President Obama/DeepWater Exploration

[leatherneck]

If in fact, this only applies to only 1% of our supply, then I see your point to some degree. Problem with oil prices are, when a weakness in competition is seen (such as this ban), then the major suppliers of oil will take advantage.

 

The main problem IMO with this ban is the 10's of 1000's of hard working Americans that are being put out of work by a political manipulation meant only to increase a president's plummeting poll numbers and placate his far left supporters!!

 

Again, a point of clarification: Clyde did not say it was less than 1% of our supply; he said it was less than 1% of the rigs. There could be a big difference. If the deep water oil wells are bigger producers than the shallow water/on land wells, it could be greater than 1% of the supply affected.

[rockmom]

The moratorium for now (prior to the court decision today) was for 6 months, but if you ran a business tied to the oil rigs, would you be willing to bet your that the moratorium wouldn't be extended or that when the moratorium was lifted it wouldn't contain so many new and expensive regs? Particularly when there are countries catering to you to move your equipment and people to their country? Nice article in today's WSJ (at least I think it was today's. It may have been yesterday's that I didn't get to until today). A lot of smaller oil companies believe that with the increased regs feared to be enacted when the moratorium is lifted, they will be priced out of the market in the US. They'll head to countries that are more "friendly".

 

Companies, like people, go to where they are wanted and have to deal with the fewest hassles. I realize that we need to review and perhaps tighten the regs these companies deal with; and I realize that companies will migrate to countries where they can make the most money. People have migrated in this country for decades to find work/better jobs. Companies do the same. Obama has been, in my opinion, unnecessarily tough in his very public criticism of BP. If you were in the oil business and saw how he was attacking BP, I have a feeling you'd consider moving operations to Brazil too.

 

The first thing I want to say is that I simply asked a question, and I did not make any statements for, against or indifferent to the subject. I'm trying to just establish the facts. In this thread, nothing was mentioned about the length of time of the moratorium. I feel that's important to consider. I had another question, but I think I'll just go to the news websites and see if I can find my answer there. At least I won't be dressed down for trying to find out information.

 

So we'll only cut off your family's income for 6 months--Maybe??

 

See above.

[leatherneck]

The first thing I want to say is that I simply asked a question, and I did not make any statements for, against or indifferent to the subject. I'm trying to just establish the facts. In this thread, nothing was mentioned about the length of time of the moratorium. I feel that's important to consider. I had another question, but I think I'll just go to the news websites and see if I can find my answer there. At least I won't be dressed down for trying to find out information.

 

 

 

See above.

 

Whoa there. You are way too sensitive. Might be time to step away from this forum for a while. I do it from time to time. It's good therapy.

 

No one was intending to dress you down, or at least I wasn't. You stated that it was "only" for 6 months and I was pointing out that 6 months can be a very long time for businesses and workers needing to make money during that time period; and with the term of the moratorium subject to change (longer or shorter) and with it possible that there could be increased and costly regs when the moratorium, companies and workers may decide to leave for greener pastures. That would not be good for our economy at a very crucial time for our economy.

 

In my opinion the moratorium is an over reaction. From what people know, the incident was caused by some fool hardy decisions made by BP and/or the operator. It wasn't caused by flawed technology; it was caused by dumb human error. Common sense would indicate that those fool hardy decisions will not be made in the near future by any one else drilling a well (the costs to be incurred by BP will act as a pretty big deterrent to that happening). But if the adminstration doesn't trust that logic, get some govt personnel on the rigs when the wells are being drilled to supervise and work on new regs concurrently.

[stickymitts]

Clyde, you keep asking what the big deal is (and how gas prices would be affected) about, "Less than 1% of the rigs being shut down." My question, if it's less than 1%, what's the point? Is this a, "See the government is doing something" move?

[Clyde]

Clyde, you keep asking what the big deal is (and how gas prices would be affected) about, "Less than 1% of the rigs being shut down." My question, if it's less than 1%, what's the point? Is this a, "See the government is doing something" move?

 

Crash, I "keep asing" because a)I started the thread and b)its what I'm interested in talking about.

 

Your point could be 100% factual YET its 100% irrelevant to this particular thread.

[leatherneck]

Are we having fun yet?

[stickymitts]

Crash, I "keep asing" because a)I started the thread and b)its what I'm interested in talking about.

 

Your point could be 100% factual YET its 100% irrelevant to this particular thread.

 

Wow. Uh, okay.

 

For the record, I wasn't asking what the point of your thread was, more like what is the point of the President's moratorium. But, clearly you're not up for that conversation.

[Clyde]

Wow. Uh, okay.

 

For the record, I wasn't asking what the point of your thread was, more like what is the point of the President's moratorium. But, clearly you're not up for that conversation.

 

I'm always up for any discussion.

 

However, the point of thread is clearly dealing with rhetoric vs reality.

 

Now if you want to ask why that's fine. Why did the President issue a moratorium? Probably so that people would then accuse him of trying to get us to be like Europe by driving up gas prices intentionally.

 

No? Maybe he realized how corrupt and/or ineffective the MMS was and still is and decided some of these others should be looked at. He's getting killed for it so I can't imagine he did it for approval ratings. If so, he needs a new PR person.

[stickymitts]

I'm always up for any discussion.

 

However, the point of thread is clearly dealing with rhetoric vs reality.

 

Now if you want to ask why that's fine. Why did the President issue a moratorium? Probably so that people would then accuse him of trying to get us to be like Europe by driving up gas prices intentionally.

 

No? Maybe he realized how corrupt and/or ineffective the MMS was and still is and decided some of these others should be looked at. He's getting killed for it so I can't imagine he did it for approval ratings. If so, he needs a new PR person.

 

Isn't the bolded true for the majority of threads in this forum?

 

Anyway, I'm on the fence whether I think the moratorium would effect gas prices or not. There are so many variables. Most of which I'm not smart enough to know the answer to.

[Clyde]

Maybe these are some of the reasons the moratorium was issued.

 

One company is responsible for the disaster response for 5 oil companies including BP. Execs from 2 of the 5 called the response plan "embarrassing."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/15/AR2010061501700.html

 

 

The plan listed a person as a "go to" expert. Unfortunately, he died in 2005.

 

Exxon admitted that they are not equipped to handle a big spill.

 

http://cspan.org/Watch/Media/2010/06/15/HP/A/34233/House+Energy+Hearing+on+Americas+Energy+Future.aspx

 

 

My guess is these along with the joke that is called the MMS might give one pause.