OT: FOX News and the oil blowout

[NotCranky]

[quote=meadandale][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Of course, you don’t like facts and prefer not to argue them. As my attorney is fond of saying, “Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?”. [/quote]

“Facts take all the premium out of arm waving”[/quote]
Then you have the problem of “forests and trees”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Russell][quote=meadandale][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Of course, you don’t like facts and prefer not to argue them. As my attorney is fond of saying, “Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?”. [/quote]

“Facts take all the premium out of arm waving”[/quote]
Then you have the problem of “forests and trees”.[/quote]

Rustico: Red herring. You can castigate the existing status quo ante, but you provide no alternatives.

Yes, forests and trees and bunnies and squirrels are all important. However, what is YOUR solution? To simply diagnose the malaise, but offer no cure, is just as bad.

So? What are YOUR solutions? Because the brutal fact remains: Oil and coal are cheap, and this country has never had a comprehensive energy program. I’m all for nuke and natural gas, but less for wind, solar and biomass (which are prohibitively expensive and generate miniscule amounts of energy when compared to oil and coal).

So? Let’s hear your thoughts on saving the forests, trees, bunnies and squirrels.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Russell][quote=meadandale][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Of course, you don’t like facts and prefer not to argue them. As my attorney is fond of saying, “Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?”. [/quote]

“Facts take all the premium out of arm waving”[/quote]
Then you have the problem of “forests and trees”.[/quote]

Rustico: Red herring. You can castigate the existing status quo ante, but you provide no alternatives.

Yes, forests and trees and bunnies and squirrels are all important. However, what is YOUR solution? To simply diagnose the malaise, but offer no cure, is just as bad.

So? What are YOUR solutions? Because the brutal fact remains: Oil and coal are cheap, and this country has never had a comprehensive energy program. I’m all for nuke and natural gas, but less for wind, solar and biomass (which are prohibitively expensive and generate miniscule amounts of energy when compared to oil and coal).

So? Let’s hear your thoughts on saving the forests, trees, bunnies and squirrels.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Russell][quote=meadandale][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Of course, you don’t like facts and prefer not to argue them. As my attorney is fond of saying, “Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?”. [/quote]

“Facts take all the premium out of arm waving”[/quote]
Then you have the problem of “forests and trees”.[/quote]

Rustico: Red herring. You can castigate the existing status quo ante, but you provide no alternatives.

Yes, forests and trees and bunnies and squirrels are all important. However, what is YOUR solution? To simply diagnose the malaise, but offer no cure, is just as bad.

So? What are YOUR solutions? Because the brutal fact remains: Oil and coal are cheap, and this country has never had a comprehensive energy program. I’m all for nuke and natural gas, but less for wind, solar and biomass (which are prohibitively expensive and generate miniscule amounts of energy when compared to oil and coal).

So? Let’s hear your thoughts on saving the forests, trees, bunnies and squirrels.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Russell][quote=meadandale][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Of course, you don’t like facts and prefer not to argue them. As my attorney is fond of saying, “Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?”. [/quote]

“Facts take all the premium out of arm waving”[/quote]
Then you have the problem of “forests and trees”.[/quote]

Rustico: Red herring. You can castigate the existing status quo ante, but you provide no alternatives.

Yes, forests and trees and bunnies and squirrels are all important. However, what is YOUR solution? To simply diagnose the malaise, but offer no cure, is just as bad.

So? What are YOUR solutions? Because the brutal fact remains: Oil and coal are cheap, and this country has never had a comprehensive energy program. I’m all for nuke and natural gas, but less for wind, solar and biomass (which are prohibitively expensive and generate miniscule amounts of energy when compared to oil and coal).

So? Let’s hear your thoughts on saving the forests, trees, bunnies and squirrels.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Russell][quote=meadandale][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Of course, you don’t like facts and prefer not to argue them. As my attorney is fond of saying, “Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?”. [/quote]

“Facts take all the premium out of arm waving”[/quote]
Then you have the problem of “forests and trees”.[/quote]

Rustico: Red herring. You can castigate the existing status quo ante, but you provide no alternatives.

Yes, forests and trees and bunnies and squirrels are all important. However, what is YOUR solution? To simply diagnose the malaise, but offer no cure, is just as bad.

So? What are YOUR solutions? Because the brutal fact remains: Oil and coal are cheap, and this country has never had a comprehensive energy program. I’m all for nuke and natural gas, but less for wind, solar and biomass (which are prohibitively expensive and generate miniscule amounts of energy when compared to oil and coal).

So? Let’s hear your thoughts on saving the forests, trees, bunnies and squirrels.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] but you completely missed (or ignored) the FACT that the cementing process was at issue here, not the drilling itself.[/quote]

Sure the cementing might have caused the explosion.

But once the explosion occurred, the oil was gushing from the well itself, as I understand it.

How do the facts you listed support the oil industry’s claim that they can drill safely and guarantee to the public (because the public wants a guarantee) that another historical disaster will not happen again?

That’s what I was addressing when I said that this disaster obviated the drill-baby-drill argument of safe exploration and extraction.

I guess you would argue that drill-baby-drill is about drilling, not cementing, pumping, storage, transport, etc..

If you’re saying that we need to bear the risks of disaster to extract oil, then that’s another issue altogether.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] but you completely missed (or ignored) the FACT that the cementing process was at issue here, not the drilling itself.[/quote]

Sure the cementing might have caused the explosion.

But once the explosion occurred, the oil was gushing from the well itself, as I understand it.

How do the facts you listed support the oil industry’s claim that they can drill safely and guarantee to the public (because the public wants a guarantee) that another historical disaster will not happen again?

That’s what I was addressing when I said that this disaster obviated the drill-baby-drill argument of safe exploration and extraction.

I guess you would argue that drill-baby-drill is about drilling, not cementing, pumping, storage, transport, etc..

If you’re saying that we need to bear the risks of disaster to extract oil, then that’s another issue altogether.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] but you completely missed (or ignored) the FACT that the cementing process was at issue here, not the drilling itself.[/quote]

Sure the cementing might have caused the explosion.

But once the explosion occurred, the oil was gushing from the well itself, as I understand it.

How do the facts you listed support the oil industry’s claim that they can drill safely and guarantee to the public (because the public wants a guarantee) that another historical disaster will not happen again?

That’s what I was addressing when I said that this disaster obviated the drill-baby-drill argument of safe exploration and extraction.

I guess you would argue that drill-baby-drill is about drilling, not cementing, pumping, storage, transport, etc..

If you’re saying that we need to bear the risks of disaster to extract oil, then that’s another issue altogether.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] but you completely missed (or ignored) the FACT that the cementing process was at issue here, not the drilling itself.[/quote]

Sure the cementing might have caused the explosion.

But once the explosion occurred, the oil was gushing from the well itself, as I understand it.

How do the facts you listed support the oil industry’s claim that they can drill safely and guarantee to the public (because the public wants a guarantee) that another historical disaster will not happen again?

That’s what I was addressing when I said that this disaster obviated the drill-baby-drill argument of safe exploration and extraction.

I guess you would argue that drill-baby-drill is about drilling, not cementing, pumping, storage, transport, etc..

If you’re saying that we need to bear the risks of disaster to extract oil, then that’s another issue altogether.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] but you completely missed (or ignored) the FACT that the cementing process was at issue here, not the drilling itself.[/quote]

Sure the cementing might have caused the explosion.

But once the explosion occurred, the oil was gushing from the well itself, as I understand it.

How do the facts you listed support the oil industry’s claim that they can drill safely and guarantee to the public (because the public wants a guarantee) that another historical disaster will not happen again?

That’s what I was addressing when I said that this disaster obviated the drill-baby-drill argument of safe exploration and extraction.

I guess you would argue that drill-baby-drill is about drilling, not cementing, pumping, storage, transport, etc..

If you’re saying that we need to bear the risks of disaster to extract oil, then that’s another issue altogether.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
Sure the cementing might have caused the explosion.

How do the facts you listed support the oil industry’s claim that they can drill safely and guarantee to the public (because the public wants a guarantee) that another historical disaster will not happen again?

That’s what I was addressing when I said that this disaster obviated the drill-baby-drill argument of safe exploration and extraction.

[/quote]

Brian: So, let me see if I have this straight: You want a 100% risk-free guarantee on ALL new extraction technologies? Also, you want this guarantee, in spite of the fact that the cementing process was at fault, not the drilling itself? This is exactly the type of thinking I was referencing in my earlier post: A zero risk mentality that eliminates any possibility of forward-thinking on new technologies.

Dude, how about this instead: Your guy, Obama, uses this golden opportunity to formulate and enact a sweeping energy policy for the US, and one that includes cost-effective solutions, like nuke and natural gas? Think that’s a good idea? Do you think he’ll do it? (And you and I both know the answer there).

And, by the way, Bunkie, we already DO bear the risks of disaster and not only in extracting oil, but transshipping it, refining it and distributing it. I’m no fan of Big Oil and I deal with issues relating to this industry every day, but until someone steps up and offers a cheaper, better, more viable alternative, then this is what we get.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
Sure the cementing might have caused the explosion.

How do the facts you listed support the oil industry’s claim that they can drill safely and guarantee to the public (because the public wants a guarantee) that another historical disaster will not happen again?

That’s what I was addressing when I said that this disaster obviated the drill-baby-drill argument of safe exploration and extraction.

[/quote]

Brian: So, let me see if I have this straight: You want a 100% risk-free guarantee on ALL new extraction technologies? Also, you want this guarantee, in spite of the fact that the cementing process was at fault, not the drilling itself? This is exactly the type of thinking I was referencing in my earlier post: A zero risk mentality that eliminates any possibility of forward-thinking on new technologies.

Dude, how about this instead: Your guy, Obama, uses this golden opportunity to formulate and enact a sweeping energy policy for the US, and one that includes cost-effective solutions, like nuke and natural gas? Think that’s a good idea? Do you think he’ll do it? (And you and I both know the answer there).

And, by the way, Bunkie, we already DO bear the risks of disaster and not only in extracting oil, but transshipping it, refining it and distributing it. I’m no fan of Big Oil and I deal with issues relating to this industry every day, but until someone steps up and offers a cheaper, better, more viable alternative, then this is what we get.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
Sure the cementing might have caused the explosion.

How do the facts you listed support the oil industry’s claim that they can drill safely and guarantee to the public (because the public wants a guarantee) that another historical disaster will not happen again?

That’s what I was addressing when I said that this disaster obviated the drill-baby-drill argument of safe exploration and extraction.

[/quote]

Brian: So, let me see if I have this straight: You want a 100% risk-free guarantee on ALL new extraction technologies? Also, you want this guarantee, in spite of the fact that the cementing process was at fault, not the drilling itself? This is exactly the type of thinking I was referencing in my earlier post: A zero risk mentality that eliminates any possibility of forward-thinking on new technologies.

Dude, how about this instead: Your guy, Obama, uses this golden opportunity to formulate and enact a sweeping energy policy for the US, and one that includes cost-effective solutions, like nuke and natural gas? Think that’s a good idea? Do you think he’ll do it? (And you and I both know the answer there).

And, by the way, Bunkie, we already DO bear the risks of disaster and not only in extracting oil, but transshipping it, refining it and distributing it. I’m no fan of Big Oil and I deal with issues relating to this industry every day, but until someone steps up and offers a cheaper, better, more viable alternative, then this is what we get.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
Sure the cementing might have caused the explosion.

How do the facts you listed support the oil industry’s claim that they can drill safely and guarantee to the public (because the public wants a guarantee) that another historical disaster will not happen again?

That’s what I was addressing when I said that this disaster obviated the drill-baby-drill argument of safe exploration and extraction.

[/quote]

Brian: So, let me see if I have this straight: You want a 100% risk-free guarantee on ALL new extraction technologies? Also, you want this guarantee, in spite of the fact that the cementing process was at fault, not the drilling itself? This is exactly the type of thinking I was referencing in my earlier post: A zero risk mentality that eliminates any possibility of forward-thinking on new technologies.

Dude, how about this instead: Your guy, Obama, uses this golden opportunity to formulate and enact a sweeping energy policy for the US, and one that includes cost-effective solutions, like nuke and natural gas? Think that’s a good idea? Do you think he’ll do it? (And you and I both know the answer there).

And, by the way, Bunkie, we already DO bear the risks of disaster and not only in extracting oil, but transshipping it, refining it and distributing it. I’m no fan of Big Oil and I deal with issues relating to this industry every day, but until someone steps up and offers a cheaper, better, more viable alternative, then this is what we get.

[Author]

Posts