The BP Story So Far. . . Follow

Word has it that Gulf state GOP congresscritters are just thrilled with him right now. Nothing shores up the "Obama isn't doing enough!" narrative better than a Republican apologizing to BP that they should have to pay out for the devastation along the coast.

Surprise, surprise, surprise...

You actually believe this BS? Or do you just hope that others will?

Even Sarah Palin is smart enough to see through that crap. So you're not smarter than Sarah Palin?




And you don't see how this is perhaps an indication that the rosy picture of oil drilling availability in the US isn't quite true? Companies are going to obtain oil wherever it's cheapest to obtain oil. They wouldn't go "overseas" if it was cheaper or easier to drill here. No amount of vague statements about how much of the onshore reserves are "available for drilling" removes the quite obvious fact that something was making the choice to drill there less profitable than drilling elsewhere.




No one is denying this. But "affordable" is a relative term. In order for even those subsidies to make drilling in deep water affordable, something else had to be making drilling in other locations less affordable. You can't possibly so dumb as to believe what you're saying.

Oh for Christ's sake...

The Dept of the Interior report? Yeah, I do. I understand that it doesn't fit into your little ideology and therefore it must be a lie but...

Well, that's your flaw, not mine.


Sadly, it seems that you aren't. My condolences.


Well, no shit! Hey, welcome to the point! Despite the available onland parcels, it was still cheaper to drill in Saudi Arabia or wherever than Oklahoma. Maybe the oil is closer to the surface. Maybe sand drills easier than western bedrock. I understand you have problems with the excluded middle but perhaps there's just a little more to it than "There must not have been any oil here for them if they didn't drill here!"

Do you have anything more intelligent to add than "Does not compute! Must be wrong! Error! Error! Orthodoxy in jeopardy!"?

Let's set aside what he said for the moment and look at what the other people are saying. Did you watch the "hearing"? I did (part of it anyway). It was frankly embarrassing. A bunch of politicians feigning anger at some executive, while playing up on the disaster so that they can appear on TV to the masses to be "tough" on the issue. It's not about investigating or discovering what happened or getting to the bottom of anything. It's pure PR to make the politicians look blameless and BP look like scum.

What's funny is that I had no clue what this other guy had said (I came in the middle and watched for about 20 minutes or so). I do remember thinking that it would be great if just one person had the balls to admit that this isn't all about BP and our own government shares some of the blame and a lot of the responsibility for this disaster, and perhaps we should focus less on media stunts and more on honest examination of the issue before us. And then I read about what he'd said and though "That's not perfect, but at least he isn't just joining the crowd doing the easy thing".

Of course, predictably, he's having his head handed to him for standing against the crowd. Shocking!

The report detailed every single patch of land in the US with any potential for oil reserves, and included all those blocked for drilling via some form of land use legislation, and concluded that even if all the areas were opened up without blocks or additional licensing or useage fee's it would be cheaper to drill in another country? And it also said that it would be cheaper still to drill in 5000 feet of water?

Really? Cause I'd love to read this imaginary report you're talking about. I don't think it exists. But feel free to prove me wrong. Show me that absent government intervention making it more expensive to drill onshore in the US, it's cheaper to drill in other countries and cheaper still to drill in 5000 feet of water. Can you do that?



And you keep using the word "available", and the fail to grasp that this excludes land which has been set aside as a protected spot from drilling almost certainly at the demand of environmentalist groups.

This is why I say you're playing word games. Let's get rid of that word. Are you saying that if we were free to drill in any and every single onshore land parcel in the US that has oil, it would still be cheaper for US companies to drill in other countries? Because my whole point is that it's more expensive *because* the environmentalists have lobbied to make the areas where oil could be cheaply drilled "unavailable".



That's not what I'm saying. You keep ignoring what I'm saying and arguing your own strawman instead.


I'm saying that the best areas in the US with oil are blocked via legislation, forcing companies to have to make do with poor locations, or drill farther and farther offshore (or in other countries). It's more cost effective to drill elsewhere exactly because the cost effective areas aren't "available" for drilling.


What the hell do you think the environmentalists have been doing for the last 50 years Joph? It's not like they hide this agenda.

I know. You claimed that the report disagreed with my statement that if it weren't for environmentalist groups lobbying to block oil companies from drilling in areas where oil could be obtained relatively cheaply, the oil companies wouldn't need to drill in areas under 5000 feet of water, and the government wouldn't need to subsidize them to do this. In order for the report to do this, it would have to assess not just the land "available" for use (ie: after any such legislative restrictions), but all land.

Now that you have admitted that this isn't so, we can safely dismiss said report as meaningless in this context.

Got anything else? Can we get back to "This wouldn't have happened if the environmentalists hadn't forced oil companies to drill in increasingly risky and low-profit areas?". Cause that was the point I was making before you went off on some tangent about some report.

No, I said exactly what the report claimed.

Try again without the pathetic straw man arguments. I realize this will require some comprehension of the subject and that's something you're sorely lacking in as you display every time the subject of drilling comes up and your little Limbaugh approved sound-bites don't hold up but... why the hell not, huh? Maybe try to learn a little something just for kicks.

And more word games. I didn't say "low profit", did I? Why did you change the word? Please stop doing that!

Your statement about land use legislation is unbacked by anything beyond your usual plaintive cry of "It's just oooobbbbvvviiooouuuusssss!!!!" so I'm not too worried.

Yeah, when you make up the "facts" in your own head, it's easy to say the real facts don't disprove them.

Yes, you did say "low profit." Except you used a hyphen.

Oh, Tony.

(Olde news and a slight necro, I know)

Apparently frustrated with how not fun oil-coated water is, BP CEO Tony Hayward takes a vacation to sail his yacht with his son.



I understand that people need time to relax, but could you be slightly less of a douchebag about it?