• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gov't: 23K workers affected by Gulf oil drill ban

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
30,317
Reaction score
14,358
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
How do you like this... The Obama administration knew the oil drill ban would cost 23,000 jobs, but did it anyway...

Hope & Change baby!


Gov't: 23K workers affected by Gulf oil drill ban
Associated Press

WASHINGTON – A six-month ban on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico would directly put more than 9,000 people out of work and indirectly affect another 14,000 jobs, according to a memo from the nation's top drilling regulator.

The federal document, which weighed the economic impact and alternatives to the ban, was sent to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on July 10 by Michael Bromwich.

Salazar issued a moratorium in June, but it was struck down by a federal judge in New Orleans after oil and gas drilling interests said it wasn't justified following the Gulf oil spill.

The Obama administration issued a new moratorium July 12 — two days after the memo — that stressed new evidence of safety concerns. The White House hopes the revised ban will pass muster with the courts.
Gov't: 23K workers affected by Gulf oil drill ban - Yahoo! News
 

hazlnut

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
How do you like this... The Obama administration knew the oil drill ban would cost 23,000 jobs, but did it anyway...

Hope & Change baby!




Gov't: 23K workers affected by Gulf oil drill ban - Yahoo! News
That's a pretty narrow minded and stupid way to look at it -- you completely missed the point.

And stopping the MMS from issuing new permits while the failure in the system is necessary. Had the oil industry not bought up influence so that they control the regulators, this never would have happened.

I'm sorry for the workers, but had their bosses been men with character and integrity and not greedy scumbags, they'd sill have a job.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I'm sorry for the workers, but had their bosses been men with character and integrity and not greedy scumbags, they'd sill have a job.
Speaking of narrow-minded ways of looking at things . . .
 

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
30,317
Reaction score
14,358
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That's a pretty narrow minded and stupid way to look at it -- you completely missed the point.
No, I think I got the point just fine. We are in the middle of the worse recession in my lifetime, with unemployment hovering between 9% and 10%, and our president costs 23,000 more people their jobs playing partisan politics.

I got the point just fine.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,925
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
That's a pretty narrow minded and stupid way to look at it -- you completely missed the point.

And stopping the MMS from issuing new permits while the failure in the system is necessary. Had the oil industry not bought up influence so that they control the regulators, this never would have happened.

I'm sorry for the workers, but had their bosses been men with character and integrity and not greedy scumbags, they'd sill have a job.
So, tell us again, why did we bail out the UAW and the banks?
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,931
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
No, I think I got the point just fine. We are in the middle of the worse recession in my lifetime, with unemployment hovering between 9% and 10%, and our president costs 23,000 more people their jobs playing partisan politics.

I got the point just fine.
It's not partisan politics. I'd rather have 23K lose their jobs than have another oil spill.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,925
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It's not partisan politics. I'd rather have 23K lose their jobs than have another oil spill.
Tell to the folks that no longer have a job.

So much for the compassionate Liberals looking out for the working folks. Whatta joke!
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm sorry for the workers, but had their bosses been men with character and integrity and not greedy scumbags, they'd sill have a job.
Do tell. What bosses?
Obama closed down rigs that did nothing wrong. They weren't even BP rigs.
Who's goning to pay for these jobs lost?
Do you think BP should be held accountable for something Obama did all by himself?
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's not partisan politics. I'd rather have 23K lose their jobs than have another oil spill.
Let's pretend you're going to lose your job because your president made a completely arbitrary decision to shut down your industry, then get back to us.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,925
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Do tell. What bosses?
Obama closed down rigs that did nothing wrong. They weren't even BP rigs.
Who's goning to pay for these jobs lost?
Do you think BP should be held accountable for something Obama did all by himself?
To add to that, most of the jobs that are going to be lost are from the service and support segment of the oil and gas industry. Their bosses didn't break any rules, but the Liberals seem to think it's ok to go ahead and kill their jobs.

Why, even Obama is saying that there was minimal damage by the oil spill. Obviously, a spill in the GOM isn't as big of a disaster as we all first thought it might be.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
It's not partisan politics. I'd rather have 23K lose their jobs than have another oil spill.
Those are the two options?

What if the choice was between 23,000 people losing their jobs and having a 1% chance of another oil spill?
What if the choice was between 23,000 people losing their jobs and having a .01% chance of another oil spill?
What if the choice was between 23,000 people losing their jobs and having a .000001% chance of another oil spill?

I think that's a pretty relevant factor that the Obama administration has completely ignored, which is exactly what the judge said.
 
Last edited:

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
38,315
Reaction score
13,887
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
From the article.....
Interior Department spokesman Matt Lee-Ashley said the agency has been very clear that the economic impacts of the moratorium would need to be addressed and noted the Obama administration secured an agreement with BP to set up a $100 million fund for affected rig workers.

"In light of the current risks of deepwater drilling as illustrated by the BP Deepwater Horizon Spill and the potential impacts of another spill, the moratorium is necessary and appropriate. With that said, the worst-case economic impact estimates from three months ago have not been realized. The reality on the ground suggests that the impacts are less than we initially projected as a potential worst-case scenario," Lee-Ashley said.
A hundred million dollar fund, to tie the oil workers over for six months suggests they aren't starving and they haven't lost their jobs because they will go back to work when the moratorium is over. And now, three months into the moratorium the impacts worse case scenario on the local economy has not been realized. So it sounds like someone is playing politics to hide the truth.

I'm more curious to know how the oil spill will effect human health and the environment over the long haul. Because without good health, those oil workers won't be able to work and then what will they do?
 
Last edited:

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
From the article.....


A hundred million dollar fund, to tie the oil workers over for six months suggests they aren't starving and they haven't lost their jobs because they will go back to work when the moratorium is over.
$100,000,000/23,000 = $4,347/person.
Even if you only want to count the 9,000 people who were directly impacted, that's $11,111/person.

I'm going to guess that the average person affected by this moratorium makes substantially more than $4,300 or $11k over six months.

And now, three months into the moratorium the impacts worse case scenario on the local economy has not been realized. So it sounds like someone is playing politics to hide the truth.
You're quoting a government official who claims that the worst case scenario hasn't been fully realized as proof that things are okay and that the moratorium his bosses requested is a good idea.

Yes, it does sound like someone is playing politics to hide the truth.


I'm more curious to know how the oil spill will effect human health and the environment over the long haul. Because without good health, those oil workers won't be able to work and then what will they do?
What does the current oil spill have to do with the proposed moratorium?
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
38,315
Reaction score
13,887
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
$100,000,000/23,000 = $4,347/person.
Even if you only want to count the 9,000 people who were directly impacted, that's $11,111/person.

I'm going to guess that the average person affected by this moratorium makes substantially more than $4,300 or $11k over six months.

You're quoting a government official who claims that the worst case scenario hasn't been fully realized as proof that things are okay and that the moratorium his bosses requested is a good idea.

Yes, it does sound like someone is playing politics to hide the truth.

What does the current oil spill have to do with the proposed moratorium?
Well, I'm only going by what the article said.

"WASHINGTON – A six-month ban on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico would directly put more than 9,000 people out of work and indirectly affect another 14,000 jobs, according to a memo from the nation's top drilling regulator."

So who is saying the six-month ban would directly put more than 9,000 people out of work and indirectly affect another 14,000 jobs? "A memo by a nations top drilling regulator?" Really? That sounds rather dubious considering who failed to regulate the oil rig in the first place and the cozy connection they had with the oil industry.

So why didn't the article give a direct quote from the "memo" or from this "nations top drilling regulator" or even give his name? That sounds rather dubious, too. So, are we to believe this so called "nation's top drilling regulator" knows more about the current economic impact than Interior Department spokesman Matt Lee-Ashley?
 
Last edited:

kathaksung

Banned
Joined
Sep 27, 2007
Messages
287
Reaction score
28
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Who is behind Gulf oil leaking?

BP originates from “The National Iranian Oil Company” in 1953, and was ousted from Iran in 1979. When US wants to start a war in Iran, they need again the ally of the Great Britain like what they had when Bush started Iraq invasion. But the poddle of Tony Blair is not at the seat. To extort Britain to join the coming Iran war, the Gulf oil spill was created to shake the foundation of the BP. To save BP from the financial trouble – joining the Iran war.

Quote, “
Iran Accountable for BP Oil Spill
Posted on 03. Aug, 2010 by Raja Mujtaba in Enviornment
By Mehreen Saee

In order to pay for the damages it caused to U.S. businesses and to itself, BP will likely resort to its historic strategy of how it became an oil giant in the first place. And the U.S. will once again help the corporation as we did in 1953 when a covert CIA plot overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and instated an authoritarian regime in order to acquire that country’s oil.
The coup proved to be a successful covert experiment for the U.S. when The National Iranian Oil Company was transformed into British Petroleum in 1954…..

In 1979, Iran’s Islamic Revolution ousted BP from the country and attained back its resources; but for the past few years U.S. officials have again been looking toward Iran, which still has the world’s third largest oil reserves.

Iran Accountable for BP Oil Spill | Opinion Maker
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Well, I'm only going by what the article said.

"WASHINGTON – A six-month ban on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico would directly put more than 9,000 people out of work and indirectly affect another 14,000 jobs, according to a memo from the nation's top drilling regulator."

So who is saying the six-month ban would directly put more than 9,000 people out of work and indirectly affect another 14,000 jobs? "A memo by a nations top drilling regulator?" Really? That sounds rather dubious considering who failed to regulate the oil rig in the first place and the cozy connection they had with the oil industry.

So why didn't the article give a direct quote from the "memo" or from this "nations top drilling regulator" or even give his name? That sounds rather dubious, too. So, are we to believe this so called "nation's top drilling regulator" knows more about the current economic impact than Interior Department spokesman Matt Lee-Ashley?
The "nation's top drilling regulator" is the person who Obama picked to head up the regulation of the oil industry in the wake of this spill. Are you saying he can't be trusted?

Moreover, the two statements don't really contradict each other. One says that the moratorium will cost 23,000 jobs. The statement from the interior department says that there is a $100m fund and that the worst case scenario hasn't been "fully" realized.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Who is behind Gulf oil leaking?

BP originates from “The National Iranian Oil Company” in 1953, and was ousted from Iran in 1979. When US wants to start a war in Iran, they need again the ally of the Great Britain like what they had when Bush started Iraq invasion. But the poddle of Tony Blair is not at the seat. To extort Britain to join the coming Iran war, the Gulf oil spill was created to shake the foundation of the BP. To save BP from the financial trouble – joining the Iran war.

Quote, “
You have an entire forum for this, please keep it there.
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
38,315
Reaction score
13,887
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The "nation's top drilling regulator" is the person who Obama picked to head up the regulation of the oil industry in the wake of this spill. Are you saying he can't be trusted?
He's not a drilling regulator, he's a lawyer newly appointed to head MMS , and if he did say that, then why didn't the article quote him directly or attach his name to the "memo".

Moreover, the two statements don't really contradict each other. One says that the moratorium will cost 23,000 jobs. The statement from the interior department says that there is a $100m fund and that the worst case scenario hasn't been "fully" realized.
Not "fully realized means it's been three months into the moratorium and the worst case scenario has not occured. So when did the anonymous "nations top drilling regulator" make that memo, because the "federal document" was sent "July 10 by Michael Bromwich" ? It is now almost September.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
He's not a drilling regulator, he's a lawyer newly appointed to head MMS , and if he did say that, then why didn't the article quote him directly or attach his name to the "memo".
Because it was a poorly written news article. Here's a few that are more clear.

Administration Foresaw 23,000 Lost Jobs from Drilling Ban - WSJ.com
The Associated Press: Gov't: 23K workers affected by Gulf oil drill ban

According a memo last month from Michael Bromwich, the nation's top drilling regulator, the six-month suspension is directly putting 9,450 people out of work. The memo also says the ban indirectly affects nearly 14,000 other jobs.
Senior Obama administration officials concluded the federal moratorium on deepwater oil drilling would cost roughly 23,000 jobs, but went ahead with the ban because they didn't trust the industry's safety equipment and the government's own inspection process, according to previously undisclosed documents.

...

They show the new top regulator or offshore oil exploration, Michael Bromwich, told Interior Secretary Ken Salazar that a six-month deepwater-drilling halt would result in "lost direct employment" affecting approximately 9,450 workers and "lost jobs from indirect and induced effects" affecting about 13,797 more

Not "fully realized means it's been three months into the moratorium and the worst case scenario has not occured. So when did the anonymous "nations top drilling regulator" make that memo, because the "federal document" was sent "July 10 by Michael Bromwich" ? It is now almost September.
The memo is the "federal document" being referred to. Again, the article is poorly written, but the facts are explained in better detail in the other articles I linked.
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
38,315
Reaction score
13,887
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Because it was a poorly written news article. Here's a few that are more clear.

Administration Foresaw 23,000 Lost Jobs from Drilling Ban - WSJ.com
The Associated Press: Gov't: 23K workers affected by Gulf oil drill ban

The memo is the "federal document" being referred to. Again, the article is poorly written, but the facts are explained in better detail in the other articles I linked.
Okay, but there is still a problem with the date of the "memo", July 10, and the fact that it was only a worst case scenario of what might happen. So where is the data or proof or research or new "memo" stating that the worst case scenario has been "fully realized" when there is no evidence or new information to suggest that it has been "fully realized"?

The other problem with the AP articles, and it is a major one, there doesn't seem to any "memo" or "federal document" by Michael Bromwich giving an economic job loss "worst case scenario" whatsoever. If you can find it, then please let me know. Because the last and only memo I can find by Michael Bromwich is dated August 16, 2010 and it makes no mention of the economic job loss impact from the morititorium on 63 exploratory oil rigs.

http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=42011

http://www.boemre.gov/ooc/PDFs/BromwichTestimony0722.pdf

White & Case LLP - Publications - New Interior Department Investigative Unit to Oversee and Investigate Offshore Drilling Companies

Bromwich Hopes to Shorten Deep-Water Drilling Ban - WSJ.com

http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=38375

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement HomePage

Deepwater Horizon Response
 
Last edited:

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,420
Reaction score
16,256
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
How do you like this... The Obama administration knew the oil drill ban would cost 23,000 jobs, but did it anyway...

Hope & Change baby!




Gov't: 23K workers affected by Gulf oil drill ban - Yahoo! News
If there is possibilty of a massive oil spill that is going to take months to fix and decades to clean up then screw those 23k jobs. Petition the govenment for on shore and near shore oil drilling instead of deep off shore oil drilling.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,925
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
If there is possibilty of a massive oil spill that is going to take months to fix and decades to clean up then screw those 23k jobs. Petition the govenment for on shore and near shore oil drilling instead of deep off shore oil drilling.
It's easy to say that, when you're not one of those 23 thousand out of work. What is it that you do for a living??
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,420
Reaction score
16,256
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
It's easy to say that, when you're not one of those 23 thousand out of work. What is it that you do for a living??
What about the fishermen and others whose lively hood was ruined because of the massive oil leak,what about their jobs?
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,925
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
What about the fishermen and others whose lively hood was ruined because of the massive oil leak,what about their jobs?
They're all back to work, in case you haven't heard!

That being said, how is a drilling ban going to get them back to work any faster??
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,420
Reaction score
16,256
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
They're all back to work, in case you haven't heard!

That being said, how is a drilling ban going to get them back to work any faster??
A drilling ban on deep off shore oil drilling will prevent the fishermen and others from being out of work again due to some massive oil leak that takes months to plug and possibly decades to clean.
 
Top Bottom