• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Louisiana leadership claims off-shore drilling still safe, demands lift of drill ban

Status
Not open for further replies.

XiaNaphryz

LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
I know there's a thread for the oil spill, but this seems like a larger general issue.

Louisiana leaders want Gulf drilling to resume:

Louisiana leaders want Gulf drilling to resume
By ALAN SAYRE and CHRIS KAHN, Associated Press Writers
Thursday, June 10, 2010

(06-10) 15:51 PDT New Orleans (AP) --

At the same time they are venting their fury on BP over the Gulf of Mexico spill and its calamitous environmental effects, Louisiana politicians are rushing to the defense of the oil-and-gas industry and pleading with Washington to bring back offshore drilling — now.

As angry as they are over the disaster, state officials warn that the Obama administration's temporary ban on drilling in the Gulf has sent Louisiana's most lucrative industry into a death spiral.

They contend that drilling is safe overall and that the moratorium is a knee-jerk reaction, akin to grounding every airplane in America because of a single crash. They worry, too, that the moratorium comes at a time when another major Louisiana industry — fishing — has been brought to a standstill by the mess in the Gulf.

"Mr. President, you were looking for someone's butt to kick. You're kicking ours," Lafourche Parish President Charlotte Randolph said in pleading for the moratorium to end.


Meanwhile, a government task force of scientists said that before BP cut and capped the blown-out well a week ago, it may have been spewing as much as 2.1 million gallons of oil per day — or twice as much as the government's previous worst-case estimate. The bigger number is just an estimate, and scientific teams are still coming up with more complete numbers.

The oil-and-gas industry is the backbone of the Louisiana economy, bringing in billions of dollars in revenue for the government and accounting for nearly one-third of the nation's domestic crude production.

It took a heavy blow when the government imposed a six-month offshore drilling moratorium in the wake of the spill that has sent tens of millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf in the biggest environmental disaster in U.S. history. The government imposed the ban while it reviews the safety of deepwater drilling in light of the BP disaster.

Louisiana lawmakers have railed against the moratorium, saying it could put more than 100,000 people out of work, shutter businesses and destroy livelihoods. A bill asking the administration to shorten the moratorium passed the Legislature unanimously.

But persuading the administration to take such action could prove to be extraordinarily difficult at a time when globs of oil are fouling marshes and beaches, images of oil-soaked birds are a fixture in the news and no apparent end to the spill is in sight.


Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has acknowledged the potential damage to energy companies and their employees and promised a Louisiana senator the administration would demand that BP compensate businesses for their losses.

The moratorium put a halt to the 33 deepwater exploratory rigs in operation in the Gulf in addition to all new deep-sea drilling permits. Platforms that are already producing oil along with rigs in shallow waters are allowed to remain in operation.

"Every one of these deepwater wells employs directly hundreds of people and indirectly thousands," said Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. "This is one company. This is one well. It's a terrible situation and no one is making light of it, but what I'm saying, as strongly as I can, to this president is the economic analysis is devastating to many companies, thousands of companies.


BP hopes that it can stem the flow of oil soon and remove some of the heat that has been put on the company and energy industry by politicians, the American public and investors, who have dumped BP stock and driven its price down to the lowest level in 14 years out of fear that the spill could spell the company's ruin.

BP is capturing more oil from the bottom of the sea each day, and expects to siphon even larger quantities by early next week once more heavy equipment arrives. Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, who is overseeing the crisis for the government, said BP could be taking in 1.17 million gallons a day by next week, up from the current daily rate of 630,000.

Meanwhile, President Barack Obama on Thursday met with the families of the 11 rig workers who were killed in the April 20 explosion as researchers released their latest findings about the size of the spill, saying that from 1 million to 2.1 million gallons a day may have been leaking before the cap was installed June 3. That is much higher than previous estimates.

U.S. Geological Survey Director Marcia McNutt, who is coordinating the estimates, said the most credible daily flow rate at the moment is between 840,000 gallons and 1.68 million gallons. Researchers do not have figures for after the cap was installed. "Our scientific analysis is still a work in progress," McNutt said.

At the same time, Gulf Coast leaders are tallying up the economic damage.

Trade groups estimate that the 33 deepwater rigs idled the moratorium employed 5,900 to 9,200 people. Rig workers earn up to $1,800 per week, so that amounts to a loss of tens of millions dollars in salaries. In addition, those jobs support an additional 26,000 to 46,000 industry workers.

"It's going to put us out of business," said Glenn LeCompte, owner of a Louisiana catering company that provides food to offshore rigs. "My payroll probably runs about $150,000 a week. That payroll is going to disappear."

Gulf communities already are seeing the livelihoods of thousands of fisherman, property owners and tourism workers jeopardized by the spill. Fishing and tourism contribute $10 billion to Louisiana's $210 billion economy, while energy contributes $65 billion.

"Those two things, fishing and oil, coexist together and form a way of life down here," said Jefferson Parish Council Chairman John Young.

The Energy Department estimates that 25 million barrels of oil production will be lost in 2011 because of the six-month moratorium. That's less than what the country burns in two days, but production will drop even more if the ban is extended to a year or more, as a number of analysts expect.


Many of the drilling jobs could end up going to Brazil, which recently discovered numerous oil fields off its coast. Brazilian oil company Petrobras wants to tap those fields but lacks the rigs.

"They're licking their chops saying, 'We'll take them'" from the U.S., said industry analyst Collin Gerry.

Barry Graham, general manager of Barry Graham Oil Service LCC, which operates 21 petroleum support vessels from Alabama and Louisiana, said he is hoping to avoid layoffs among his 150 employees.

"It's like sitting here waiting for the storm to approach," he said. "You sit and wait for a hurricane when you get the news it's coming. That's what this feels like — just waiting to get hit."


___

Associated Press Writers Melinda Deslatte in Baton Rouge, Mary Foster in Port Fourchon, Brian Skoloff in Morgan City, Ray Henry in New Orleans, Harry R. Weber in Houston and Seth Borenstein in Washington contributed to this report. Kahn contributed from New York.
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
How much stuff are these politicians getting from the oil companies in the form of perks and contributions?
 

emomoonbase

I'm free 2night after my LARPing guild meets.
The US can shit talk oil companies all they want to but they still run to buy their products like filthy whores.
 

entremet

Member
emomoonbase said:
The US can shit talk oil companies all they want to but they still run to buy their products like filthy whores.
Exactly. America loves their cars and we ain't giving them up anytime soon.
 

siddx

Magnificent Eager Mighty Brilliantly Erect Registereduser
entrement said:
Exactly. America loves their cars and we ain't giving them up anytime soon.

You do know other nations drive cars as well right? It's not like the rest of the world rides a bike everywhere.
 

Shanadeus

Banned
missbreedsiddx said:
You do know other nations drive cars as well right? It's not like the rest of the world rides a bike everywhere.
bike_798558c.jpg

British Prime Minister David Cameron on a bike.
 
emomoonbase said:
The US can shit talk oil companies all they want to but they still run to buy their products like filthy whores.

That's why I don't care. I accept stuff like this happens as a need to maintain my standard of living. I honestly don't want to give that up and I'll freely admit it, better than being a hypocrite.

Besides the average coal mining deaths per year in China dwarfs anything from the recent oil spills when you think of it
2000: 5,300 deaths.
2001: 5,670 deaths.
2002: 5,791 deaths.
2003: 7,200 deaths.
2004: 6,027 deaths.
2005: 5,986 deaths.
2006: 4,746 deaths.
2007: 3,786 deaths.
2008: 3,215 deaths.
2009: 2,631 deaths.

Still the need for oil could be mitigated if people just used nuclear power more. Far better than oil or coal, but because of idiots at Greenpeace anytime nuclear power is suggested the loonies poison the debate.
 

siddx

Magnificent Eager Mighty Brilliantly Erect Registereduser
Shanadeus said:
bike_798558c.jpg

British Prime Minister David Cameron on a bike.

Which should be all the evidence you need that only douchebags ride bikes everywhere they go.
 

JBaird

Banned
I wouldn't say it's safe, but I would say that it's unlikely this type of incident would happen again so soon.
 

siddx

Magnificent Eager Mighty Brilliantly Erect Registereduser
JBaird said:
I wouldn't say it's safe, but I would say that it's unlikely this type of incident would happen again so soon.
Probably not, but I was under the naive hope that this would push people to really support alternative fuel sources. Maybe force BP to pay back part of it's bill by building some of those massive windmills on the coast, or something or other.
 
missbreedsiddx said:
Probably not, but I was under the naive hope that this would push people to really support alternative fuel sources. Maybe force BP to pay back part of it's bill by building some of those massive windmills on the coast, or something or other.

Nuclear power.
 

Zaptruder

Banned
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
That's why I don't care. I accept stuff like this happens as a need to maintain my standard of living. I honestly don't want to give that up and I'll freely admit it, better than being a hypocrite.

Besides the average coal mining deaths per year in China dwarfs anything from the recent oil spills when you think of it
2000: 5,300 deaths.
2001: 5,670 deaths.
2002: 5,791 deaths.
2003: 7,200 deaths.
2004: 6,027 deaths.
2005: 5,986 deaths.
2006: 4,746 deaths.
2007: 3,786 deaths.
2008: 3,215 deaths.
2009: 2,631 deaths.

Still the need for oil could be mitigated if people just used nuclear power more. Far better than oil or coal, but because of idiots at Greenpeace anytime nuclear power is suggested the loonies poison the debate.

Why use coal, gas or nuclear when you can go wind and solar?

Wind has become suprisingly affordable while we weren't looking... but energy people knows whats up; because it's now the fastest growing form of alternative power in the world.

The main con is that all the costs of wind are upfront; building it takes all the effort, after that it's 20-25 years of free energy.

Some areas aren't as good as others, but if all the usable land area was utilized (defined modestly as 11% of the world's land surface occupied by 6 1.5MW Wind turbines per square kilometer), we'd have 5 times more power than the entire planet requires... even after taking into account the relatively low capacity rate of wind power (i.e. it only generates 20-30% of the rated power of the turbines over the course of a year or so).

Cost wise it's comparable to coal and gas in per kw/h terms.

Once you account for the damage of externalities, wind is ahead by miles.

And the energy payback period for wind is about 6-30 months (i.e. it takes 6-30 months of wind energy to manufacture a wind turbine), better than coal or gas at 9-12 months. (6 months is avg period, upto 30 for shittier locations).
 
JBaird said:
I wouldn't say it's safe, but I would say that it's unlikely this type of incident would happen again so soon.


what do you base that on? And we still have no new technology to deal with these leaks. This happened back in the 70s and we're using the same exact countermeasures we did 30 years ago. (They still don't work)

We can build in deeper waters but we don't have the cleanup response technology to cope with the new depths.

1) We need to figure out what exactly went wrong. 2) Correct existing wells 3) Establish new regulations (You want to drill that deep? Fine. Show us you have competent coping strategies should something go wrong)
 
Zaptruder said:
Why use coal, gas or nuclear when you can go wind and solar?

You need to have a good mix to hedge against, foreign issues, cost increases/decreases, functionality issues, shifting weather, backup sources, etc.

Much like a stock portfolio it's best to keep diversified. That said I think wind is and should be a big part of securing America's energy security.
 

Empty

Member
and i'm sure the oil companies will reward their campaigns' bank accounts handsomely for such incredible loyalty.
 

Draft

Member
WickedAngel said:
You'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to be advocating for offshore drilling right now.
Or you'd be a politician representing a district that depends on offshore drilling. It might be bad for the environment, but it puts a lot of people to work.
 
Draft said:
Or you'd be a politician representing a district that depends on offshore drilling. It might be bad for the environment, but it puts a lot of people to work.

So does prostitution but I doubt that they would defend that.
 

JBaird

Banned
Teh Hamburglar said:
what do you base that on? And we still have no new technology to deal with these leaks. This happened back in the 70s and we're using the same exact countermeasures we did 30 years ago. (They still don't work)

We can build in deeper waters but we don't have the cleanup response technology to cope with the new depths.

1) We need to figure out what exactly went wrong. 2) Correct existing wells 3) Establish new regulations (You want to drill that deep? Fine. Show us you have competent coping strategies should something go wrong)

I base it on the fact that this is a rare occurrence. There is no doubt that we need to improve prevention and response technology for these situations, but there is also no doubt that the shutting down of all offshore drilling is simply a knee jerk reaction as this situation is quite uncommon.

Overall I wish we were totally off oil, but we aren't.
 
This is so fucked.

Now I understand that oil & gas a big part of the Louisiana economy. However, so is fishing, seafood, and tourism.

But oil is run by big massive companies that make big donations. Fishing & tourism? Those are dinky mom & pop business that don't make big donations.


So who do the lawmakers look out of? Oil, of course.



And it is not like this is some big massive shut down. There are literally thousands of oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. 33 were shut down temporarily. But yeah . . . go kiss the ass of the oil biz now, you whores.
 
Shanadeus said:
Hey, a man's gotta keep healthy, but when it comes to style Caddy 1, not BMX.

speculawyer said:
And it is not like this is some big massive shut down. There are literally thousands of oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. 33 were shut down temporarily. But yeah . . . go kiss the ass of the oil biz now, you whores.

Beats being poor!
 
JBaird said:
I base it on the fact that this is a rare occurrence. There is no doubt that we need to improve prevention and response technology for these situations, but there is also no doubt that the shutting down of all offshore drilling is simply a knee jerk reaction as this situation is quite uncommon.

Overall I wish we were totally off oil, but we aren't.

But they did not do that, so what's the point of your argument? Theoretical?
 

JBaird

Banned
speculawyer said:
But they did not do that, so what's the point of your argument? Theoretical?

lol what? I wasn't even making an argument you are the one that induced a debate; I was just making a simple statement.

"I wouldn't say it's safe, but I would say that it's unlikely this type of incident would happen again so soon."

That's my main statement, you asked why I thought what I did and I provided that what happened with this recent well is not a regular occurrence hence why I say it's is unlikely to happen again so soon.
 

Draft

Member
speculawyer said:
This is so fucked.

Now I understand that oil & gas a big part of the Louisiana economy. However, so is fishing, seafood, and tourism.

But oil is run by big massive companies that make big donations. Fishing & tourism? Those are dinky mom & pop business that don't make big donations.


So who do the lawmakers look out of? Oil, of course.



And it is not like this is some big massive shut down. There are literally thousands of oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. 33 were shut down temporarily. But yeah . . . go kiss the ass of the oil biz now, you whores.
The government didn't shut down fishing and tourism (I guess those are shut down naturally.)

And those 33 rigs are jobs for who knows how many people.

I'm as pissed off about the oil spill as anyone, but at the same time I can sympathize with the guys who are being furloughed because of the govt. ban.
 
JBaird said:
lol what? I wasn't even making an argument you are the one that induced a debate; I was just making a simple statement.

"I wouldn't say it's safe, but I would say that it's unlikely this type of incident would happen again so soon."

That's my main statement, you asked why I thought what I did and I provided that what happened with this recent well is not a regular occurrence hence why I say it's is unlikely to happen again so soon.


I think he means that they didn't put the moratorium in place until a good month and a half after the initial spill. Thats not exactly knee jerk.
 

JBaird

Banned
Teh Hamburglar said:
I think he means that they didn't put the moratorium in place until a good month and a half after the initial spill. Thats not exactly knee jerk.

Well honestly I didn't even want to get into that, my only comment that I stand behind is my first one.
 
You'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to want to be dependent on foreign energy right now.
Fixed.



If we were extracting at a shallow depth, even accidents and spills would be taken care of with quicker, 100% effective responses. I'd prefer to extract on land. :p





Besides all that noise, if we'd switch to propane-powered or natural-gas-powered vehicles, like many U.S. college campuses have switched to, then we wouldn't need as much oil and diesel.
The US has natural gas reserves like the Saudi Arabian peninsula has oil reserves.


Methane-Diesel-truck.jpg




ATT-Roush-Propane-F-150.jpg
 

ToxicAdam

Member
Thank god public service jobs aren't dependent on the tax revenues from these workers that work in the industry ..

oh wait.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom