole little charade being played out on the world stage is oh so fucking cute.

I blame the liberal tree-huggers who don't want oil rigs placed closer to shore or even on land because it could destroy their precious view of nature and... maybe... just maybe... hurt a couple animals. If this happened on land I bet the problem would be fixed by nao.

I'm curious how you think an earthquake in California and one in Haiti are connected.



Because there are no oil rigs on land and in shallow water already, right? I'm pretty sure you can't drill into a deposit 40 miles offshore and 18 000 feet underwater from shore.

Plates are a big things.

Because restrictions, bans, moratoriums and the like exist because of the non-environmentalists...

And ... ? Jupiter is a big object too, do you think it caused the quake in Haiti?



Environmentalists didn't put the oil deposits in deep water. Are you suggesting that oil companies would ignore economically recoverable offshore oil if there were no restrictions on drilling anywhere?

The moon affects the tides.
Doesn't mean Jupiter affects anything but the plates sure as hell have something to do with Earthquakes.

So what do you think the earthquakes in California and Haiti have in common? I'm aware of plate tectonics, but the fact that both earthquakes were caused by plates shifting doesn't necessarily mean they are linked. The Earth and Jupiter are both planets, does that mean that something that happens on one affects the other?

Considering all plates are linked in some way or another, I'd suggest it is extremely likely that one plate shifting could affect another plate thousands of miles away. Perhaps the Pacific and North American sheer caused some greater pressure on the Cocos or Caribbean plates. It's possible - The mid-Atlantic ridge pushes the North American plate towards the Pacific plate, which helps creates a subduction zone or sheering faults on the west coast, proving the activity in the Atlantic ocean is directly able to effect the activity on the west coast.

Also, I think it's fair to mention the Landers earthquake triggered abnormal seismic activity in other places... like in Yellowstone National Park - they had a lot of smaller earthquakes and irregular geyser activity following the Landers quake.

I'm sure they would find equally profitable wells on land since it's more expensive to drill in water.

Continental drift and earthquakes aren't the same thing. It is true that earthquakes can trigger other distant quakes, but those happen as the seismic waves pass through, not a few days later. If there was any evidence that the California and Haiti quakes were related it would be pretty scientifically significant, but as far as I'm aware there's no reason to think that they're actually linked other than the fact that they're both earthquakes which happened to occur within a few days of each other. It is certainly possible that they're connected, but without any known causal mechanism, linking these two events after the fact is nothing more than pointing out coincidences.



If they were equally profitable, would they not drill in both? More importantly, where do you think these big deposits on land that are off-limits to drilling are? There are some in the ANWR, but the majority of on-land deposits are available for drilling, and most of the unexploited oil in the US is offshore.

I've been busy for a few days and haven't gotten back to this until now. I wanted to check some facts before I made a response...


If the oil companies are already paying to have monitoring equipment anyway, paying for it for the government to run said equipment instead wouldn't create any additional expense for anyone. My point stands, you can't set up a system where the inmates run the asylum then complain when things get crazy.


I get two things out of this comment:
#1: You believe that unscrupulous individuals don't bother being unscrupulous if all they're getting is a measly $20 billion, which is patently absurd.
#2: You previously complained about Exxon "running to the courts," then suggest that the courts are not an unreasonable recourse here. Make up your mind.

You can't pass judgment on BP for fudging numbers in previous posts and then deride anyone for doubting their claims.
Pushing Obama out of the center of the picture just a smidge, I'm going to say that the government isn't entirely deserving of anyone's trust, either.

I'm going to cede that point after hearing Charles Krauthammer, no fan of the administration, gave Kenneth Feinberg a glowing recommendation.

There's no evidence that Obama didn't do anything underhanded, either. The "most transparent administration in history" keeping this conversation, among other things, away from the public's eyes and ears doesn't do anything to lend them any credibility.



I highlighted the key words in this paragraph. "In the gulf" pretty much sums up our offshore exploration. In my own personal search of offshore drilling locations, I found the map you linked on two sites, both of which appeared to be cliché left-wing and/or environmentalist sites. There's a reason they didn't wrap that map on around America's dangling penis of a state: Florida.

I found my own nutty short-sighted environmental site. This one specifically for nutty Floridian tree-huggers.

Note my nutty tree-hugger's rendition of your pic:

Notice how all those derricks stop spawning off the coast of Florida. Now I'm no expert on off-shore Florida (despite having lived, boated, and scuba-dived while I lived there for over half a decade--fans of sarcasm, take note), but I'm pretty sure there's a lot of shallow water there. In fact, it's so shallow off the eastern coast that I used to have to travel around six hours on the sub I served on before we dived.

As much as I like your "that's where the oil is" assertion, here's another little pic from my nutty tree-huggers:

Those locations denote proposed locations where localities passed resolutions against those proposed locations.

Looks like you're right about me just passing gas about rich people bitching about being able to see oil derricks off the coast. It looks like my nutty tree-huggers, who as we all know have denounced all worldly goods as they reach out and touch the divine soil of our mother, also have a problem with seeing the evil machinery of capitalism off the coast.



Never mind what I said about the piety of our environmentalist friends...I was being sarcastic. In most cases, the only difference between an environmentalist and a developer is that the environmentalist has already built a house in the woods. These dillholes are exactly the people I was talking about when I said "rich people." They seem to think they deserve all the perks of modern society without any of the detriments that go along with them.

Did I mention that here in Virginia, they recently voted to allow drilling off-shore for the first time in the state's history?



Doing just an initial search on just moratoriums and not outright bans, I found several states:
Pennsylvania: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/pennsylvania_governor_reported.html
Texas, of all places: http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/06/08/2249850/flower-mounds-gas-drilling-moratorium.html
New York: http://www.shaleshock.org/tompkins-co-legislature-passes-resolution-supporting-drilling-moratorium/

All stories list moratoriums or proposed moratoriums on oil and/or natural gas drilling/exploration...most of which were unsurprisingly instigated by nutty environmental groups.

I also think it's absolutely hilarious that you try to pass off the idea that we're just sinking wells all over the place here on dry land and then bring up ANWAR. Most people don't know this, but ANWAR was specifically set up, pre-The Worst Republican Ever, specifically for oil exploration and recovery, yet we'd be terrible people to fuckerize that shitty arctic tundra by popping holes in it.

So, in short:
BP Sucks.
The President: Sucks
Congress: Sucks
Environmentalists: Suck
Most of what you've said: Sucks and is provably wrong.

I still love you anyway. One day, I will come to Canada to wear flannel, drink Molsen, eat that ham you guys refer to as bacon, and watch a hockey game with you and Kamguh and whoever else here lives in the fine country of Canada.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

That would be a fine system, although it's clearly not the one that's in place right now.



Even if the government is as unscrupulous as you think, it is pretty unlikely the administration would commit political suicide to get an essentially meaningless sum of money. Stealing money from poor, desperate fishermen would probably be the biggest political scandal ever in the US. As for the courts, determining criminal responsibility for stealing $20 billion dollars already designated for a particular purpose is quite different from determining civil liability for the nebulous concept of "damages".




If you don't trust what anyone says about anything that's your perogative. The facts remain that all of the available evidence says that the $20 billion is not a cap.



So in the complete absence of evidence, on what basis are you accusing Obama of committing illegal acts? Because you don't like him?



The map I posted is from the NOAA, the agency in charge of mapping things in the ocean. Your original argument was



Clearly there are already lots of wells in shallow water. However, if you were arguing that if there were no restrictions on offshore drilling the amount of oil available in those areas would make drilling in the gulf unnecessary, then the amount of oil available in restricted areas is the relevant question. You're correct that Florida has a lot of shallow water, but you can't just place an oil well anywhere you want and expect to produce oil - there has to be a deposit there. Here is the MMS's estimates of undiscovered oil. The western and central Gulf areas (which are open to drilling) dwarf the deposits in the rest of the lower 48, and together with Alaska (which was recently opened for drilling), contain almost 80% of the US offshore resources. This map doesn't separate out reserves by depth, but even if we charitably assume deposits in all areas outside the Gulf and Alaska are in shallow water, there simply isn't that much shallow water oil that's off limits.



All 3 of the stories you linked are about natural gas. That's entirely irrelevant to my argument - where are these large onshore oil deposits, which are currently off-limits to drilling, that could replace the offshore deposits in the Gulf?

As for the ANWR, it was not set up specifically for drilling. One part of the reserve was designated so that the government could choose to allow drilling there (which they haven't yet done), while the rest is permanently off-limits. You can reasonably argue that it is worth the ecological damage to drill there, but that has nothing to do with your original argument. Opening up the ANWR to drilling would not come close to satisfying US demand for oil, and there would still be a need to drill offshore.

You must not be familiar with the Obama administration. "Political suicide" doesn't seem to phase them. They don't care so long as they can do what they want now, and if you don't believe that, remind yourself about railroading "healthcare reform" through the pipeline when the majority of Americans opposed it.
If the $20 billion is allegedly there to cover those civil liabilities, then there is no difference.


There is no "evidence" of anything outside of what BP reps and Obamoids are saying, and neither group is trustworthy. You yourself pointed out prior to making that comment that BP cannot be trusted. You can't assert that someone is undeserving of trust then expect anyone to buy an argument that they are now telling the truth.


So in the complete absence of evidence, on what basis do you place your implicit trust in Obama? Because you like him?




The argument was that companies are drilling in deeper water because opportunities in shallow water are being denied to them. I think I proved that just with the state of Florida. MMS estimates don't really apply when they most likely aren't doing estimates in areas where no one will ever get to put a drill down. You can spin that information however you want, but you were wrong.


While those articles are not specifically related to petroleum, it shows the mindset of opponents of resource exploitation. NIMBY (not in my back yard) morons who don't realize that the stuff they use has to come from somewhere. If there is that much of a push against natural gas, which has pretty good press as being clean and efficient, how much more of a push is there against those evil oil companies?


Yes, yes, yes, but you can't argue that we're exploiting all available land-based resources to keep ourselves out of deep water when we clearly aren't, which is the point.

I think we'd probably produce an appropriate amount of oil through current processes if they'd come off some of the more ridiculous regulations and made building new refineries a reality. Almost all of our refining infrastructure is in the gulf states, too. The price of fuels would probably drop dramatically if there were a refinery located in each of the zones requiring a special fuel blend, and new facilities would probably process oil more efficiently at lower cost and reduced ecological impact.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

There's no point in arguing about this kind of speculation. I'm not inclined to invent wild conspiracy theories about the US government, but you can do so if you want.



I'm applying the simple concept of "innocent until proven guilty". You still haven't answered why you are accusing Obama of illegal acts without any evidence.



Did you even look at the map I linked? They did estimates for all of the US offshore waters. I'm aware that there are restrictions on drilling for oil off Florida and elsewhere, but that doesn't mean there are significant quantities of oil there. The agency charged with determining these things doesn't think there are.



And again, you don't seem to have any evidence for the assertion that there are significant amounts of oil on land that is off-limits for drilling outside the ANWR. ANWR alone wouldn't satisfy demand even with best-case estimates for how much oil is there, and the reasons for not drilling there have nothing to do with NIMBYism.

Jubber, you sound like the stereotypical, erratic, hate-the-government-for-no-good-reason republican. While I am not the biggest fan of some of the government's shenanigans, I dont outright assume that everything they say is false. Until proven otherwise with some sort of tangible EVIDENCE, the $20 billion is NOT a cap and you sound silly if you continue to argue otherwise (which doesn't seem to phase you, but that's your choice).

Also, I'm no tree-hugger, but I dont think that restrictions in place for the protection of the environment are worthless. We share this planet, and you must be made of stone to not be at least a LITTLE BIT concerned for the wildlife that is currently affected by this disaster. Will we have to pay more for oil that we have not drilled up ourselves? Yes. Am I okay with that if it helps the environment? Yes.

The same applies to your argument about healthcare. My family is rich, and I plan on being rich. Will I be footing the bill for Obama's healthcare plan? Yes. Am I okay with that? Yes.

TL;DR

Jubber got crushed, and I <3 Laelia for presenting my thoughts and resonses to Jubber's statements in a clear and concise manner.

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

What if Jubber has a reason to hate the government or not trust this administration? Why are you so loving and trusting of this administration? What have they truly done right?