Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

HuffingtonPost: How Soon Until the Free Market Stops the Oil Spill?


Destino

Recommended Posts

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/how-soon-until-the-free-m_b_598305.html

I'm sitting here at my desk watching the oil droids hack away at the blowout preventer in preparation for the "cap" portion of the "cut and cap" procedure, which, contrary to what I'm hearing on cable news, is intended to do something other than stopping the flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, this latest solution isn't a solution for stopping the flow of oil at all. The oil will continue to gush from the well, only now BP will be able to more effectively harvest some of the oil -- a more reliable version of what they were doing with the riser insertion tube for the better part of last month.

Good for them. So they can resume drinking their milkshake between now and August when, we hope, the relief well will be completed. At which time, corporate milkshake drinking will carry on via more conventional methods.

And why not? It's the free market after all. As I watch these robots slice the riser from the blowout preventer and read the news about lakes of oil moving towards the coasts of Florida, I'm wondering who to blame for this. The list is long, but, in part, I blame anyone who bought into the lines: "government is the problem" and "the era of big government is over." It's been systematic deregulation and the elevation of free market libertarian laissez-faire capitalism that have wrought this damage and allowed potentially destructive corporations to write their own rules and do as they please.

Does anyone seriously believe that BP has suddenly become a philanthropic venture interested in doing whatever it takes -- sparing no expense -- to make the Gulf region whole again? It will do the absolute minimum necessary to weasel its way through this crisis. Not a red cent more.

Last week, while the "top kill" procedure was failing, BP continued its effort to fight regulations in Canada mandating relief wells for every offshore rig. Simultaneously, Rayola Dougher, a lobbyist with the American Petroleum Institute laughed off the notion of requiring relief wells here in America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop it? No, But free market would prevent another one.

A free market would lead to shallow water drilling and drilling in Alaska where problems like this are easily fixed.

I'm assuming that's a joke. No one would actually believe the free market wouldn't lead to both types of drilling as both are insanely profitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm assuming that's a joke. No one would actually believe the free market wouldn't lead to both types of drilling as both are insanely profitable.

Deep water drilling is insanely difficult. And resources for the companies is not limitless. They would spend their money on the easy profitable venues first.

Long term, the free market would also lead to thousands of nuclear reactors and lessen the need for oilrigs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The free market does almost nothing in the public interest or for the public good. Every great achievement in the history of mankind has been accomplished through the collective effort of the people.

The free market is great for helping people make money- which is of course very important.

paraphrasing- why trust the long term capital development of a country to the actions of a casino? Why trust any benefit for society to the by-product of myopic greed?

It's sort of an IQ test at this point. It really is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deep water drilling is insanely difficult. And resources for the companies is not limitless. They would spend their money on the easy profitable venues first.
So they would do both. Like I said.
Long term, the free market would also lead to thousands of nuclear reactors and lessen the need for oilrigs.

What percentage of oil is used on the creation of electricity in the US? I honestly don't know. That is the energy nuclear power plants would replace which I would think would reduce demand for coal more than oil. I could be wrong.

All of this of course isn't the topic of the thread though... I'm sure that's an accident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long term, the free market would also lead to thousands of nuclear reactors and lessen the need for oilrigs.

After they've gone through coal, of course. And it wouldn't be the low sulfur anthracite from out west. We're talking high sulfur, high pollutin', west-by-God-Virginia bituminous. And why waste money on all that silly environmental stuff?

Just wait for someone to sue. Little Johnny with emphasyma at age 8 -vs- our energy producers. That's how the free-market works, baby!!! I bet the party with the most money for lawyers wins.

Then, and only then, could it be economically feasible to create a nuke reactor to sell power. Without gov't loan guarantees it isn't.

....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awesome, then lets give all of our belongings and checks to the Govt and let them provide everything for us.

the premise of this blog was a lame attempt to bash capitalism and our market based economy.

Nobody anywhere believes in a world with ZERO govt involvement. Its a typical straw man from the left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awesome, then lets give all of our belongings and checks to the Govt and let them provide everything for us.

the premise of this blog was a lame attempt to bash capitalism and our market based economy.

Nobody anywhere believes in a world with ZERO govt involvement. Its a typical straw man from the left.

I like how you opened this post with a straw man and then two sentences later accuse the other guys of doing the exact same thing. That's pretty impressive. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how you opened this post with a straw man and then two sentences later accuse the other guys of doing the exact same thing. That's pretty impressive. :)

My worthy advisary was well aware of the ploy I was presenting. I was not attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of a rookie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awesome, then lets give all of our belongings and checks to the Govt and let them provide everything for us.

Given what you're about to claim about the article, starting your post this was is an extremely poor way to establish yourself as a reliable narrator. :ols:

the premise of this blog was a lame attempt to bash capitalism and our market based economy.

Nobody anywhere believes in a world with ZERO govt involvement. Its a typical straw man from the left.

Nowhere in the article was anything even remotely similar to this discussed or even suggested.

Edit: LOL, Henry beat me to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After they've gone through coal, of course. And it wouldn't be the low sulfur anthracite from out west. We're talking high sulfur, high pollutin', west-by-God-Virginia bituminous. And why waste money on all that silly environmental stuff?

Just wait for someone to sue. Little Johnny with emphasyma at age 8 -vs- our energy producers. That's how the free-market works, baby!!! I bet the party with the most money for lawyers wins.

Then, and only then, could it be economically feasible to create a nuke reactor to sell power. Without gov't loan guarantees it isn't.

....

And this, boys and girls, is why countries like China, North Korea, and the Soviet Union are/were all known for their pristine countrysides and spotless environmental records.

Reductio ad absurdum. It's oodles of fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given what you're about to claim about the article, starting your post this was is an extremely poor way to establish yourself as a reliable narrator. :ols:

Nowhere in the article was anything even remotely similar to this discussed or even suggested.

Edit: LOL, Henry beat me to it.

He was responding to zoony's equally hilarious post. Come on, you've been around here long enough to know the games we all play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop it? No, But free market would prevent another one.

A free market would lead to shallow water drilling and drilling in Alaska where problems like this are easily fixed.

BWahahahahahahahaha!:rotflmao:

Good one dude. You should do stand up. :ols:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this, boys and girls, is why countries like China, North Korea, and the Soviet Union are/were all known for their pristine countrysides and spotless environmental records.

Reductio ad absurdum. It's oodles of fun.

You're confused, here. None of those country's have strict environmentalist policies. At all. China has simply left it to industry to figure out. We all see the results.

And North Korea is so far off the spectrum they shouldn't even be brought up in even a semi-honest discussion

......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I blame anyone who bought into the lines: "government is the problem" and "the era of big government is over." It's been systematic deregulation and the elevation of free market libertarian laissez-faire capitalism that have wrought this damage and allowed potentially destructive corporations to write their own rules

And if there was criminal neglect? (meaning regulation is in place)

I would blame a do nothing GOVERNMENT, for not being vigilant

See Sig for more juicy details concerning this administration

Premise/Government Fail

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I blame anyone who bought into the lines: "government is the problem" and "the era of big government is over." It's been systematic deregulation and the elevation of free market libertarian laissez-faire capitalism that have wrought this damage and allowed potentially destructive corporations to write their own rules

And if there was criminal neglect? (meaning regulation is in place)

I would blame a do nothing GOVERNMENT, for not being vigilant

See Sig for more juicy details concerning this administration

Premise/Government Fail

What regulation was in place that should have prevented this? Could you tell me what caused while we are on the topic? That's still under investigation.

Glad to see you are coming around on government regulation though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What regulation was in place that should have prevented this? Could you tell me what caused while we are on the topic? That's still under investigation.

Glad to see you are coming around on government regulation though.

The Interior Department exempted BP's calamitous Gulf of Mexico drilling operation from a detailed environmental impact analysis last year, according to government documents, after three reviews of the area concluded that a massive oil spill was unlikely.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050404118.html?nav=emailpage

Its never about NO regulation....its always about BAD regulation......or not enforced regulation.......Like the present AMNESTY we have with Illegals.....or forcing Banks to make BAD LOANS creating the Financial Debacle

Government....a growing problem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Interior Department exempted BP's calamitous Gulf of Mexico drilling operation from a detailed environmental impact analysis last year, according to government documents, after three reviews of the area concluded that a massive oil spill was unlikely.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050404118.html?nav=emailpage

Its never about NO regulation....its always about BAD regulation......or not enforced regulation.......Like the present AMNESTY we have with Illegals.....or forcing Banks to make BAD LOANS creating the Financial Debacle

Government....a growing problem

Was an explosion on the rig, leading to a fire, leading to the rig sinking, leading to the BOP failing something anyone would consider "likely"? To me this seems kind of like Murphy's Law on steroids.

Then again it could just be this:

About 11 hours before the Deepwater Horizon exploded, a disagreement took place between the top manager for oil giant BP PLC on the drilling rig and his counterpart for the rig's owner, Transocean Ltd., concerning the final steps in shutting down the nearly completed well, according to a worker's sworn statement.

Michael Williams, a Transocean employee who was chief electronics technician on the rig, said there was "confusion" between those high-ranking officials in an 11 a.m. meeting on the day of the rig blast, according to a sworn statement from Mr. Williams reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Mr. Williams himself attended the meeting.

The confusion over the drilling plan in the final hours leading up to the explosion could be key to understanding the causes of the blowout and ultimately who was responsible.

What is known from drilling records and congressional testimony is that after the morning meeting, the crew began preparations to remove from the drill pipe heavy drilling "mud" that provides pressure to keep down any gas, and to replace this mud with lighter seawater.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704414504575244812908538510.html

As for me I think I'll do a little research on what deregulation took place in the last decade. Something tells me I'll find that some changes were made. Call it a hunch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was an explosion on the rig, leading to a fire, leading to the rig sinking, leading to the BOP failing something anyone would consider "likely"? To me this seems kind of like Murphy's Law on steroids......
Yeah

its not like working on an OilRig is hazardous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...