EPA is supposed to have a contigency plan for the oil spill

Onceler said:
Really?

You mean you didn't also write this?

"Why do we have oil rigs 50 miles out into the ocean? Well, because, when people go visit the lovely beaches of Mississippi and Louisiana, they certainly don't want to see those eyesore rigs on the horizon! Environmentalists insisted that if we drill in the Gulf, it has to be far enough out that no one can visually see them from the coast. It is because we allowed this regulated restriction, that we have an impossible problem on our hands now. "
Click to expand...

I did indeed write that. The way environmentalists accomplished their objective was called DWRRA... Google it! It specifically states as the objective and purpose, to discourage shallow-water drilling by offering royalty incentives for deep-water drilling. Meaning it was much more PROFITABLE for the greedy capitalist oil company, to spend the extra money to set up drilling rigs 50 miles out at sea. Connect the dots, stupid... I know you can do that... you did it for 8 years with Bush!
 
Dixie said:
And I have already pointed out the DWRRA, which pays them substantially more to drill in deep water, which is why they would go to the extra expense to do so. It's only the koolaid-drinking Obamanites who don't grasp this. You're so funny... "non-existent environmental regulations" ...how many of you pinheads honestly believe you can sell that? I mean, really, how fucking ignorant do you think the American people are?

Let's pay no attention to the details, let's stay focused on the greedy money-hungry oil companies! The problem is, the greedy oil company is trying to do the most profitable thing for them, that's what makes them a greedy oil company... it's much cheaper (and more profitable) to drill for oil in the frozen tundra of Alaska than 50 miles out into the ocean. It's even cheaper (and more profitable) to set up a shallow water rig... so why weren't the greedy oil companies doing that? Well, because we wouldn't allow them to drill in ANWR and we offered huge financial incentives for them to move to deeper waters. You say it has nothing to do with that, they just want to drill for oil anywhere because there is money to be made, but greedy oil companies look to make the MOST money they can, as most greedy capitalists do, so that is exactly what they did. If they could have obtained the same amount of product at half the cost, any greedy money-hungry oil company would have jumped at the chance!
Click to expand...


Man, you're like sarah palin. You keep shifting the goal posts.

You don't know what you're talking about man.

Governments from all over the world offer all kinds of incentives to business. With respect to energy, it's not to save the dolphins or to allow a liberal to have an unfettered view of ocean sunsets.

It's because nations have national energy policies that seek to leverage their natural resources to the maximum extent possible, and/or to reduce reliance on foreign sources. There are business incentives for onshore drilling as well, like tight gas reservoirs, as well as deep water incentives. It's widely considered just good economic and national security policy, although the details of implementation can be debated.


If dolphin-huggers were intentionally using the power of the federal government to "force" the oil companies out into deep water, you have yet to explain to me why myself and my peers were exploring and drilling the deep waters off west africa, south america, and the north sea. I'm modestly familiar with nigeria and angola, and they don't have any robust and viable dolphin-hugger interest groups..... Deep water reservoirs are, and will be drilled, Professor, because they are opportunites for massive oil fields with high production rates.
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
I did indeed write that. The way environmentalists accomplished their objective was called DWRRA... Google it! It specifically states as the objective and purpose, to discourage shallow-water drilling by offering royalty incentives for deep-water drilling. Meaning it was much more PROFITABLE for the greedy capitalist oil company, to spend the extra money to set up drilling rigs 50 miles out at sea. Connect the dots, stupid... I know you can do that... you did it for 8 years with Bush!
Click to expand...


So you mean to tell me that the DWRRA, sponsored in the House by Republican Billy Tauzin (Louisiana), and co-sponsored by Republicans Bill Archer (TX), Republican Wayne Allard (CO), Republican Richard Baker (LA), Republican Joe Barton (TX), Republican Henry Bonilla (TX), Republican Barbara Cubin (WY), Republican Jack Fields (TX), Republican Doc Hastings (WA), Republican Jimmy Hayes (LA), Republican Sam Johnson (TX), Republican James Laughlin (TX), Republican Carlos Moorehead (CA), Republican Steve Stockman (TX) and Republican Mac Thornberry (TX), was an environmentalist piece of legislation?

You gotta be shitting me.

This is why I'm convinced Dixie is a spoof. You cannot be this completely full of shit unintentionally. It has to be on purpose.
 
Cypress said:
Man, you're like sarah palin. You keep shifting the goal posts.

You don't know what you're talking about man.

Governments from all over the world offer all kinds of incentives to business. With respect to energy, it's not to save the dolphins or to allow a liberal to have an unfettered view of ocean sunsets.

It's because nations have national energy policies that seek to leverage their natural resources to the maximum extent possible, and/or to reduce reliance on foreign sources. There are business incentives for onshore drilling as well, like tight gas reservoirs, as well as deep water incentives. It's widely considered just good economic and national security policy, although the details of implementation can be debated.


If dolphin-huggers were intentionally using the power of the federal government to "force" the oil companies out into deep water, you have yet to explain to me why myself and my peers were exploring and drilling the deep waters off west africa, south america, and the north sea. Deep water reservoirs are, and will be drilled, because they are opportunites for massive oil fields with high production rates.

I've modestly familiar with nigeria and angola, and they don't have any robust and viable dolphin-hugger interest groups.
Click to expand...

Too funny Prissy! You start off accusing ME of moving the goal post, then you move the goal post to Angola and Nigeria!!! Oh, pay no attention to the USA! Let's myopically focus on African countries and what they are doing, because we don't need to even think about how environmentalists have shaped energy policy in America!

Most of us who haven't marinated our brains in Obama koolaid, are fully aware of how environmentalists have influenced policy regarding drilling for crude oil in America. I mean, unless you've lived under a rock or in a liberal vacuum, you are fully aware of this, and there is no debate on the subject.
 
NigelTufnel said:
So you mean to tell me that the DWRRA, sponsored in the House by Republican Billy Tauzin (Louisiana), and co-sponsored by Republicans Bill Archer (TX), Republican Wayne Allard (CO), Republican Richard Baker (LA), Republican Joe Barton (TX), Republican Henry Bonilla (TX), Republican Barbara Cubin (WY), Republican Jack Fields (TX), Republican Doc Hastings (WA), Republican Jimmy Hayes (LA), Republican Sam Johnson (TX), Republican James Laughlin (TX), Republican Carlos Moorehead (CA), Republican Steve Stockman (TX) and Republican Mac Thornberry (TX), was an environmentalist piece of legislation?

You gotta be shitting me.

This is why I'm convinced Dixie is a spoof. You cannot be this completely full of shit unintentionally. It has to be on purpose.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's pretty amazing evidence Republicans aren't "anti-environment" isn't it? You forgot to mention the overwhelming Democrat support for the legislation, was that an intentional oversight?
 
Dixie said:
Most of us who haven't marinated our brains in Obama koolaid, are fully aware of how environmentalists have influenced policy regarding drilling for crude oil in America. I mean, unless you've lived under a rock or in a liberal vacuum, you are fully aware of this, and there is no debate on the subject.
Click to expand...

Well, pretty clearly Dix, you were not "fully aware" when you posted you "Spill is the fault of environmentalists!" thread, because you asserted on that thread that they had forced the actual regulations & restrictions that made BP drill in deep water.

In retrospect, that was shockingly ignorant; it certainly wasn't "full aware."
 
Dixie said:
Too funny Prissy! You start off accusing ME of moving the goal post, then you move the goal post to Angola and Nigeria!!! Oh, pay no attention to the USA! Let's myopically focus on African countries and what they are doing, because we don't need to even think about how environmentalists have shaped energy policy in America!

Most of us who haven't marinated our brains in Obama koolaid, are fully aware of how environmentalists have influenced policy regarding drilling for crude oil in America. I mean, unless you've lived under a rock or in a liberal vacuum, you are fully aware of this, and there is no debate on the subject.
Click to expand...


So, no answer as to why deep water drilling occurs all over the world, in dozens of countries?

So your position is that american dolphin huggers forced BP to drill deep water Gulf of Mexico fields.......but in other countries around the world the oil multinationals drill deep water because it makes good economic sense for them and the host governments?

You're a total joke, man.

As for shallow water drilling, if I'm adding it up right, I had nine shallow water prospects drilled within within view of the Louisiana coast.

And you know what? I never, ever heard of a single dolphin-hugger trying to stop us from drilling those wells.

Why is that?
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
Yeah, it's pretty amazing evidence Republicans aren't "anti-environment" isn't it? You forgot to mention the overwhelming Democrat support for the legislation, was that an intentional oversight?
Click to expand...


There was indeed some Democrat support for the bill, but the sponsors were overwhelmingly Republican. This wasn't an environmental bill, it was a corporate welfare bill sponsored by big-oil supporters.
 
Onceler said:
Well, pretty clearly Dix, you were not "fully aware" when you posted you "Spill is the fault of environmentalists!" thread, because you asserted on that thread that they had forced the actual regulations & restrictions that made BP drill in deep water.

In retrospect, that was shockingly ignorant; it certainly wasn't "full aware."
Click to expand...

Oh, I fully stand behind my statement, didn't you catch that? I explained to you exactly how the environmentalists achieved their objectives through DWRRA, which is why BP was 50 miles out in the ocean instead of shallow water or better yet, ANWR. It indeed WAS environmental restrictions and constraints, as well as incentives on royalty, which motivated BP to drill 50 miles out at sea.
 
Cypress said:
So, no answer as to why deep water drilling occurs all over the world, in dozens of countries?

So your position is that american dolphin huggers forced BP to drill deep water Gulf of Mexico fields.......but in other countries around the world the oil multinationals drill deep water because it makes good economic sense for them and the host governments?

You're a total joke, man.

As for shallow water drilling, if I'm adding it up right, I had nine shallow water prospects drilled within within view of the Louisiana coast.

And you know what? I never, ever heard of a single dolphin-hugger trying to stop us from drilling those wells.

Why is that?
Click to expand...

Probably because you had a 99-year lease for drilling oil, and it would have been pointless for the dolphin huggers to protest. If the shallows are so tapped out, why did you have 9 wells there? Maybe your oil prospecting is like your politics, highly invested in a completely failing venture and futile effort?

My position (again) is, the environmentalist movement has pressured politicians to pass legislation discouraging shallow-water drilling, and new exploration in ANWR. I cited an example of how they did this (in a bipartisan way) with DWRRA, offering huge financial incentives to the oil companies to drill in deeper waters, which is what they did... now we have a problem... but ultimately, who is to blame? The greedy capitalist oil company would have been just as content to drill in shallow water or ANWR, it would have been immensely cheaper and more profitable for them, and they are, after all, greedy capitalists... the reason they were out there 50 miles in the ocean, was because they get more money to do that!
 
NigelTufnel said:
For the record, this what an actual House member with a track record of being environmentally friendly has to say about the DWRRA:

http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cg...docID=679826272195+26+1+0&WAISaction=retrieve
Click to expand...

Let's make no mistake here... Environmentalists, if left to their own stupidity, would ban every form of oil drilling known to man! Deep water, shallow water, frozen tundra, remote desert... doesn't matter... they don't favor ANY domestic oil exploration. DWRRA was not an "environmental" legislation, it was bipartisan and had the support of both corporate capitalists and environmentalists, because it was viewed as a 'compromise' ...Enviro-wackos said... okay, we'll sign off on DWRRA if it gets you off our coastlines! Corporate capitalists said... okay, we'll accept the incentives to move out deeper in the ocean to appease you wackos! This wasn't something Republicans rammed through with their supermajority in Congress! Sorry!
 
Dixie said:
Let's make no mistake here... Environmentalists, if left to their own stupidity, would ban every form of oil drilling known to man! Deep water, shallow water, frozen tundra, remote desert... doesn't matter... they don't favor ANY domestic oil exploration. DWRRA was not an "environmental" legislation, it was bipartisan and had the support of both corporate capitalists and environmentalists, because it was viewed as a 'compromise' ...Enviro-wackos said... okay, we'll sign off on DWRRA if it gets you off our coastlines! Corporate capitalists said... okay, we'll accept the incentives to move out deeper in the ocean to appease you wackos! This wasn't something Republicans rammed through with their supermajority in Congress! Sorry!
Click to expand...


I love how you just make shit up as you go along. It wasn't an environmentalist bill. It was a corporate welfare bill. End of story.
 
Dixie said:
Let's make no mistake here... Environmentalists, if left to their own stupidity, would ban every form of oil drilling known to man! Deep water, shallow water, frozen tundra, remote desert... doesn't matter... they don't favor ANY domestic oil exploration. DWRRA was not an "environmental" legislation, it was bipartisan and had the support of both corporate capitalists and environmentalists, because it was viewed as a 'compromise' ...Enviro-wackos said... okay, we'll sign off on DWRRA if it gets you off our coastlines! Corporate capitalists said... okay, we'll accept the incentives to move out deeper in the ocean to appease you wackos! This wasn't something Republicans rammed through with their supermajority in Congress! Sorry!
Click to expand...


So your contention is that drilling on the arctic tundra, in one of the most remote places on earth, which would also require the need to build hundreds of miles of arctic pipeline to get any oil found in ANWR to markets thousands of miles away, is an easier, cheaper, and less costly alternative for oil companies than drilling a well 50 miles off the gulf coast and in close proximity the the worlds highest density of petroleum infrastructure, pipelines, and refineries?

Wow.

Dixie, can you please link me up with any annual report, shareholder report, or technical report from any major oil company in america, from the U.S. Minerals and Management Service, from the US Geological Survey, or from the U.S. Energy Information Administration that reports that environmentalists "forced" oil companies to drill the outer continental shelf in the gulf of Mexico.


I'll check back to see if you posted any links to the aforementioned sources.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
So your contention is that drilling on the arctic tundra, in one of the most remote places on earth, which would also require the need to build hundreds of miles of arctic pipeline to get any oil found in ANWR to markets thousands of miles away, is an easier, cheaper, and less costly alternative for oil companies than drilling a well 50 miles off the gulf coast and in close proximity the the worlds highest density of petroleum infrastructure, pipelines, and refineries?
Click to expand...

We have an immense infrastructure for oil already in place in Alaska, again... something most "normal" people understand. And yes, it is much cheaper to set a rig on frozen tundra than 50 miles out into the ocean. It's also (as we can see) less environmentally hazardous and problematic. If this had occurred in Alaska, a few seals and otters may have been harmed, but the billions of dollars in tourism, the billions of dollars in fishing and shrimp industries, and the Louisiana wetlands, would have been spared.


Dixie, can you please link me up with any annual report, shareholder report, or technical report from any major oil company in america, from the U.S. Minerals and Management Service, from the US Geological Survey, or from the U.S. Energy Information Administration that reports that environmentalists "forced" oil companies to drill the outer continental shelf in the gulf of Mexico.
Click to expand...

Well no one is "FORCED" to do anything, that isn't what was said. I understand why you keep wanting to make that the point, but really... let's be a little intellectually honest about it, okay? We don't have to FORCE capitalists to make money, they are going to do that because they are capitalists, we don't need to FORCE them. We did, however, offer them enormous incentives to drill in deep water (DWRRA) which was more profitable for them, and they responded as capitalists naturally do. There was no FORCING them to do anything, just encouraging and incentivizing.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I love how you just make shit up as you go along. It wasn't an environmentalist bill. It was a corporate welfare bill. End of story.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think I just posted that it wasn't an environmentalist bill... why do you all keep saying that is what I claimed? Are you too illiterate to read my posts?
 
Cypress said:
Wow.

I thought you were a lawyer, or something. Must have you confused with Jarod.

Regulations are not law.

Regulations are rules that are promulgated by executive agency buearacrats, with public input, to implement laws.

Laws are, by definition, statutes passed by the vote of legislators and signed by an executive.
Click to expand...

they are administrative law moron....:palm:
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That was my understanding.
Click to expand...

Cypress said:
Wow. Check out the brain on Mott. You knew that and you're not even a lawyer.

Congress persons and state legislators can't possibly presume to be experts on the technical aspects of food safety, or air traffic control. The statutes they pass, are implemented with regulations developed by executive agency experts and experts from the general public, to implement broad statutory authorities granted to them.


Cheers on being a brain, Mott.
Click to expand...

i had no idea you two would be this stupid and stubborn....

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/administrative_law

Administrative law

Definition
Branch of law governing the creation and operation of administrative agencies. Of special importance are the powers granted to administrative agencies, the substantive rules that such agencies make, and the legal relationships between such agencies, other government bodies, and the public at large.

Overview
Administrative law encompasses laws and legal principles governing the administration and regulation of government agencies (both Federal and state). Such agencies are delegated power by Congress (or in the case of a state agency, the state legislature) to act as agents for the executive. Generally, administrative agencies are created to protect a public interest rather than to vindicate private rights.

Governmental agencies must act within Constitutional parameters. These and other limits have been codified into statutes such as the Federal Administrative Procedure Act (FAPA) and state analogs.

The FAPA is a remedial statute designed to ensure uniformity and openness in the procedures used by federal agencies. The Act is comprised of a comprehensive regulatory scheme governing regulations, adjudications, and rule making in general terms. The FAPA is the major source for federal administrative agency law, while state agencies' administration and regulation are governed by comparable state acts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top