# Offshore drilling is good for the environment.



## BaronVonBigmeat (May 12, 2008)

Note: remember that offshore oil rigs transport oil to the shore via underwater pipelines, not oil tankers



> Of the roughly 3,700 offshore oil production platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, roughly 3,200 lie off the Louisiana coast. Yet Louisiana produces one-third of America's commercial fisheries and no major oil spill has ever soiled its coast.
> 
> On the other hand, Florida, which zealously prohibits offshore oil drilling, had its gorgeous "Emerald Coast" panhandle beaches soiled by an ugly oil spill in 1976. This spill, as almost all oil spills, resulted from the _transportation_ of oil  not from the _extraction_ of oil. Assuming such as Hugo Chavez deign to keep selling us oil, we'll need increasingly more and we'll need to keep transporting it stateside  typically to refineries in Louisiana and Texas.
> 
> ...



http://www.lewrockwell.com/fontova/fontova68.html


----------



## Ravi (May 13, 2008)

Florida's tourism industry wouldn't do very well if one had to dive amongst oil rigs.

If you want to see the cost of off-shore drilling to the state of LA, look no further than New Orleans, a city that was destroyed because of oil interests.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 13, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Florida's tourism industry wouldn't do very well if one had to dive amongst oil rigs.
> 
> If you want to see the cost of off-shore drilling to the state of LA, look no further than New Orleans, a city that was destroyed because of oil interests.



LOL. It was destroyed because it sits UNDER the sea level in an area that is renowned for HURRICANES. The swamps are vanishing not because of Oil but because of controlling the Mississippi river.

Learn some facts dear.


----------



## Ravi (May 13, 2008)

Use a few brain cells. Why do you think they rerouted the Mississippi?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 13, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Use a few brain cells. Why do you think they rerouted the Mississippi?



Ohh I see, the ONLY traffic on the Mississippi is Oil traffic, you really are a PEA BRAIN. They also rerouted and leveed it all along its length to prevent FLOODING, which has ZERO to do with OIL.


----------



## BaronVonBigmeat (May 13, 2008)

The problems with the flooding of New Orleans can be laid at the feet of the federal government, namely the army corps of engineers. They defied common sense and well-understood water management practices, and went with a "levees only" approach. Thus, they built up the mississippi artifically high, so when it finally spilled over, it was spectacular. 

Seriously, if you go back and look at the records before the army corps of engineers started building levees, there were no catastrophic floods. Floods, yes--but megafloods, no. The first big project during the Hoover administration was soon followed by the first killer flood during the 1930's.

Also, if oil platforms cause an explosion of marine life, then I would expect Florida's tourism industry to flourish.


----------



## Dogger (May 13, 2008)

Katrina was so devasting, in part, because of the loss of costal wetlands that previously acted as a storm buffer. City elevation became a factor when the levees broke, but the intensity of the unbuffered storm was a significant cause for that failure.

Ravir should not have singled out oil interests, but RSG was  wrong (as usual) to deny that factor and to blame elevation alone. The U.S. Geological Survey blamed several factors for degradation and loss of wetlands, including natural processes, massive levees that channel the river, and drainage to accommodate development and agriculture. "In addition, .  .   .  an extensive system of dredged canals and flood-control structures, constructed to facilitate *hydrocarbon exploration* [that includes oil and gas] and production as well as commercial and recreational boat traffic, has enabled salt water from the Gulf of Mexico to intrude brackish and freshwater wetlands."

Much of the development for which wetlands were drained included facilities for oil and gas production, and housing to accomodate employees in that industry.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 13, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Katrina was so devasting, in part, because of the loss of costal wetlands that previously acted as a storm buffer. City elevation became a factor when the levees broke, but the intensity of the unbuffered storm was a significant cause for that failure.
> 
> Ravir should not have singled out oil interests, but RSG was  wrong (as usual) to deny that factor and to blame elevation alone. The U.S. Geological Survey blamed several factors for degradation and loss of wetlands, including natural processes, massive levees that channel the river, and drainage to accommodate development and agriculture. "In addition, .  .   .  an extensive system of dredged canals and flood-control structures, constructed to facilitate *hydrocarbon exploration* [that includes oil and gas] and production as well as commercial and recreational boat traffic, has enabled salt water from the Gulf of Mexico to intrude brackish and freshwater wetlands."
> 
> Much of the development for which wetlands were drained included facilities for oil and gas production, and housing to accomodate employees in that industry.



I did not claim oil had nothing to do with it. Again try some reading comprehension. For a lawyer you sure can't read well or understand the written word. And as you have just posted it did not have as much to do with as Ravir claimed. Which was my point.  The river has been leveed since the 30's, getting more and more controlled as the years passed and not just because of oil.


----------



## Dogger (May 13, 2008)

BaronVonBigmeat said:


> Also, if oil platforms cause an explosion of marine life, then I would expect Florida's tourism industry to flourish.



Not really. Proximity to shore is a factor. And I would expect that boat traffic near the rigs would be limited to prevent accidents and possible spills.


----------



## Ravi (May 13, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Katrina was so devasting, in part, because of the loss of costal wetlands that previously acted as a storm buffer. City elevation became a factor when the levees broke, but the intensity of the unbuffered storm was a significant cause for that failure.
> 
> Ravir should not have singled out oil interests, but RSG was  wrong (as usual) to deny that factor and to blame elevation alone. The U.S. Geological Survey blamed several factors for degradation and loss of wetlands, including natural processes, massive levees that channel the river, and drainage to accommodate development and agriculture. "In addition, .  .   .  an extensive system of dredged canals and flood-control structures, constructed to facilitate *hydrocarbon exploration* [that includes oil and gas] and production as well as commercial and recreational boat traffic, has enabled salt water from the Gulf of Mexico to intrude brackish and freshwater wetlands."
> 
> Much of the development for which wetlands were drained included facilities for oil and gas production, and housing to accomodate employees in that industry.



True, I shouldn't have singled out oil, must have been my knee-jerk liberal reaction.

Another problem is that the state of LA doesn't get to share in any of the tax revenue from the drilling off of their coast even though the industry puts a huge strain on their infrastructure.


----------



## Dogger (May 13, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I did not claim oil had nothing to do with it.



I was responding to the post were you wrote, "LOL. It was destroyed because it sits UNDER the sea level in an area that is renowned for HURRICANES. The swamps are vanishing *not because of Oil *but because of controlling the Mississippi river."

You subsequently wrote, "Ohh I see, the ONLY traffic on the Mississippi is Oil traffic, you really are a PEA BRAIN. They also rerouted and leveed it all along its length to prevent FLOODING, *which has ZERO to do with OIL.*"

So I said you blamed elevation alone, because I was responding to your first quote and did not consider your second comment about levees. Sorry for the oversight.

But you did deny that oil had anything to do with the loss of swamp land, and blamed the levees alone, which is contradicted by the USGS. If you had written "The swamps are vanishing not [just] because of Oil but [also] because of controlling the Mississippi river", my comments would have been off the mark. But you didn't, so STFU about my ability to read when it is your ability to write that's deficient.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 13, 2008)

Dogger said:


> I was responding to the post were you wrote, "LOL. It was destroyed because it sits UNDER the sea level in an area that is renowned for HURRICANES. The swamps are vanishing *not because of Oil *but because of controlling the Mississippi river."
> 
> You subsequently wrote, "Ohh I see, the ONLY traffic on the Mississippi is Oil traffic, you really are a PEA BRAIN. They also rerouted and leveed it all along its length to prevent FLOODING, *which has ZERO to do with OIL.*"
> 
> ...



Shall we review your inability to comprehend the written word in several other threads? One where I was clear that gang members did in fact have rights like everyone else? How about the one where you were and are still to stupid to admit you could not grasp satire?

I swear , we have 3 admitted lawyers on this board and 2 of you need proof readers and cliff notes to understand anything said here.


----------



## Dogger (May 13, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> *** delusional rant omitted ***



I understand you are on disability. What is the DSM-IV classification for your impairment?

Take your meds, please. You'll feel better.

Indeed, take the whole bottle. I'll feel better.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (May 18, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Florida's tourism industry wouldn't do very well if one had to dive amongst oil rigs.
> 
> If you want to see the cost of off-shore drilling to the state of LA, look no further than New Orleans, a city that was destroyed because of oil interests.






That's debatable. I've been on several offshore fishing trips in which we tie off to oil rigs and pull up snapper, ling, mahi mahi, and grouper.  Guides make a living doing this and tourists pay good money and have no complaints with the rigs. We really do need to drill more in the gulf and off the coast of Florida while we're on our way to electric and other technologies.


----------



## CharlestonChad (May 19, 2008)

LordBrownTrout said:


> That's debatable. I've been on several offshore fishing trips in which we tie off to oil rigs and pull up snapper, ling, mahi mahi, and grouper.  Guides make a living doing this and tourists pay good money and have no complaints with the rigs. We really do need to drill more in the gulf and off the coast of Florida while we're on our way to electric and other technologies.



Rigs create artificial structures that baitfish live around for protection. The rigs will have an effect on the biodiversity of marine life, but I don't know what marine ecologists think the outcome will be.


----------



## Canis (May 20, 2008)

Pronounced aggregations of fish close to the platforms cannot be used as a surrogate for explaining the complexities of species-specific and community level spatial and temporal patterns. 

The most reasonable way to draw conclusions would be to compare fish assemblages between platforms and nearby natural reefs and not by comparing the Flower Gardens in TX-LA to the reefs of the FL Keys.  If rigs are supporting similar fish assemblages with similar spatial and temporal patterns as nearby natural reefs, then one can draw conclusions that the rigs offer suitable habitat.


----------



## Jeepers (May 20, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> Rigs create artificial structures that baitfish live around for protection. The rigs will have an effect on the biodiversity of marine life, but I don't know what marine ecologists think the outcome will be.



Not sure that florida has a problem with a lack of offshore reefs.. hell.. its hard enough trying not to hit em with anything more than an Island packet type keel ...I'm not sure that any oil spils have resulted from LA drilling. I am not sure as well that the gulf has been harmed by oil drilling at all.. although I'd say that there is a serious problem with light pollution when navigating a field at night... almost got rundown by a tanker that was invisble against the rig backdrops... Gov Bush shot down many a proposal to drill... does anyone from Florida know why this was?


----------



## Ravi (May 20, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Not sure that florida has a problem with a lack of offshore reefs.. hell.. its hard enough trying not to hit em with anything more than an Island packet type keel ...I'm not sure that any oil spils have resulted from LA drilling. I am not sure as well that the gulf has been harmed by oil drilling at all.. although I'd say that there is a serious problem with light pollution when navigating a field at night... almost got rundown by a tanker that was invisble against the rig backdrops... Gov Bush shot down many a proposal to drill... does anyone from Florida know why this was?



So he'd get re-elected. Almost everyone in Florida is against offshore drilling.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (May 20, 2008)

The oil is there.  Drill it.  I'm not saying we should destroy the coral reefs but we do need to be realistic. I'd rather have people being able to afford a way to pay for gas so they can go to work versus saving a few species. And while we're doing this, push for new technologies.


----------



## Ravi (May 20, 2008)

LordBrownTrout said:


> The oil is there.  Drill it.  I'm not saying we should destroy the coral reefs but we do need to be realistic. I'd rather have people being able to afford a way to pay for gas so they can go to work versus saving a few species. And while we're doing this, push for new technologies.



There isn't enough there to matter. And it isn't just a matter of saving a few species. It's a matter of saving the economy of a state. How many states do you want to ruin for oil?


----------



## LordBrownTrout (May 20, 2008)

Ravir said:


> There isn't enough there to matter. And it isn't just a matter of saving a few species. It's a matter of saving the economy of a state. How many states do you want to ruin for oil?






Ruin?  Not sure what you mean. There's a new reserve in the gulf that Conoco Phillips has discovered. There are over a trillion reserves in the Wyoming shales. Utah has some in their metamorphic rock also. Prudhoe Bay in Alaska also. This can be extracted now with environmental regs in place.


----------



## Annie (May 20, 2008)

Ravir said:


> So he'd get re-elected. Almost everyone in Florida is against offshore drilling.



Yep, totally a NIMBY attitude, but one that the government needs to get past. The state of our economy, as a country and as individuals is at stake. If salaries should rise to cover the cost of going to work, then prices will follow. Hyperinflation is the word.


----------



## Jeepers (May 20, 2008)

Maybe bush could lean on our opec friends to increase production.. every other president in the past has had that power.... why not now... either bush is an impotant prick or he is an unwilling prick [makin friends in texass]... either way he is still a prick...


----------



## Dr Grump (May 23, 2008)

You do a disservice to pricks everywhere..


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 10, 2008)

What about all the waste oil and waste products that gets dumped off of oil rigs into the Gulf?


----------



## Ravi (Jun 10, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Yep, totally a NIMBY attitude, but one that the government needs to get past. The state of our economy, as a country and as individuals is at stake. If salaries should rise to cover the cost of going to work, then prices will follow. Hyperinflation is the word.



So you are against state's rights?


----------



## Jeepers (Jun 10, 2008)

LordBrownTrout said:


> The oil is there.  Drill it.  I'm not saying we should destroy the coral reefs but we do need to be realistic. I'd rather have people being able to afford a way to pay for gas so they can go to work versus saving a few species. And while we're doing this, push for new technologies.


Oil companies hold hundreds of leases on land that they dont drill... These companies give two shits about drilling the oil for some reason... its the leases that they want apparently... untill they tap the resources that they currently have, I see no reason to give them any new leases on federal land..


----------



## glockmail (Jun 10, 2008)

If the nimby's cared about the environment they would insist we drill in the US under US environmental laws that prevent pollution, instead of in OPEC countries where such regulations don't exist. Also, since a lot of natural gas is expelled as part of the crude production process, that too can be used, instead of simply flared off as is done in areas where it is not cost effective to collect and transport.


----------

