Closed Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 44 of 44
  1. #41

    Re: The Gulf Oil Disaster

    [quote user="redbeardxxv"][quote user="Is she Conan's wife?"]


    [quote user="redbeardxxv"]sorry to point it out to you, but it was the Bush administration that removed the requirement for a bypass valve that would have shut the oil down in 24 hours. Oil companies complained that cost of the valve alone was 1/2 a million dollars and that it was an unnecessary expenditure. The issue was brought to the Bush administration, more specifically **** Chaney, and it was declared superfluous. The rig itself, was a Haliburton project. So, yes, this would indeed be Bush's fault, or at least his administration's, and they should all be crucified by the general public for the worst ecological disaster to date, and it's only getting bigger. I live on the Gulf Coast-it's beautiful. Well, it is today, not too sure what it might look like tomorrow or next week. Sunday I'll be going to help clean up the casualties of this oil spill-wildlife and birds and such that are being moved to the Southern coast because their natural home has been destroyed-want me to take some pictures of the victims for you? Might help bring the reality home. here's some links from a quick google search to back up my claims: Chaney's removal of the "acoustical valve" : http://beforeitsnews.com/news/38/556...Disasters.html Haliburton's involvement: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gree...onnection.html[/quote]</P>


    Without getting political or personal, a quick Google search shows me that your facts aren't quite accurate. The Bush Administration did not remove the requirement for a bypass valve nor did Cheney remove the "acoustical valve". First off, there's no such thing as a "accoustical valve". The term your looking for is "accoustic switch". However, there has never been a requirement in the U.S. to install accoustic switches. Therefore, Cheney and the rest of the Bush Admin. could not remove a requirement that never existed. Further, the rig was indeed equipped with a blowout preventer that was connected to a "dead-man switch" (i.e. a valve at the ocean floor that should have automatically closed when it stopped receiving signals from the rig). While an accoustic switch should be (and probably will be) requiredon all future rigs, it may not have worked anyway. If the problem is with the valve and not the dead-man switch, then a second switch wouldn't help anything.</P>


    By the way, that link is hardly a reliable news source. Here's a better one:</P>


    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...417936798.html</P>


    [/quote] This point has been degraded to simple nit picking and fact distortion, seems like your argument is straight out the Rush Limbaugh school of arguing nuances that mean nothing and serve no purpose other than to "muddy the waters" - no, the Bush administration did not "remove it" they simply did not require the oil companies comply with the evolving safety technologies like the rest of the world has ALREADY done. Oh and I'm sorry, valve/switch whatever. It's hardly important that I get the nomenclature correct at this point. As far as my quoted sources, I was in a hurry, I googled it and gave you the first link listed. Now that we've cleared that all up, I'll take this opportunity to exit this thread before it gets hostile.[/quote]</P>


    </P>


    You've said that your exiting the thread, but hopefully you'll read this anyway. I'm not trying to get the last word. I'm just trying to clarify why I do not believe the factual differences are mere nuances or nitpicking. Again, no hostility is intended, neither personal nor politacal.</P>


    The way I see it, there's a huge difference between overturning long standing, proven saftey requirements and simply failing to sign into law new technology for what is literally intended to be a redundant system. If you don't see the difference, then stop reading now.</P>


    As for the point of switch vs. valve; that's also an important distinction. At only $500K, there's no way that a second valve is involved. Since we don't know if the failure was that of the dead-man switch or of the valve, there's only a 50% chance that an acoutic switch would have worked. Maybe, someday we'll know, but even if it turns out that the acoustic switch would have worked, it's not reasonable to blame the Bush Admin. Hindsight is always 20/20.</P>


    Adding redundant saftey systems is generally a good thing, but at the end of the day a blowout prevent connected to a dead-man switch should have worked. Blaming either Bush or Obama is folly. All of the blame belongs with the company that designed or installed the faulty failsafe. With all the fingerpointing going on between BP, Transoceanic and Halliburton; I'm not sure who that is, but I'm pretty sure it's one of them.</P>


    </P>

  2. #42

    Re: The Gulf Oil Disaster



    [quote user="bansaw"][I'm petty sure dealing with 2 wars, the world economy at collapse, Haiti, Iran, and his his daily brief of Homeland and world threats...you expect him to go over the lists of oil rigs and know what ones are unsafe? [/quote]</P>


    Which President are you talking about? []</P>


    </P>


    In all seriousness, so what if Norway uses an extra failsafe (that may or may not have worked)? The Norwegiansonly have three thingsto worry about: offshore drilling, building boats, and fishing. And that's not even an insult to Norwegians.</P>

  3. #43
    All-Pro jomo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    19,374

    Re: The Gulf Oil Disaster

    [quote user="BlueFan718to619"][quote user="jomo"][quote user="greenca190"][quote user="jomo"]Big zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz of Rip Van Winkle proportions![/quote]

    More exists behind sports man. Read up.[/quote]We all know there is more going on than sports and that is why we come here.......to get away from all the day to day hassles and miseries of life. That is what being a fan of an athletic team is all about getting away from life's day to day grind. Very Truly Yours, Rip Van W[/quote]

    LOL...** If you're looking for sports why:
    1) do you come to the entertainment section?
    2) do you click on a thread titeled the gulf war disaster??

    C''''MON MAN!!!
    [/quote]I clicked on it wondering what that was doing on a Giants' board. Now I see that it is connected to the entertainment area and not sure how it wound up on my screen. Whatever, if you guys find the topic "entertaining" go for it.
    No one remembers who came in second.

  4. #44
    Administrator Die-Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,827

    Re: The Gulf Oil Disaster

    Which part of NO POLITICAL DISCUSSION did you guys not understand?

    OP, if you're reading this, it will explain your week long suspension. If anyone else wants to talk politics, you'll be next.
    I write differently from what I speak, I speak differently from what I think, I think differently from the way I ought to think, and so it all proceeds into deepest darkness.
    ― Franz Kafka

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts