OT: FOX News and the oil blowout

[Allan from Fallbrook]

MadeInTaiwan: While I get your point about calling foul, I was simply trying to nail Brian down regarding facts and parsing words/information. A good example would be his retort, “Sure, the cementing MIGHT have caused the explosion”. No, it DID cause the explosion; no MIGHT involved.

As far as addressing the balance of your post: I work predominantly on engineering defensive/protective designs for structures against what is called VCE (vapor cloud explosions), like the one that hit BP Texas City in 2005.

What I’m about to say is NOT a defense of Big Oil, but rather a statement of fact about oil/gas facilities in the US and Canada. Let’s use the refineries of the Los Angeles River Basin as an example. Most of these refineries were originally built by Standard Oil during the 1920s and 1930s, and have seen substantial retrofitting and upgrading over the years, but its been done on something of a haphazard basis. The name of the game in refining is production and capacity and everything else takes a back seat to that, including, sometimes, safety.

Your point about regulations being relaxed under Bush/Cheney is certainly valid, but, in truth, these facilities and Chem/Petrochem, have enjoyed prefential treatment for decades, and largely because of our need for their products.

This takes me back to my focal point about a national energy program. Yeah, we can point a finger at Bush/Cheney and with some validity. But, let’s also be honest about Obama, too. We’re not seeing anything approaching a national energy program, and I can say this because I also work on protective design, largely for Force Protection, in the private nuke sector, and I hear the complaints regarding the difficulties in permitting, approvals and loan guarantees. The US government could be doing a lot more in this sector, including offering more support to companies like Westinghouse, and offering streamlined permitting/approval processes and a better loan guarantee program (like the French have). Same goes with natural gas, which is an excellent alternative product, but has languished for decades and mainly due to the fact that it doesn’t enjoy the clout or lobbying power of Big Oil.

Obama has a clear-cut opportunity here to do something sweeping, but I don’t see it happening. I don’t say this pessimistically, or because I don’t care for Obama; I say this because the status quo ante is deeply entrenched in not only US industry, but in what is considered an American birthright: Cheap Oil.

There’s a running joke in the oil business about ExxonMobil being a bank that happens to drill for oil. Except that’s it not really a joke at all. These companies wield tremendous power and influence and have had their way for over a century. It was abundantly clear as WWII drew to a close that the US was going to need huge amounts of oil and refined products going forward and we positioned ourselves to win the necessary “wars of extraction”. Better alternatives now exist, but the real question is if we, as Americans, have the will to make the change.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I was simply trying to nail Brian down regarding facts and parsing words/information. A good example would be his retort, “Sure, the cementing MIGHT have caused the explosion”. No, it DID cause the explosion; no MIGHT involved.[/quote]

Let me correct what I said. The cementing didn’t cause the explosion. The cementing was flawed in that it let the gas escape.

Technically, the spark that ignited the combustible caused the explosion.

It’s cowardly to hide behind the technicalities to avoid responsibility. How about we just say that BP is responsible for the explosion? The decisions BP made resulted in the explosion and the environmental disaster.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I was simply trying to nail Brian down regarding facts and parsing words/information. A good example would be his retort, “Sure, the cementing MIGHT have caused the explosion”. No, it DID cause the explosion; no MIGHT involved.[/quote]

Let me correct what I said. The cementing didn’t cause the explosion. The cementing was flawed in that it let the gas escape.

Technically, the spark that ignited the combustible caused the explosion.

It’s cowardly to hide behind the technicalities to avoid responsibility. How about we just say that BP is responsible for the explosion? The decisions BP made resulted in the explosion and the environmental disaster.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I was simply trying to nail Brian down regarding facts and parsing words/information. A good example would be his retort, “Sure, the cementing MIGHT have caused the explosion”. No, it DID cause the explosion; no MIGHT involved.[/quote]

Let me correct what I said. The cementing didn’t cause the explosion. The cementing was flawed in that it let the gas escape.

Technically, the spark that ignited the combustible caused the explosion.

It’s cowardly to hide behind the technicalities to avoid responsibility. How about we just say that BP is responsible for the explosion? The decisions BP made resulted in the explosion and the environmental disaster.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I was simply trying to nail Brian down regarding facts and parsing words/information. A good example would be his retort, “Sure, the cementing MIGHT have caused the explosion”. No, it DID cause the explosion; no MIGHT involved.[/quote]

Let me correct what I said. The cementing didn’t cause the explosion. The cementing was flawed in that it let the gas escape.

Technically, the spark that ignited the combustible caused the explosion.

It’s cowardly to hide behind the technicalities to avoid responsibility. How about we just say that BP is responsible for the explosion? The decisions BP made resulted in the explosion and the environmental disaster.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I was simply trying to nail Brian down regarding facts and parsing words/information. A good example would be his retort, “Sure, the cementing MIGHT have caused the explosion”. No, it DID cause the explosion; no MIGHT involved.[/quote]

Let me correct what I said. The cementing didn’t cause the explosion. The cementing was flawed in that it let the gas escape.

Technically, the spark that ignited the combustible caused the explosion.

It’s cowardly to hide behind the technicalities to avoid responsibility. How about we just say that BP is responsible for the explosion? The decisions BP made resulted in the explosion and the environmental disaster.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I was simply trying to nail Brian down regarding facts and parsing words/information. A good example would be his retort, “Sure, the cementing MIGHT have caused the explosion”. No, it DID cause the explosion; no MIGHT involved.[/quote]

Let me correct what I said. The cementing didn’t cause the explosion. The cementing was flawed in that it let the gas escape.

Technically, the spark that ignited the combustible caused the explosion.

It’s cowardly to hide behind the technicalities to avoid responsibility. How about we just say that BP is responsible for the explosion? The decisions BP made resulted in the explosion and the environmental disaster.[/quote]

You’ll get no argument from me. But that was NOT the point, Brian, you were trying to make. You tried to bootstrap from this and claim that ALL offshore drilling was bad, dangerous, etc and should be shut down. Taken one step further, you argued that this situation CLEARLY PROVED deep drilling was unsafe, but it did no such thing.

Words mean things. And facts are facts. Even at this remove, you’re pulling your usual bob-and-weave routine and trying to extricate yourself from a difficult position of your own creation.

And I would also ask if you just referred to me as a coward?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I was simply trying to nail Brian down regarding facts and parsing words/information. A good example would be his retort, “Sure, the cementing MIGHT have caused the explosion”. No, it DID cause the explosion; no MIGHT involved.[/quote]

Let me correct what I said. The cementing didn’t cause the explosion. The cementing was flawed in that it let the gas escape.

Technically, the spark that ignited the combustible caused the explosion.

It’s cowardly to hide behind the technicalities to avoid responsibility. How about we just say that BP is responsible for the explosion? The decisions BP made resulted in the explosion and the environmental disaster.[/quote]

You’ll get no argument from me. But that was NOT the point, Brian, you were trying to make. You tried to bootstrap from this and claim that ALL offshore drilling was bad, dangerous, etc and should be shut down. Taken one step further, you argued that this situation CLEARLY PROVED deep drilling was unsafe, but it did no such thing.

Words mean things. And facts are facts. Even at this remove, you’re pulling your usual bob-and-weave routine and trying to extricate yourself from a difficult position of your own creation.

And I would also ask if you just referred to me as a coward?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I was simply trying to nail Brian down regarding facts and parsing words/information. A good example would be his retort, “Sure, the cementing MIGHT have caused the explosion”. No, it DID cause the explosion; no MIGHT involved.[/quote]

Let me correct what I said. The cementing didn’t cause the explosion. The cementing was flawed in that it let the gas escape.

Technically, the spark that ignited the combustible caused the explosion.

It’s cowardly to hide behind the technicalities to avoid responsibility. How about we just say that BP is responsible for the explosion? The decisions BP made resulted in the explosion and the environmental disaster.[/quote]

You’ll get no argument from me. But that was NOT the point, Brian, you were trying to make. You tried to bootstrap from this and claim that ALL offshore drilling was bad, dangerous, etc and should be shut down. Taken one step further, you argued that this situation CLEARLY PROVED deep drilling was unsafe, but it did no such thing.

Words mean things. And facts are facts. Even at this remove, you’re pulling your usual bob-and-weave routine and trying to extricate yourself from a difficult position of your own creation.

And I would also ask if you just referred to me as a coward?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I was simply trying to nail Brian down regarding facts and parsing words/information. A good example would be his retort, “Sure, the cementing MIGHT have caused the explosion”. No, it DID cause the explosion; no MIGHT involved.[/quote]

Let me correct what I said. The cementing didn’t cause the explosion. The cementing was flawed in that it let the gas escape.

Technically, the spark that ignited the combustible caused the explosion.

It’s cowardly to hide behind the technicalities to avoid responsibility. How about we just say that BP is responsible for the explosion? The decisions BP made resulted in the explosion and the environmental disaster.[/quote]

You’ll get no argument from me. But that was NOT the point, Brian, you were trying to make. You tried to bootstrap from this and claim that ALL offshore drilling was bad, dangerous, etc and should be shut down. Taken one step further, you argued that this situation CLEARLY PROVED deep drilling was unsafe, but it did no such thing.

Words mean things. And facts are facts. Even at this remove, you’re pulling your usual bob-and-weave routine and trying to extricate yourself from a difficult position of your own creation.

And I would also ask if you just referred to me as a coward?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I was simply trying to nail Brian down regarding facts and parsing words/information. A good example would be his retort, “Sure, the cementing MIGHT have caused the explosion”. No, it DID cause the explosion; no MIGHT involved.[/quote]

Let me correct what I said. The cementing didn’t cause the explosion. The cementing was flawed in that it let the gas escape.

Technically, the spark that ignited the combustible caused the explosion.

It’s cowardly to hide behind the technicalities to avoid responsibility. How about we just say that BP is responsible for the explosion? The decisions BP made resulted in the explosion and the environmental disaster.[/quote]

You’ll get no argument from me. But that was NOT the point, Brian, you were trying to make. You tried to bootstrap from this and claim that ALL offshore drilling was bad, dangerous, etc and should be shut down. Taken one step further, you argued that this situation CLEARLY PROVED deep drilling was unsafe, but it did no such thing.

Words mean things. And facts are facts. Even at this remove, you’re pulling your usual bob-and-weave routine and trying to extricate yourself from a difficult position of your own creation.

And I would also ask if you just referred to me as a coward?

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
This takes me back to my focal point about a national energy program. Yeah, we can point a finger at Bush/Cheney and with some validity. But, let’s also be honest about Obama, too. We’re not seeing anything approaching a national energy program, and I can say this because I also work on protective design, largely for Force Protection, in the private nuke sector, and I hear the complaints regarding the difficulties in permitting, approvals and loan guarantees. [/quote]

Allan, since you are so much for technically assigning blame where blame is due, Bush/Cheney relaxing the rules contributed to the lack of safety and THIS Gulf of Mexico environmental disaster.

Obama’s supposed lack of a national energy program, and “the difficulties in permitting, approvals and loan guarantees” in the nuclear industry did not contribute to THIS environmental disaster in the gulf.

Now, if you want to look at the big picture energy policy of this country, then don’t just fixate on the cementing of this well.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Taken one step further, you argued that this situation CLEARLY PROVED deep drilling was unsafe, but it did no such thing.
[/quote]

Referring to drill-baby-drill and Fox, I said:

Supporters of drilling have argued that technology now makes it safe to drill in sensitive, untouched natural areas.

The new drilling technology is not working and untested as evidenced by the oil gusher.

In other words, I’m saying that the arguments advanced by the drill-baby-drill crowds that current technology is safe and minimally intrusive in sensitive areas have been obviated.

There are risks and we really don’t understand the risks.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And I would also ask if you just referred to me as a coward?[/quote]

I’m talking about BP. They will inevitably point blame as they have done already.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
This takes me back to my focal point about a national energy program. Yeah, we can point a finger at Bush/Cheney and with some validity. But, let’s also be honest about Obama, too. We’re not seeing anything approaching a national energy program, and I can say this because I also work on protective design, largely for Force Protection, in the private nuke sector, and I hear the complaints regarding the difficulties in permitting, approvals and loan guarantees. [/quote]

Allan, since you are so much for technically assigning blame where blame is due, Bush/Cheney relaxing the rules contributed to the lack of safety and THIS Gulf of Mexico environmental disaster.

Obama’s supposed lack of a national energy program, and “the difficulties in permitting, approvals and loan guarantees” in the nuclear industry did not contribute to THIS environmental disaster in the gulf.

Now, if you want to look at the big picture energy policy of this country, then don’t just fixate on the cementing of this well.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Taken one step further, you argued that this situation CLEARLY PROVED deep drilling was unsafe, but it did no such thing.
[/quote]

Referring to drill-baby-drill and Fox, I said:

Supporters of drilling have argued that technology now makes it safe to drill in sensitive, untouched natural areas.

The new drilling technology is not working and untested as evidenced by the oil gusher.

In other words, I’m saying that the arguments advanced by the drill-baby-drill crowds that current technology is safe and minimally intrusive in sensitive areas have been obviated.

There are risks and we really don’t understand the risks.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And I would also ask if you just referred to me as a coward?[/quote]

I’m talking about BP. They will inevitably point blame as they have done already.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
This takes me back to my focal point about a national energy program. Yeah, we can point a finger at Bush/Cheney and with some validity. But, let’s also be honest about Obama, too. We’re not seeing anything approaching a national energy program, and I can say this because I also work on protective design, largely for Force Protection, in the private nuke sector, and I hear the complaints regarding the difficulties in permitting, approvals and loan guarantees. [/quote]

Allan, since you are so much for technically assigning blame where blame is due, Bush/Cheney relaxing the rules contributed to the lack of safety and THIS Gulf of Mexico environmental disaster.

Obama’s supposed lack of a national energy program, and “the difficulties in permitting, approvals and loan guarantees” in the nuclear industry did not contribute to THIS environmental disaster in the gulf.

Now, if you want to look at the big picture energy policy of this country, then don’t just fixate on the cementing of this well.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Taken one step further, you argued that this situation CLEARLY PROVED deep drilling was unsafe, but it did no such thing.
[/quote]

Referring to drill-baby-drill and Fox, I said:

Supporters of drilling have argued that technology now makes it safe to drill in sensitive, untouched natural areas.

The new drilling technology is not working and untested as evidenced by the oil gusher.

In other words, I’m saying that the arguments advanced by the drill-baby-drill crowds that current technology is safe and minimally intrusive in sensitive areas have been obviated.

There are risks and we really don’t understand the risks.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And I would also ask if you just referred to me as a coward?[/quote]

I’m talking about BP. They will inevitably point blame as they have done already.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
This takes me back to my focal point about a national energy program. Yeah, we can point a finger at Bush/Cheney and with some validity. But, let’s also be honest about Obama, too. We’re not seeing anything approaching a national energy program, and I can say this because I also work on protective design, largely for Force Protection, in the private nuke sector, and I hear the complaints regarding the difficulties in permitting, approvals and loan guarantees. [/quote]

Allan, since you are so much for technically assigning blame where blame is due, Bush/Cheney relaxing the rules contributed to the lack of safety and THIS Gulf of Mexico environmental disaster.

Obama’s supposed lack of a national energy program, and “the difficulties in permitting, approvals and loan guarantees” in the nuclear industry did not contribute to THIS environmental disaster in the gulf.

Now, if you want to look at the big picture energy policy of this country, then don’t just fixate on the cementing of this well.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Taken one step further, you argued that this situation CLEARLY PROVED deep drilling was unsafe, but it did no such thing.
[/quote]

Referring to drill-baby-drill and Fox, I said:

Supporters of drilling have argued that technology now makes it safe to drill in sensitive, untouched natural areas.

The new drilling technology is not working and untested as evidenced by the oil gusher.

In other words, I’m saying that the arguments advanced by the drill-baby-drill crowds that current technology is safe and minimally intrusive in sensitive areas have been obviated.

There are risks and we really don’t understand the risks.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And I would also ask if you just referred to me as a coward?[/quote]

I’m talking about BP. They will inevitably point blame as they have done already.

[Author]

Posts