Yes, but that study predated the BP issue, dinnit?
Well, you're almost right. A true cost benefit analysis would look a little more like this:
[The benefit of drilling (23K jobs)] < [((Cost of another disaster, i.e. (millions of lost jobs + billions of lost tourism)) * the likelihood of the disaster) + the cost to tourism from negative public perception if the moratorium is prematurely lifted]
It's pretty simple, really. Look, it's sad that 23k people will lose their jobs in the oil industry, but that pales in comparison to the damage that oil spill could have on the tourism industry if there is another spill, and moreover if the public perception is that nothing is being done about it. The Gulf Coast has an image to rehabilitate here (not to mention an ecosystem).
If I'm not mistaken, these jobs will be gone permanently or for many yrs. not short term. Am I correct, oil guys?
You got it, sister. Those rigs that are going to Brazil, aren't going to just pull off bottom and move back to teh GOM, just because the Obamatorium has been lifted.
Look on the bright side. This is just one more thing that will contribute to this goofy bastard getting his dumb ass run out of town on a rail, in 2012.
You don't get it. Obama writes off La as a red state. So he could care less what happens to the people in that state.
You don't get it. When he does that, he sends a message to every other American that he doesn't really want to be a leader, only get re-elected. In short, if he's willing to **** can Louisiana jobs--the second blackest state in the union--for political reasons, he'll do it to anyone.
Yeah, deliberately obtuse. Go with that. :lamoLet me spell it out for you more carefully, since you are being deliberately obtuse in the matter.
That's the best evidence there is, spanky. The report is evidently unavailable online. You should feel honored that I actually wasted my precious time looking for it.The article makes no reference to the methodology of the study, and considering that it took into account the entire oil industry in both the United States and Mexico it cannot serve as evidence of the oil industry being a bigger source of revenue than tourism for the Gulf Coast states. Show me the study itself, and/or a breakdown of the oil and tourism revenues for the Gulf Coast of the USA and I will happily concede that oil produces more revenue than tourism. But until then (I'll say it slowly) you... have... no... evidence.
I suggest you get used to it, or find another place to post. Either way, I don't give a ****, because I'm not changing. :shrug:Such vulgarity is really uncalled for.
Straw man. Google it.If you think all libertarians are right-wing corporate shills
I've forgotten more about politics than you probably ever knew.
I suggest you get used to it, or find another place to post. Either way, I don't give a ****, because I'm not changing.
Just trying to offer some friendly advice, you don't have to take it. You can be as vulgar as you wish. I've noticed the people who don't abide by the forum rules don't tend to last very long, so we'll see who's the one finding another place to post...
You don't even know what the ****ing rules are, fish. :lamoJust trying to offer some friendly advice, you don't have to take it. You can be as vulgar as you wish. I've noticed the people who don't abide by the forum rules don't tend to last very long, so we'll see who's the one finding another place to post...
LOL........ like some POS article on the internet is going to over turn 6 Supreme Court opinions and 196 years of Constitutional law.
Youss funny guy. :lamo
You're wrong. There are literally millions of oil jobs on the gulf, for starters there are the primary jobs on the rigs. Secondly there are support jobs that swing between land/sea. Then there are the land support jobs and of course administrative, Houston is an oil town with literally millions of oilfield jobs. This is without the populations of Louisiana, Mississippi, and other southern states. So yes there are millions of oilfield jobs on the gulf without even including the service sectors that make money from those particular workers.There aren't millions of oilfield jobs on the gulf, for starters. Secondly, the only jobs impacted by the moratorium are NEW drilling in deepwater wells. Try harder.
You're wrong. There are literally millions of oil jobs on the gulf, for starters there are the primary jobs on the rigs. Secondly there are support jobs that swing between land/sea. Then there are the land support jobs and of course administrative, Houston is an oil town with literally millions of oilfield jobs. This is without the populations of Louisiana, Mississippi, and other southern states. So yes there are millions of oilfield jobs on the gulf without even including the service sectors that make money from those particular workers.
Immediately, the key omitted word is immediately. They will in fact be affected at some point in time. When the drilling slows all job growth stops, then of course there is job shrinkage because there are no rigs to service. The oilfield is a true supply chain mechanism and thus this moratorium does not exist in a vacuum. As well, once the rigs move there is no turnaround, that revenue will now belong to other countries and their workers.You're right. And those people aren't being affected by this moratorium.No, they applied it to all new drilling, which means existing wells are stuck too. Sorry, but that isn't a minor detail and currently there are rigs sitting idle on the docks, that is a waste of resources and an eventual loss of U.S. jobs, but hey Ken Salazar and the manchild in chief are happy so I guess it's a win:roll:.The moratorium only applies to DRILLING NEW DEEPWATER WELLS.
So SCOTUS has ruled that babies born to American parents on American bases overseas or in US embassies over seas are not natural born?
Care to cite the case in which they ruled that?
While it is too early to gauge the long-term environmental or economic effects of the release of 4.9 million barrels of oil into the gulf, it now appears that the direst predictions about the moratorium will not be borne out. Even the government’s estimate of the impact of the drilling pause — 23,000 lost jobs and $10.2 billion in economic damage — is proving to be too pessimistic.
There are several reasons the suspension has not cut as deeply as anticipated.
Oil companies used the enforced suspension to service and upgrade their drilling equipment, keeping shipyards and service companies busy. Drilling firms have kept most of their workers, knowing that if they let them go it will be hard to field experienced teams when the moratorium is lifted. Oil companies have shifted operations to onshore wells, saving industry jobs.
But he added that Statoil had not laid off any gulf workers. “Our base assumption is we will be able to resume our activities and work with our deepwater leases,” he said.
[...]
But Mr. Breed said the company (The Noble Corporation, a major offshore driller) had not let any rig workers go so far.
And the administration has dropped repeated hints that the offshore drilling ban will be eased or removed before it is set to expire on Nov. 30.
ooops ... another oil rig disaster on the gulf coast you say - by the organizations that were protesting the moratorium yesterday... the Financial Times reported that employees from Apache and Mariner, along with thousands of oil industry workers, rallied in Houston to protest the Obama administration’s offshore drilling moratorium that was designed as a safety precaution after BP’s disastrous Gulf oil spill. A Mariner Energy employee chastised the Obama administration for its drilling moratorium, which would not have affected the rig that exploded today:
Companies ranging from Chevron to Apache bussed in up to 5,000 employees to the Houston convention centre to underline to Washington the industry’s contribution to the country. [...]
“I have been in the oil and gas industry for 40 years, and this administration is trying to break us,” said Barbara Dianne Hagood, senior landman for Mariner Energy, a small company. “The moratorium they imposed is going to be a financial disaster for the gulf coast, gulf coast employees and gulf coast residents.”
Apache Corp. recently agreed to buy BP assets in order to help the British oil giant meet its financial obligations as a result of its Gulf of Mexico oil spill. ...
Think Progress » One Day Before Its Gulf Oil Rig Exploded, Mariner Energy Said Obama ‘Is Trying To Break Us’ With MoratoriumThe U.S. Coast Guard said this morning that a natural gas and oil drilling platform exploded 80 miles off the coast of Louisiana. A Coast Guard spokesperson said the platform, Vermilion Oil Rig 360, is an oil and gas platform in 2,500 feet of water and is owned by Houston-based Mariner Energy. ... Apache Corp. recently purchased Mariner in a multi-billion dollar deal.
ooops ... another oil rig disaster on the gulf coast you say - by the organizations that were protesting the moratorium yesterday
Think Progress » One Day Before Its Gulf Oil Rig Exploded, Mariner Energy Said Obama ‘Is Trying To Break Us’ With Moratorium
It doesn't appear that this incident is even in the same ballpark as the first incident, so I don't know what this proves.
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.
i'll type slowly
the organizations which had protested the oil drilling moratorium experienced a drill rig blowout the following day
i'll type slowly
the organizations which had protested the oil drilling moratorium experienced a drill rig blowout the following day
After an oil and gas production platform in the Gulf of Mexico caught fire Thursday, media outlets (including us) were quick to jump to conclusions. If you were watching cable news at the time, you would have thought it was the day's biggest story: Could this be BP, part two? Turns out, not at all. So let's move beyond the hyperbole, and focus on what actually matters about oil production in the Gulf.
Now that the Coast Guard and media companies have had time to digest yesterday's events, we can now see just how different yesterday's events were from BP's oil rig explosion. First of all, yesterday's incident was a fire, not an explosion. Second of all, Deepwater Horizon was a rig, which drills wells, while yesterday's Mariner Energy incident was on a platform. Platforms place pressure on the wells to keep oil flowing and sometimes collect the oil or gas itself, and are in place for years at a time.
The Mariner Energy platform does not violate a government moratorium on deepwater drilling, since no drilling took place and the platform is in shallow water.
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
CRUDE POLITICS
Crude Politics - WSJ.com
Yet when the final report came out, the timelines he saw had been removed, no doubt because they argued against the necessity of a six-month moratorium. Mr. Arnold adds that the Administration's decision to allow industry to continue drilling "gas injection wells"—which, he says, are no more risky than production wells—only shows the moratorium makes "no sense."
"This was a political call; this was not a technical call," says Mr. Arnold. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has since testified that the call was his. But Robert Bea, from the University of California at Berkeley, who also reviewed the report, told us Interior had sent him a letter that "stated clearly that [the moratorium] had been inserted at the request of the White House." Mr. Bea pointed out that the Department of Interior is more than equipped to target and shut down specific Gulf operations that might offer safety concerns. There was no call for a moratorium "for industry as a whole."
Ford Brett, managing director of Petroskills and also a reviewer, notes that the experts first went to the Interior Department with their concerns. "All they had to do was put out another press release—one sentence long—clarifying that we hadn't reviewed the drilling moratorium. . . .That didn't happen." Only then did the experts go public.
As for Ms. Browner's claim that no one was "misrepresented," Mr. Brett disputes that. Several reviewers said they had, in fact, received "apology" notes from the Interior Department acknowledging the misrepresentation. "We did not mean to imply that you also agreed with the decision to impose a moratorium on all new deepwater drilling," read one.
All of this matters because it offers proof the moratorium was driven by politics, not safety. The drilling ban was not reviewed by experts, and was not necessary to satisfy most of the safety recommendations in Mr. Salazar's report. It was authored by political actors so Mr. Obama could look tough. A cynic might argue the ban was only added after review precisely because the Administration knew experts would refuse to endorse it.
A big reason why those experts would have balked is because they recognize that the moratorium is indeed a threat to safety. Mr. Arnold offers at least four reasons why.
The ban requires oil companies to abandon uncompleted wells. The process of discontinuing a well, and then later re-entering it, introduces unnecessary risk. He notes BP was in the process of abandoning its well when the blowout happened.
identify the part i got wrongRather than typing slowly, I suggest you use that time to read a bit more about what happened.
that the Obama administration has chosen a wise governmental practice to impose a moratorium to assure that off shore drilling procedures are safe and adequately monitored before enabling additional oil drilling incidents to occur in the gulfThe first incident was a blowout that caused the largest oil leak in US history,
This incident was a small fire, not a blowout, and caused no oil leak whatsoever.
The platform could have been manned by BP's board of directors and it still wouldn't mean a goddamn thing, as the two incidents are not even remotely the same.
Calm Down People: Factchecking Thursday’s Oil Fire in the Gulf - TIME NewsFeed
identify the part i got wrong
that the Obama administration has chosen a wise governmental practice to impose a moratorium to assure that off shore drilling procedures are safe and adequately monitored before enabling additional oil drilling incidents to occur in the gulf
recognize that the very organizations which campaigned against such precautionary measures are the ones we now see experiencing oil drilling incidents i have made this observation as simple as is possible in the hopes you will now be able to grasp it
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?