Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

Post Reply
Switch to Forum Live View Second Leaking Rig Near Deepwater Horizon...
8 years ago  ::  Jun 08, 2010 - 2:34PM #1
Posts: 16,577

I think we all mostly tend to be more in favor of cheap gas instead of the environment, until something bad happens.  Then we squawk (but still want cheap gas.) 

Sometimes we just can't have it all. 


Edit to add link:

Second (Small) Gulf Oil Spill Confirmed

Moderated by Stardove on Jun 09, 2010 - 08:31PM
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
Quick Reply
8 years ago  ::  Jun 08, 2010 - 3:31PM #2
Posts: 2,675

And it's not a coincidence that the little bit of regulation there is isn't being enforced. You can bet your ass that there's more money pumping into the coffers of THE party than there is oil dumping out into the environment.

And it's some folks that don't seem to comprehend that this is what we've done all over the Middle East to their LAND...and their oceans.  Thinking these oil companies give a crap about what they do to the environment over there? And folks wonder why people fly planes into buildings etc...that, too, is no coincidence.

Moderated by Stardove on Jun 09, 2010 - 08:44PM

I've been on a journey to nowhere...
and know that's the best place to be...

If my faith isn't leading me inward, then my faith is leading me astray.

Quick Reply
8 years ago  ::  Jun 09, 2010 - 8:56PM #3
Posts: 17,597


From link in OP:

CNBC was reporting that this new leak originated from a production platform that was destroyed by an underwater mudslide in 2004, when Hurricane Ivan slammed the area. The site has been leaking ever since, as Taylor has sought to contain and close the well.

Isn't that great the darn thing has been leaking for six years!

And this:

But what’s a little less clear is how long this leak, which is still producing around 14 gallons a day – roughly a car tank’s worth – has been belching oil into the open ocean. Yes, Taylor is working to contain it, but how many days out of the last six years has oil been flowing freely? Assuing the leakage rate was always 14 daily gallons, that’s more than 30,600 gallons since 2004.

This could be considered a pretty picture, if it wasn't a picture of the second oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Beliefnet Community Wide Moderator ~ Peace Love Stardove

People change for two main reasons: either their minds have been opened or their hearts have been broken.

Quick Reply
8 years ago  ::  Jun 10, 2010 - 8:16AM #4
Posts: 9,244

Before the recent disaster in the gulf (thank you BP), I was hesitantly inclined to support off-shore drilling, if only so we can make use of our own resources as we make the transition from petro-fuels to renewable energy --- no more. 

The "drill baby drill" mantra that passes for energy policy rings hollow. Hopefully the rightwing yeehaws beholden to CORPORATE welfare will be prompted to THINK about what it is they're advocating. 

Tribalism, ethnocentricism, racism, nationalism, and FEAR is the Mind Killer... >:(

For user to user support and to look up the latest glitch reports, check the Beliefnet Knowledgebase by clicking on the link below!

 Beliefnet Knowledgebase
Quick Reply
8 years ago  ::  Jun 10, 2010 - 11:54AM #5
Posts: 29

Hi All,

I have heard plenty about the gulf oil spill (thanks bp!)  I have a couple solutions to this and the leak that's been going on 6 years!!??:(  Has anyone considered using renewable energy such as making fuel from corn?  What about public transportation (trains, buses, etc.)?  Even better, Walking, riding a bicycle? 

I live in Minnesota, why not hire unemployed people to collect the bullrushes that are so plentiful in northern Minnesota to soak up the oil, and scoop it like you would a cat box?

Do any of these suggestions sound just crazy enough to work to anyone else?

Quick Reply
8 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2010 - 3:31AM #6
Posts: 14,591

This thread was moved from the Hot Topics Zone.

Beliefnet Community Host
Hot Topics Zone

Merope | Beliefnet Community Manager
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community
Quick Reply
8 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2010 - 8:26AM #7
Posts: 14,245

«An extensive 2009 report by the United States National Research Council of the Academy of Sciences, commissioned by the United States Congress, stated six main findings. First, that compact development is likely to reduce "Vehicle Miles Traveled" (VMT) throughout the country. Second, that doubling residential density in a given area could reduce VMT by as much as 25% if coupled with measures such as increased employment density and improved public transportation. Third, that higher density, mixed-use developments would produce both direct reductions in CO2 emissions (from less driving), and indirect reductions (such as from lower amounts of materials used per housing unit, higher efficiency climate control, longer vehicle lifespans, and higher efficiency delivery of goods and services. Fourth, that although short term reductions in energy use and CO2 emissions would be modest, that these reductions would grow over time. Fifth, that a major obstacle to more compact development in the United States is political resistance from local zoning regulators, which would hamper efforts by state and regional governments to participate in land-use planning. Sixth, the committee agreed that changes in development that would alter driving patterns and building efficiency would have various secondary costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify. The report made two major recommendations: first that policies that support compact development (and especially its ability to reduce driving, energy use, and CO2 emissions) should be encouraged, and second that further studies should be conducted to make future compact development more effective.»

Quick Reply
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing

    Beliefnet On Facebook