chicken... no head

Onceler said:
I thought of the same thing.

The seepage argument was pointless; a sort of message board trial balloon that crashed quickly.
Click to expand...

again... wrong...

you continue to pretend the seepage argument was something of a direct comparison to environmental impact of the disaster. It was not. The point of the natural seeps is that it shows where oil is, if drilled it can release pressure and thus eliminate the seeps. It was also to show that most of the oil blobs in that particular area are from natural seeps.

You and yurt can have your little spats about who loves who more etc... but you know that the reason I brought it up is not for the same reason that others spazzed on about in an attempt to expand upon my comments.

It is hardly pointless given there was a direct point spelled out for you. Whether you are incapable of comprehending or just enjoy pretending to be a dumbass on the topic.
 
Superfreak said:
Thanks... that was the reason I brought it into the discussion in the first place. Just pointing out that there are positives to drilling offshore, despite this disaster.
Click to expand...

If we didn't need oil for energy, would we still drill to alleviate seepage?
 
Onceler said:
If we didn't need oil for energy, would we still drill to alleviate seepage?
Click to expand...

We are always going to need some oil, so logic would dictate that is the last place you would stop drilling. Obviously the enforcement of regulations is lacking as BP was able to cut so many corners, that has to stop.

While I understand your point of view, I think it is an over reaction. That said, as I have stated many times in the past... I am for doing everything we can to reduce our use of fossil fuels. I think transportation is the easiest way to do this and it just so happens that is by far the area where we use the most oil.

We have the ability to change that starting TODAY.... IF we can find the leadership willing to stand up and take us down that path.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Lying sack of shit...you are withoutadoubt the biggest hack on these boards.

Your pathetic grammatical skills notwithstanding, let's break down what you wrote:

Your "question" is contained in the first sentence:

"i think the question we need to ask is:

what is the overall pollution for natural seepage compared to oil production leaks over a long period of time...."

End of sentence...

"i've seen studies that show natural seepage is far greater, but i'm sure cypress will immediately pounce that they are not peer reviewed...

The ABOVE is s statement, you can claim otherwise, but anyone with third grade grammar skills knows when to place a punctuation mark...even if you don't.
Click to expand...

Yurt said:
once again for the retarded, i never made a statement, the entire post was a QUESTION...if i made any statement is was i've seen studies

i wasn't referring to this specific leak....and i never once claimed seepage was the same as this leak...i said i read a study about seepage being far greater, yet....i wanted to see other studies because cypress said that natural seepage is not far greater....if it was a blanket statement, i would have said cypress was wrong, instead, i asked to see his studies....

i never said natural seepage is greater than this oil leak, thats a fact, i said i read a study that said natural seepage was greater than oil production leaks - now let's think about this....the study was done BEFORE this oil leak....how is it that i use this study to say that THIS oil leak is less than natural seepage when the study i read was written BEFORE this oil leak? further, i was OPEN to other studies that disproved that

you are a dishonest dumbfuck...thanks for playing, but major fail
Click to expand...


Re: The bold portion of your reply...

No shit BRAINIAC, that's what I just said.

You made a statement.
 
Onceler said:
If we didn't need oil for energy, would we still drill to alleviate seepage?
Click to expand...

It would not be necessary but POSSIBLY beneficial for the ocean's environment. Much of that oil comes back to the ocean in the air pollution from burning oil and in discarded oil.

Obviously, the ocean can deal with small amounts of seepage spread out over time and area. I doubt drilling for oil to prevent seepage alone, would be worth the risks. But since we do need it for energy...
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Re: The bold portion of your reply...

No shit BRAINIAC, that's what I just said.

You made a statement.
Click to expand...

thanks for admitting my statement is that i read studies, NOT that natural seepage is greater than the oil spill...

perhaps you care to apologize for your blatent lie that i said natural seepage is greater than the oil spill
 
Yurt said:
thanks for admitting my statement is that i read studies, NOT that natural seepage is greater than the oil spill...

perhaps you care to apologize for your blatent lie that i said natural seepage is greater than the oil spill
Click to expand...


Now now now...be honest for once in your misbegotten life Yurtsie.

Your COMPLETE STATEMENT reads as follows:

"i've seen studies that show natural seepage is far greater"

Do you EVER tell the truth?
 
Last edited:
ZappasGuitar said:
Now now now...be honest for once in your misbegotten life Yurtsie.

Your COMPLETE STATEMENT reads as follows:

"i've seen studies that show natural seepage is far greater"

Do you EVER tell the truth?
Click to expand...

apparently you never do...onceler claimed i said this:

it was just like seepage for the first month or so...
Click to expand...

i never said that, i ASKED a question and stated i had read studies...those studies had zero to do with this oil spill and i even asked for other studes as i didn't know IF seepage was greater....stating i had read studies, then asking for other sources is not saying the spill is just like seepage

the entire post was a question regarding seepage, i never claimed anything about seepage, that i read a study does not equate with me making a claim you dishonest moron

here is the post in full context:

i think the question we need to ask is:

what is the overall pollution for natural seepage compared to oil production leaks over a long period of time....

i've seen studies that show natural seepage is far greater, but i'm sure cypress will immediately pounce that they are not peer reviewed...

so, since you guys are making the claim, please provide a study that you approve that shows overall pollution from natural seepage as compared to oil production includeing leaks...."
Click to expand...
 
Wow.

NeoCons are backtracking and crab-walking away from their seepage nonsense.


I'm so sure that the seepage gate nonsense on jpp was all just innocent asking of questions, and benign providing of news. I'm sure no agenda was involved.

I'm sure it was all just complete coincidence that JPP rightwingers were braying about seepage at the exact same time knuckleheads in the rightwing media were clucking about it. I'm sure it was all innocent, and there was no intent to downplay the BP spill.

And zappa's right. No amount of back tracking and back pedaling changes the fact that rightwingers were schooled routinely on this and other threads that natural seepage is too diffuse and dispersed to do any substantial environmental damage, and yet some of y'all keep squawking about the horrors of natural seepage and how we needed to drill baby drill to prevent or mitigate the "problem" of natural seepage.

Hilarious!

However, it is outstanding to see the backtracking from seepage gate and climate gate! :clink:

Science: 1. Rightwing: 0.
 
The oddest thing about the seepage nonsense is that there is zero evidence whatsoever that this particular well was drilled to alleviate seepage. In fact, given that the oil deposit was far far far below the sea floor, it quite obviously was not there to alleviate seepage.
 
no one has backtracked...

it boggles the mind how dishonest the libs in this thread are...somehow saying that i read studies about seepage vs oil spills equals me saying THIS oil spill is the same as seepage...how odd, the studies i read were written before this spill....yet, the dishonest hacks would have you believe that this is making a comment about this spill...

fact is, i asked a question regarding seepage vs oil spills over a long period, i never once claimed this spill was just like natural seepage

too bad the dishonest libs can't man up and admit that
 
NigelTufnel said:
The oddest thing about the seepage nonsense is that there is zero evidence whatsoever that this particular well was drilled to alleviate seepage. In fact, given that the oil deposit was far far far below the sea floor, it quite obviously was not there to alleviate seepage.
Click to expand...

Who is making that argument? I did not. I didn't notice it in what SF posted or anywhere in this thread. I would not put it past some of the Republican idiots, though.

To me, it has no relevance to this oil spill, specifically, but does have some relevance to the question of whether we should disallow or how much we should prohibit offshore drilling, in general.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top