The Oil Spill, Who Is Really At Fault?

[ozark trout fisher]

Oil is our best solution for automotive needs till the Hydrogen Fuel Cells come of age. We still have plenty of oil, it can be extracted safely for the most part. One little mishap in the history of all of the barrels of oil that have been extracted has been blown out of proportion. Factor the barrels of extracted oil versus the spilled oil and I am sure it is still a small percentage.

No JD, oil is not our best solution. I could go on and on about the environmental damage the oil industry has caused. Even if you don't take the recent oil spill into account, there are countless other environmental debacles. I don't even have the think very hard.....

Let's see.

Exxon Valdez Oil spill in Alaska. It damaged one of the best salmon fisheries in the world and cost many commercial fisherman their lively-hoods. That one hit my father pretty hard, as he lived near there at the time, and loved to sport fish for salmon in that area.

The tar-sands drilling in Alberta and other areas of Northern Canada make vast areas of what was once pristine north woods wilderness into a total wasteland.

Oil companies are begging to drill up in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.It is among the last true wilderness on our continent, and they want to litter it with drilling rigs.

One small mishap JD? I think not. Oil companies have a long record of proving that their bottom line is the only thing that matters to them. They couldn't care less about the environment.

I know the problems that ethanol causes, but it can't be as bad as what the oil industry has done to us.

[Al Agnew]

I doubt if the Best Minds and Greatest Expertise will ever be involved in solving this crisis. I too am a bit pessimistic on this also.

Nuclear Energy is the best solution for production of Electric Power.

Oil is our best solution for automotive needs till the Hydrogen Fuel Cells come of age. We still have plenty of oil, it can be extracted safely for the most part. One little mishap in the history of all of the barrels of oil that have been extracted has been blown out of proportion. Factor the barrels of extracted oil versus the spilled oil and I am sure it is still a small percentage.

Ethanol was a folly, bad for the environment, bad for combustion engines, bad for the water table, bad in the fact that it used a valuable food source for its production. Bad because the government subsidized it is also a testament that the Great Minds were not engaged on that one.

Besides the waste problem and the fact that uranium is a finite and actually pretty scarce resource that causes some problems when mined, nuclear power is expensive. Building new nuclear plants that have all the safety features that are demanded these days is so cost-prohibitive that few companies or investors are willing to take the chance, and the time it takes to build the number of nuke plants that would be necessary to replace a lot of the electricity now produced from coal means it is at best a solution that is decades down the road. We could streamline the process of getting them approved, subsidize the companies that agree to build them, etc. But that could lead to the kind of safety issues that we don't want. The technology is definitely there for building safe nuclear plants, but when you start streamlining and hurrying things up, corners begin to be cut. And, would we be willing to pay more in taxes for subsidizing a nuke plant, while keeping our electric rates reasonable?

One little mishap? I don't think any reasonable person would call this a little mishap. It is a major disaster, that begs the question--at what point is the result of any "mishap" so devastating that it shouldn't be done in the first place? The oil companies who oughta know assured us they could do drilling a mile deep safely, and we took them at their word because we "need" the oil. But in ANY human endeavor there is the risk of error and failure, and in this case the cost of failure is so catastrophic and apparently difficult to fix that you have to question the wisdom of taking that chance, no matter how small the risk is. I'm not saying that the risk IS too great, but it's a valid question.

Personally, I think that building a nuke plant is far less risky than drilling for oil at such great depths in such environmentally sensitive areas. It's too bad that nuclear power didn't turn out to be, as early enthusiasts touted, "too cheap to meter".

[Phil Lilley]

Good discussion- thanks for keeping it respectful.

I agree with smallie - we should concentrate on cleaning it up and quit playing the blame game.

Media plays the drama card far too often. And we all get caught up in it.

[Amish Bill]

I just don't get it everybody is wanting alternative fuel sources OK thats great, you come up with one that works as goog as gas or diesel and is the same price or less and I'm on board with you. One spill and we've shut down drilling for 6 months that will be extended! One accident with a nuclear plant and we can't do that anymore, What do you want an electric car that goes 100 miles on 1 charge well thats great if you don't live over 100 miles round trip to work or town. And don't say move closer because thats not happening.60 minutes run an epesode on the electric car and it's more environmentally unfriendly than gas. You have to take in manufacturing the batteries, the car itself, and also where is the electricity coming from? As jdmidwest said your ethanal was-is a fiasco, I tried using it and lost 50 miles to the tankfull while it cost the same as regular,also ethanal isn't very 2 stroke friendly.Like I said earlier you come up with a goog alternative and I'm in, meanwhile push that seal out of the way and start drilling I need gas for my SUV. Theres plenty of blame to go around and yes BP should be held acountable, but so should every other business that was involved and our government should be a help not a hendrence. Has anyone noticed how outraged Obama and the crew got after people started wondering where they were. Just a quick 30 day poll check and there they are...Hmm

[jdmidwest]

I assume you're for revoking all other farm subsidies too right? Corn, soy, wheat, milk, sugar? What about government incentives to provide conservation easements, establish warm-season grasses and forbs, reduce erosion, and improve other wildlife habitat? And you certainly won't be griping about food and commodity prices when farmers and produces have to pass on their true costs to consumers...right?

Farm subsidies were created for a reason, to provide us with cheap food and to give farmers an incentive to keep growing food. The CRP program and others that convert marginal land into wildlife cover and control erosion have their purpose too.

Subsidies for Ethanol Products are a waste of taxpayer dollars. Ethanol is hard on the combustion engines that were not designed for it. It uses alot of ground water in its production. It is not cost effective, it costs more to produce than a gallon of gas. You get less gas mileage, so you burn more fuel. The most popular way of producing it involves the use of corn, which has been diverted to its production. Since corn is used in other things, it is raising the cost of the food we eat. Corn is used in livestock feed, so meat is on the rise. Production of corn is one of the most taxing of the major crops on the soil also. More fertilize and herbicides enter the streams as a result. Until a more feasible means of production is achieved, it should be halted.

[Outside Bend]

I just don't get it everybody is wanting alternative fuel sources OK thats great, you come up with one that works as goog as gas or diesel and is the same price or less and I'm on board with you.

The research and development which goes into finding viable alternatives depends on large amounts of money, much of which comes through government subsidies and grants. Lest we forget, energy and mineral extraction companies ALSO receive government subsidies.

One spill and we've shut down drilling for 6 months that will be extended! One accident with a nuclear plant and we can't do that anymore,

Yeah, one spill which has crippled the seafood and tourist industries throughout the gulf coast, and again, killed 11 people and untold numbers of sensitive wildlife. One nuclear event which had the potential to poison hundreds of thousands of people, and leave others with long-term chronic illnesses. Coal extraction which levels mountains. How much environmental and human damage are you willing to sustain so you can get gas for 2 bucks a gallon?

To me...expensive gas is part of the deal. If you live 60 miles from your workplace, you ought to expect you'll be using a lot of gas. If you drive an SUV or use inefficient 2-stroke engines, you ought to expect to use a lot of gas. Poor decision making on your end does not constitute an emergency on my end. If you're upset because you can't afford that lifestyle, maybe it's time to modify your habits. If you're unwilling to do that...I'm not sure how much room you have to complain.

Farm subsidies were created for a reason, to provide us with cheap food and to give farmers an incentive to keep growing food.

I call BS on this one. What's the difference between a farmer being given money to provide a commodity like food more cheaply, and a farmer being given money to provide a commodity like ethanol more cheaply? If subsidies are the issue, it seems pretty arbitrary to say one is acceptable and the other isn't.

Subsidies for Ethanol Products are a waste of taxpayer dollars. Ethanol is hard on the combustion engines that were not designed for it. It uses alot of ground water in its production. It is not cost effective, it costs more to produce than a gallon of gas. You get less gas mileage, so you burn more fuel. The most popular way of producing it involves the use of corn, which has been diverted to its production. Since corn is used in other things, it is raising the cost of the food we eat. Corn is used in livestock feed, so meat is on the rise. Production of corn is one of the most taxing of the major crops on the soil also. More fertilize and herbicides enter the streams as a result. Until a more feasible means of production is achieved, it should be halted.

[FishinCricket]

Gee, isn't capitalism awesome? lol :wink:

[Amish Bill]

I can afford my lifestyle just fine thank you. The question is how much more in taxes do I have to pay because some tree hugger thinks drilling for oil isn't for him. You want to live in a cave go ahead just don't force it on me. While your in your cave what are you using for heat and cooking, can't burn firewood, thats bad for the environment ya know!

[flytyer57]

I can afford my lifestyle just fine thank you. The question is how much more in taxes do I have to pay because some tree hugger thinks drilling for oil isn't for him. You want to live in a cave go ahead just don't force it on me. While your in your cave what are you using for heat and cooking, can't burn firewood, thats bad for the environment ya know!

Question is, how much more in taxes do you have to pay so congress can give the oil companies tax breaks?

[FishinCricket]

I can afford my lifestyle just fine thank you. The question is how much more in taxes do I have to pay because some tree hugger thinks drilling for oil isn't for him. You want to live in a cave go ahead just don't force it on me. While your in your cave what are you using for heat and cooking, can't burn firewood, thats bad for the environment ya know!

Just for clarification: do you believe that the resources you proudly consume are infinite?