Florida off-shore drilling to be voted on

[Bob]

I respect your difference of opinion. If there was more meaningful debate going on in this country, we wouldn't have gone into good ole Iraq. Of course, if Iraq didn't have all that oil, we would have passed on the whole idea, but that's another thread. I have no solution for Lousiana's problems other than having your major employer fix it's own mess. Creating a potential environmental nightmare in order to solve another environmental problem just isn't the best long term solution. There are reasons why the drilling bill is not sailing through for a vote. It's not a good idea! The oil industry is dirty and polluting by it's very nature. I have no doubt, however, that more Gulf drilling will occur. Short term, short sighted, leadership have been running the show for six years now. I don't think the average citizen can compete with all those chemical and oil industry lobbyists that are scurrying around inside the beltway. By the way, Nuclear energy is just as clean as all those rigs you have fished, unless, of course, someone has a bad day.

 

[30A Skunkape]

I respect your difference of opinion. If there was more meaningful debate going on in this country, we wouldn't have gone into good ole Iraq. Of course, if Iraq didn't have all that oil, we would have passed on the whole idea, but that's another thread. I have no solution for Lousiana's problems other than having your major employer fix it's own mess. Creating a potential environmental nightmare in order to solve another environmental problem just isn't the best long term solution. There are reasons why the drilling bill is not sailing through for a vote. It's not a good idea! The oil industry is dirty and polluting by it's very nature. I have no doubt, however, that more Gulf drilling will occur. Short term, short sighted, leadership have been running the show for six years now. I don't think the average citizen can compete with all those chemical and oil industry lobbyists that are scurrying around inside the beltway. By the way, Nuclear energy is just as clean as all those rigs you have fished, unless, of course, someone has a bad day.

I agree 100%, debate is the best way to get all the facts out and achieve sound solutions. The problem is, and this is Louisiana's fault as much as anybodys, this is truly a national emergency that has been brewing for decades. The appropriate time to address the matter was in the 1970s. That didn't happen, for whatever reason. So now it comes down to this, an 11th hour solution that is far from ideal if you do not want drilling off of Florida's coast. But it will work to solve the larger problem of finding the funds to halt and indeed reverse wetland loss, ensuring the long term viabilty of a part of the US that is vital to the country's economic well being:clap_1: !

What frustrates the heck out of me is that this issue isn't even on the national radar. We, and I will lump myself into that population since I spend far more SOWAL time razzing Kimmi about football and such, have done a TERRIBLE job communicating the need to restore Louisiana's wetlands. The information that documents the economic impact losing the coast would have is out there, but you really have to go looking for it. That is asking too much for many folks, I hate to say. So, it is easy for somebody to come out and say "Fight this bill because it will do nothing but enrich big oil and pollute Florida". At face value, it sounds legit, but as is true with so many issues you will only be informed regarding the tip of the iceberg if you buy into the talking points.

I wish there was some other way to get these funds. Wouldn't it be nice to use the $$$ we are pissing away in Iraq for this purpose? Wouldn't it be nice if states like New Mexico that get more OCS royalty money than Louisianapissed would play nice and just let us have it? Wouldn't it be nice if big oil declared that they would just cough up the cash to finance the undertaking? It would be nice, but any of the above scenarios are more likely to occur in the land of Oz than in Washington. To scrap this imperfect solution would mean going back to the drawing board and trying to figure out where the funds could come from, then going through the legislative process, and once you did get your new plan passed waiting years for the initial funding to kick in. So, I think a conservative estimate for a fix besides the one in Congress presently sets the whole project back at least 10 years. We don't have the luxury of time like that. I really wish we did, but we don't. I think the statistic is that 3 square feet of marshland erode every second(I will check that, I might be wrong)...do the math!

 

[Bob]

Skunkape, your points are valid, and they work to solve a problem. The issue you are addressing, however, is dwarfed by the drunken 822 pound gorilla that sits in the corner alone. That issue is our dependence on oil. Drilling in the Gulf to lower natural gas prices and help La.'s wetlands, and fighting in the Middle East to stabilize OPEC are both short term solutions. I am a contrarian that thinks unless gas goes to 5.00/gallon, no meaningful effort to get away from oil will be made. It appears to me that only a crisis will beget painful, productive measures to let us shift off oil. Arguing that we need to open up our continental shelves to drilling, because it makes us strategically stronger, only continues the present madness. Raise your hand if you would like to live just one day without hearing about the Middle East. The biggest problem our country faces is not global terrorism, but those who control the easy access to oil. When you google Harken Energy, Enron, and Halliburton, you know nothing long term will be accomplished for at least 2 more years. And yes, those oil companies can clean up their own backyard if those in local and state government decide to stop taking oil money. Isn't going to happen.

 

[Smiling JOe]

I agree 100%, debate is the best way to get all the facts out and achieve sound solutions. The problem is, and this is Louisiana's fault as much as anybodys, this is truly a national emergency that has been brewing for decades. The appropriate time to address the matter was in the 1970s. That didn't happen, for whatever reason. So now it comes down to this, an 11th hour solution that is far from ideal if you do not want drilling off of Florida's coast. But it will work to solve the larger problem of finding the funds to halt and indeed reverse wetland loss, ensuring the long term viabilty of a part of the US that is vital to the country's economic well being:clap_1: !...

Skunky, I am only vaguely familiar with the wetland problems in LA, but I thought they were attributed to Man changing the flow of the Mississippi River long ago, thereby decreasing the amount of sediment that flows into the wetlands. What is it in particular that the State of LA plans to do with the money which will correct this problem? I don't follow.

 

[BMBWalker]

Skunky, I am only vaguely familiar with the wetland problems in LA, but I thought they were attributed to Man changing the flow of the Mississippi River long ago, thereby decreasing the amount of sediment that flows into the wetlands. What is it in particular that the State of LA plans to do with the money which will correct this problem? I don't follow.

SJ...please make up your mind. Do you prefer near naked women or near naked men on your posts? This is confusing.

 

[30A Skunkape]

Uggh, SJ, I am totally PUIing, but the funny thing is, one of the big things they want to do is the same thing they are dong to restore the beach there...that is, they want to blast sand from the gulf back into the marsh to create landmass. Totally oversimplified there, but you know what I mean. And the nice thing is, nobody cares if the sand is black or white, it is all good:clap_1: . You are right, a big problem was altering the flow of old man river, and that prevented the natural distribution of sediment that would keep the marshland stable. But, the powers that be also cut smaller canals and built levees all the way over toward Texas with similar results...salt water intrudes, kills the cypress trees and vegetation, and keeps on eroding the bare earth.

Besides the obvious plan to blow fresh sand into the wetlands, there are other high-tech projects like these that simple minds such as mine don't fully understand but know must be doing some good. You might need to be an engineer or geologist to fully appreciate this stuff.
http://www.lacoast.gov/projects/list.asp

 

[Smiling JOe]

Skunky, what is the LA state plan for rising sealevels due to global warming? Even though there is debate about the realness of global warming, surely, they have some contingency plans just in case, right? If the sea-level does rise greatly, as many scientists predict may happen, all of NOLA and the surrounding disappearing wetlands will be under water. Will any of these correction plans to the wetlands that the State wants to work on, include a plan to protect the area if the sea-level does indeed rise as anticipated?

(This isn't intended to be a debate on global warming -- just looking ahead.)

 

[30A Skunkape]

Skunky, what is the LA state plan for rising sealevels due to global warming? Even though there is debate about the realness of global warming, surely, they have some contingency plans just in case, right? If the sea-level does rise greatly, as many scientists predict may happen, all of NOLA and the surrounding disappearing wetlands will be under water. Will any of these correction plans to the wetlands that the State wants to work on, include a plan to protect the area if the sea-level does indeed rise as anticipated?

(This isn't intended to be a debate on global warming -- just looking ahead.)

If that happens, the plan is to move

 

[Smiling JOe]

If that happens, the plan is to move

That might be a good plan. ;-)

Seriously speaking, the real problem again goes back to our gov't imposed addiction to fossil fuels. If the burning of fossil fuels is causing the holes in the Ozone layer, which leads to the melting of the Polar Caps, thereby causing the sea-level to rise, we don't need more drilling for oil, which in turn, keeps the gov't wheels greased and addicted to the cash and black gold. Instead, we need to ween gov't off of the oil and motor money, and encourage the R&D on alternative, cleaner fuels and high effeciency engines.

Over the last twenty years in the technology field, we have taken a room-full of extremely expensive computers and reduced it down to something that will fit into my pocket. In the same period of time in the automotive industry, we have not positively changed the fuel effeciency of the automotive engine used in the autos which we purchase. The 1979 VW Rabbit - Diesel, which my dad still owns, still gets around 45-48 mpg. After 27 years of time to improve the fuel effeciency, the 2007 VW Rabbit (not available in Diesel), according to the EPA, "rates the Rabbit's fuel economy at 22 mpg city/30 mpg highway." What happened?

We are going the wrong way, IMHO.

 

[30A Skunkape]

That might be a good plan. ;-)

Seriously speaking, the real problem again goes back to our gov't imposed addiction to fossil fuels. If the burning of fossil fuels is causing the holes in the Ozone layer, which leads to the melting of the Polar Caps, thereby causing the sea-level to rise, we don't need more drilling for oil, which in turn, keeps the gov't wheels greased and addicted to the cash and black gold. Instead, we need to ween gov't off of the oil and motor money, and encourage the R&D on alternative, cleaner fuels and high effeciency engines.

Over the last twenty years in the technology field, we have taken a room-full of extremely expensive computers and reduced it down to something that will fit into my pocket. In the same period of time in the automotive industry, we have not positively changed the fuel effeciency of the automotive engine used in the autos which we purchase. The 1979 VW Rabbit - Diesel, which my dad still owns, still gets around 45-48 mpg. After 27 years of time to improve the fuel effeciency, the 2007 VW Rabbit (not available in Diesel), according to the EPA, "rates the Rabbit's fuel economy at 22 mpg city/30 mpg highway." What happened?

We are going the wrong way, IMHO.

Looks like we both will need a U-HAUL smiley J! I have faith in the pressure of the marketplace to produce more energy efficient transportation options. Isn't there an engineer at Berkley who has designed a very viable electric car, but the price to build one is something like $150K? Let me ask you this-and this is really out of left field...what would you think if this bill in congress fails, and instead of depending on Washington to help us restore the wetlands, Louisiana decides to tax the living hell out of petroleum processed here? This would drive the price of fuel and any products that require transport to market (ALL products) up...do you think that is the sort of thing that could end our dependence and fund restoration? It probably isn't even legal, just a fantasy:roll: