OT: FOX News and the oil blowout

[PCinSD]

[quote=denverite]During channel surfing, I crossed FOX News many times in the past month or so. It didn’t occur to me until a few days ago that there was no coverage of the Gulf oil blowout, literally none. Is it just me or is Fox News being the advertised “Fair and Balanced” news organization?[/quote]

I watch Fox quite a bit. They’ve been covering this story closely. Every day, many times a day. Is it possible for you to have simply missed their coverage while channel surfing?

I’m not referring to the Glen Beck or Hannity segments. Just their news reporting.

[danielwis]

[quote=Arraya]The don’t seem to have the continuous ****PANIC! WARNING! EPIC OIL DISASTER***, thing going, but that is just catering to demographics. Fox reserves that for other things that MSNBC might not cover as intensely.

EDIT: Front page of Fox news is ***WARNING! PANIC! TERROR AT THE BORDER*** currently.[/quote]

The “PANIC” news on Fox would be hot topics such as:

ACORN (scary black people registering voters)
Did President OBAMA really go to Columbia? “Our next guest says he never saw Obama at Columbia in 1986”.
And of course, the local gathering of 15 tea party supporters in Bum Phuck North Dakota.

Oil spill in the gulf?? Meh….. Bunch of librul whiners.

[danielwis]

[quote=Arraya]The don’t seem to have the continuous ****PANIC! WARNING! EPIC OIL DISASTER***, thing going, but that is just catering to demographics. Fox reserves that for other things that MSNBC might not cover as intensely.

EDIT: Front page of Fox news is ***WARNING! PANIC! TERROR AT THE BORDER*** currently.[/quote]

The “PANIC” news on Fox would be hot topics such as:

ACORN (scary black people registering voters)
Did President OBAMA really go to Columbia? “Our next guest says he never saw Obama at Columbia in 1986”.
And of course, the local gathering of 15 tea party supporters in Bum Phuck North Dakota.

Oil spill in the gulf?? Meh….. Bunch of librul whiners.

[danielwis]

[quote=Arraya]The don’t seem to have the continuous ****PANIC! WARNING! EPIC OIL DISASTER***, thing going, but that is just catering to demographics. Fox reserves that for other things that MSNBC might not cover as intensely.

EDIT: Front page of Fox news is ***WARNING! PANIC! TERROR AT THE BORDER*** currently.[/quote]

The “PANIC” news on Fox would be hot topics such as:

ACORN (scary black people registering voters)
Did President OBAMA really go to Columbia? “Our next guest says he never saw Obama at Columbia in 1986”.
And of course, the local gathering of 15 tea party supporters in Bum Phuck North Dakota.

Oil spill in the gulf?? Meh….. Bunch of librul whiners.

[danielwis]

[quote=Arraya]The don’t seem to have the continuous ****PANIC! WARNING! EPIC OIL DISASTER***, thing going, but that is just catering to demographics. Fox reserves that for other things that MSNBC might not cover as intensely.

EDIT: Front page of Fox news is ***WARNING! PANIC! TERROR AT THE BORDER*** currently.[/quote]

The “PANIC” news on Fox would be hot topics such as:

ACORN (scary black people registering voters)
Did President OBAMA really go to Columbia? “Our next guest says he never saw Obama at Columbia in 1986”.
And of course, the local gathering of 15 tea party supporters in Bum Phuck North Dakota.

Oil spill in the gulf?? Meh….. Bunch of librul whiners.

[danielwis]

[quote=Arraya]The don’t seem to have the continuous ****PANIC! WARNING! EPIC OIL DISASTER***, thing going, but that is just catering to demographics. Fox reserves that for other things that MSNBC might not cover as intensely.

EDIT: Front page of Fox news is ***WARNING! PANIC! TERROR AT THE BORDER*** currently.[/quote]

The “PANIC” news on Fox would be hot topics such as:

ACORN (scary black people registering voters)
Did President OBAMA really go to Columbia? “Our next guest says he never saw Obama at Columbia in 1986”.
And of course, the local gathering of 15 tea party supporters in Bum Phuck North Dakota.

Oil spill in the gulf?? Meh….. Bunch of librul whiners.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The fail-safe had NOTHING to do with the drilling, hence my suggestion to research “cementing”, which you obviously didn’t do prior to responding. Deep-drill technologies and methodologies have NOTHING to do with the process of cementing, which is why the cementing is done by an oil-services company, like Halliburton, versus the actual driller or rig owner.
[/quote]

Allan, I wasn’t addressing any technology in specific.

When the oil company operates a platform, it must have a fail-safe or contingency in case of an accident.

The explosion occurred and the fail-safe did not work.

There have been many attempts at plugging the gusher and none have worked. It’s been more than one month.[/quote]

Brian: You didn’t address any technology specifically? Uh, yeah, you did. You claimed from the outset that deep-drill technology didn’t work.

Look at your sentence above that reads, “The explosion occurred and the fail-safe did not work”. Why did the explosion occur, Brian? Do you know? Did you research “cementing” (and Ucodegen did, its referenced in his post) and where the failure occurred and who was responsible for it? Nope. Again, evasion and duck-and-weave while you continue to make a political point.

Get serious, and bring facts, or give it up.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The fail-safe had NOTHING to do with the drilling, hence my suggestion to research “cementing”, which you obviously didn’t do prior to responding. Deep-drill technologies and methodologies have NOTHING to do with the process of cementing, which is why the cementing is done by an oil-services company, like Halliburton, versus the actual driller or rig owner.
[/quote]

Allan, I wasn’t addressing any technology in specific.

When the oil company operates a platform, it must have a fail-safe or contingency in case of an accident.

The explosion occurred and the fail-safe did not work.

There have been many attempts at plugging the gusher and none have worked. It’s been more than one month.[/quote]

Brian: You didn’t address any technology specifically? Uh, yeah, you did. You claimed from the outset that deep-drill technology didn’t work.

Look at your sentence above that reads, “The explosion occurred and the fail-safe did not work”. Why did the explosion occur, Brian? Do you know? Did you research “cementing” (and Ucodegen did, its referenced in his post) and where the failure occurred and who was responsible for it? Nope. Again, evasion and duck-and-weave while you continue to make a political point.

Get serious, and bring facts, or give it up.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The fail-safe had NOTHING to do with the drilling, hence my suggestion to research “cementing”, which you obviously didn’t do prior to responding. Deep-drill technologies and methodologies have NOTHING to do with the process of cementing, which is why the cementing is done by an oil-services company, like Halliburton, versus the actual driller or rig owner.
[/quote]

Allan, I wasn’t addressing any technology in specific.

When the oil company operates a platform, it must have a fail-safe or contingency in case of an accident.

The explosion occurred and the fail-safe did not work.

There have been many attempts at plugging the gusher and none have worked. It’s been more than one month.[/quote]

Brian: You didn’t address any technology specifically? Uh, yeah, you did. You claimed from the outset that deep-drill technology didn’t work.

Look at your sentence above that reads, “The explosion occurred and the fail-safe did not work”. Why did the explosion occur, Brian? Do you know? Did you research “cementing” (and Ucodegen did, its referenced in his post) and where the failure occurred and who was responsible for it? Nope. Again, evasion and duck-and-weave while you continue to make a political point.

Get serious, and bring facts, or give it up.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The fail-safe had NOTHING to do with the drilling, hence my suggestion to research “cementing”, which you obviously didn’t do prior to responding. Deep-drill technologies and methodologies have NOTHING to do with the process of cementing, which is why the cementing is done by an oil-services company, like Halliburton, versus the actual driller or rig owner.
[/quote]

Allan, I wasn’t addressing any technology in specific.

When the oil company operates a platform, it must have a fail-safe or contingency in case of an accident.

The explosion occurred and the fail-safe did not work.

There have been many attempts at plugging the gusher and none have worked. It’s been more than one month.[/quote]

Brian: You didn’t address any technology specifically? Uh, yeah, you did. You claimed from the outset that deep-drill technology didn’t work.

Look at your sentence above that reads, “The explosion occurred and the fail-safe did not work”. Why did the explosion occur, Brian? Do you know? Did you research “cementing” (and Ucodegen did, its referenced in his post) and where the failure occurred and who was responsible for it? Nope. Again, evasion and duck-and-weave while you continue to make a political point.

Get serious, and bring facts, or give it up.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The fail-safe had NOTHING to do with the drilling, hence my suggestion to research “cementing”, which you obviously didn’t do prior to responding. Deep-drill technologies and methodologies have NOTHING to do with the process of cementing, which is why the cementing is done by an oil-services company, like Halliburton, versus the actual driller or rig owner.
[/quote]

Allan, I wasn’t addressing any technology in specific.

When the oil company operates a platform, it must have a fail-safe or contingency in case of an accident.

The explosion occurred and the fail-safe did not work.

There have been many attempts at plugging the gusher and none have worked. It’s been more than one month.[/quote]

Brian: You didn’t address any technology specifically? Uh, yeah, you did. You claimed from the outset that deep-drill technology didn’t work.

Look at your sentence above that reads, “The explosion occurred and the fail-safe did not work”. Why did the explosion occur, Brian? Do you know? Did you research “cementing” (and Ucodegen did, its referenced in his post) and where the failure occurred and who was responsible for it? Nope. Again, evasion and duck-and-weave while you continue to make a political point.

Get serious, and bring facts, or give it up.

[ucodegen]

When the oil company operates a platform, it must have a fail-safe or contingency in case of an accident.

The explosion occurred and the fail-safe did not work.

There was minimal contingency (gov. inspectors must have liked their ‘presents’) and fail-safe was not properly implemented (discharged batteries discovered on the blowout preventer – and oh well, we’ll continue though it would fail daily inspection). I also wonder if the casing of the pipe was driven far enough into the ground to allow a good and secure seal between the pipe wall and rock strata that the pipe has been driven into.

There have been many attempts at plugging the gusher and none have worked. It’s been more than one month.

I disagree. There has been pseudo attempts and plenty of finger-pointing, spin and understating the amount of oil flowing out of the damaged pipe. The only things they have tried so far is to try to get the blowout preventer to trigger and to use some sort of siphon to pick up oil out of the pipe. Its like the amateur team was in charge. The pressure on those pipes can be in the 2000 to 5000 psi range. Putting what could amount to a ‘soda straw’ in the pipe will not accomplish anything at these pressures.

Now they are concerned that the oil is eroding the pipe. To do that, the flow rate would have to be considerably higher then 5000 barrels per day. So what is the truth BP??

Oil spill in the gulf?? Meh….. Bunch of librul whiners

BTW, as most people on the board should know.. I am no ‘liberal’. So lets keep the ‘liberal’/’conservative’ out of it.

[ucodegen]

When the oil company operates a platform, it must have a fail-safe or contingency in case of an accident.

The explosion occurred and the fail-safe did not work.

There was minimal contingency (gov. inspectors must have liked their ‘presents’) and fail-safe was not properly implemented (discharged batteries discovered on the blowout preventer – and oh well, we’ll continue though it would fail daily inspection). I also wonder if the casing of the pipe was driven far enough into the ground to allow a good and secure seal between the pipe wall and rock strata that the pipe has been driven into.

There have been many attempts at plugging the gusher and none have worked. It’s been more than one month.

I disagree. There has been pseudo attempts and plenty of finger-pointing, spin and understating the amount of oil flowing out of the damaged pipe. The only things they have tried so far is to try to get the blowout preventer to trigger and to use some sort of siphon to pick up oil out of the pipe. Its like the amateur team was in charge. The pressure on those pipes can be in the 2000 to 5000 psi range. Putting what could amount to a ‘soda straw’ in the pipe will not accomplish anything at these pressures.

Now they are concerned that the oil is eroding the pipe. To do that, the flow rate would have to be considerably higher then 5000 barrels per day. So what is the truth BP??

Oil spill in the gulf?? Meh….. Bunch of librul whiners

BTW, as most people on the board should know.. I am no ‘liberal’. So lets keep the ‘liberal’/’conservative’ out of it.

[ucodegen]

When the oil company operates a platform, it must have a fail-safe or contingency in case of an accident.

The explosion occurred and the fail-safe did not work.

There was minimal contingency (gov. inspectors must have liked their ‘presents’) and fail-safe was not properly implemented (discharged batteries discovered on the blowout preventer – and oh well, we’ll continue though it would fail daily inspection). I also wonder if the casing of the pipe was driven far enough into the ground to allow a good and secure seal between the pipe wall and rock strata that the pipe has been driven into.

There have been many attempts at plugging the gusher and none have worked. It’s been more than one month.

I disagree. There has been pseudo attempts and plenty of finger-pointing, spin and understating the amount of oil flowing out of the damaged pipe. The only things they have tried so far is to try to get the blowout preventer to trigger and to use some sort of siphon to pick up oil out of the pipe. Its like the amateur team was in charge. The pressure on those pipes can be in the 2000 to 5000 psi range. Putting what could amount to a ‘soda straw’ in the pipe will not accomplish anything at these pressures.

Now they are concerned that the oil is eroding the pipe. To do that, the flow rate would have to be considerably higher then 5000 barrels per day. So what is the truth BP??

Oil spill in the gulf?? Meh….. Bunch of librul whiners

BTW, as most people on the board should know.. I am no ‘liberal’. So lets keep the ‘liberal’/’conservative’ out of it.

[ucodegen]

When the oil company operates a platform, it must have a fail-safe or contingency in case of an accident.

The explosion occurred and the fail-safe did not work.

There was minimal contingency (gov. inspectors must have liked their ‘presents’) and fail-safe was not properly implemented (discharged batteries discovered on the blowout preventer – and oh well, we’ll continue though it would fail daily inspection). I also wonder if the casing of the pipe was driven far enough into the ground to allow a good and secure seal between the pipe wall and rock strata that the pipe has been driven into.

There have been many attempts at plugging the gusher and none have worked. It’s been more than one month.

I disagree. There has been pseudo attempts and plenty of finger-pointing, spin and understating the amount of oil flowing out of the damaged pipe. The only things they have tried so far is to try to get the blowout preventer to trigger and to use some sort of siphon to pick up oil out of the pipe. Its like the amateur team was in charge. The pressure on those pipes can be in the 2000 to 5000 psi range. Putting what could amount to a ‘soda straw’ in the pipe will not accomplish anything at these pressures.

Now they are concerned that the oil is eroding the pipe. To do that, the flow rate would have to be considerably higher then 5000 barrels per day. So what is the truth BP??

Oil spill in the gulf?? Meh….. Bunch of librul whiners

BTW, as most people on the board should know.. I am no ‘liberal’. So lets keep the ‘liberal’/’conservative’ out of it.

[Author]

Posts