How Environmentalists Caused The BP Oil Spill

Before you go all ninja flaming on me, let me explain myself. Environmentalists made a law saying that you cannot drill in shallow waters. (Close to the shore) so BP had to drill out deep right? If they were drilling near the shore it probably would not have happened because of how easier it is. And would be easier to clean.

Or maybe there's more oil there and it's far away so civilians wouldn't have to see an oil rig in their backyards?

Scientists are really to blame, for creating, and finding practical uses for metal alloys which allowed for the construction of oil rigs.

I actually blame this on oil. Why do you have to be so difficult?

Before you go all ninja flaming on me, let me explain myself. Environmentalists made a law saying that you cannot drill in shallow waters. (Close to the shore) so BP had to drill out deep right? If they were drilling near the shore it probably would not have happened because of how easier it is. And would be easier to clean.

dunl12496

Just because people advocate a highway's speed be reduced by 5 mph, does not mean you go on a country road with loose gravel with no active highway patrol and go the speed you would on the highway. When you die, or someone else does, it isnt the fault of the ones who reduced the speed on the highway, but the person who failed to adapt to a altered route.

Absolutely not. Offshore drilling shouldn't be allowed to begin with. OR nuclear power. They all come with extreme risks. And no matter what anyone tells you they aren't safe.EMOEVOLUTION

So what we supposed to do? lol back to the stone age with us!???

Before you go all ninja flaming on me, let me explain myself. Environmentalists made a law saying that you cannot drill in shallow waters. (Close to the shore) so BP had to drill out deep right? If they were drilling near the shore it probably would not have happened because of how easier it is. And would be easier to clean.

dunl12496

First off, assuming your conspiracy theory is true (which it absolutely is not), anyone who did that is not an environmentalist, this is going to **** up far more of the environment than it will ever save. Second, you seem to be implying that environmentalists are simply agaisnt oil just for the sake of being against oil and not because it's harmful to the environment, environmentalists have been saying for a long time how harmful all of this drilling is. Drilling in shallow waters is much more disturbing to native species and would be doing far more destruction to ecosystems through normal operations. Furthermore, it would not be easier to clean, it would be easier to contain, but it would also have already completely destroyed the natural estuaries that are already in danger before this oil spill and have now become further endangered. Let's get this straight, you do not simply clean oil, it's not like throwing a dirty shirt in the washing machine. Oil is pervasive, it took somewhere around a decade, possibly more to clean the Exxon-Valdeez spill and even then they were only able to clean the visible damage, an estimated third of the oil spilled was never cleaned and instead affected local ecosystems. WE CANNOT CARRY OUT DRILLING OPERATIONS WITHOUT NEGATIVELY AFFECTING THE ENVIRONMENT. People like to think that we can do whatever we want and even if something goes wrong we can minimize the result, that's a fantasy. You drill near the shore, you're going to throw off the natural balance of the ecosystems, you drill deeper it can be better, but you need proper safety procdeures in place, like the blowout preventer which is mandated in every other country with offshore drilling, and the lack of which was the cause of this disaster, not eco-terrorists.

that is some flawed logic you have there

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Absolutely not. Offshore drilling shouldn't be allowed to begin with. OR nuclear power. They all come with extreme risks. And no matter what anyone tells you they aren't safe.Espada12

So what we supposed to do? lol back to the stone age with us!???

Uh...enviromentalists don't support offshore drilling either. This is BP's fault for lack of oversight.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Absolutely not. Offshore drilling shouldn't be allowed to begin with. OR nuclear power. They all come with extreme risks. And no matter what anyone tells you they aren't safe.funsohng

So what we supposed to do? lol back to the stone age with us!???

As the saying goes.. easier said than done. We have alternative sources and they all require us to mess up the environment or climate aside from solar energy which doesn't do anything harmful unless you count the manufacturing process.

Absolutely not. Offshore drilling shouldn't be allowed to begin with. OR nuclear power. They all come with extreme risks. And no matter what anyone tells you they aren't safe.EMOEVOLUTION

Nuclear power is actually very safe if handled properly, the problem is it is very expensive to set up and maintain. I saw this one video where they installed a very expensive computer system with failsafes and simulated a Chyrnobel-like disaster then let the computer deal with it, and the computer system actually made the necessary adjustments. The biggest problem with nuclear energy is disposal of nuclear waste, which can be done in a safe and secure manner, but if our entire grid were based on nuclear energy we'd start to run out of viable places to dispose of it.

[QUOTE="funsohng"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

So what we supposed to do? lol back to the stone age with us!???

Espada12

As the saying goes.. easier said than done. We have alternative sources and they all require us to mess up the environment or climate aside from solar energy which doesn't do anything harmful unless you count the manufacturing process.

There are actually plenty of viable alternative energies, tidal energy, hydroelectric energy, wind energy, solar energy, many different implementations of natural gas energy, biomass energy, hell even old tires can be used to create energy. The biggest problem is cost, these systems are expensive to install and maintain whereas the infastructure for fossil energies is already set up.

[QUOTE="funsohng"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

So what we supposed to do? lol back to the stone age with us!???

Espada12

As the saying goes.. easier said than done. We have alternative sources and they all require us to mess up the environment or climate aside from solar energy which doesn't do anything harmful unless you count the manufacturing process.

I broke the rig.

Absolutely not. Offshore drilling shouldn't be allowed to begin with. OR nuclear power. They all come with extreme risks. And no matter what anyone tells you they aren't safe.EMOEVOLUTION

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="funsohng"] find an alternative energy source If we research it enough with all the money oil companies are racking up, we probably can find a plausible solution in near future.funsohng

As the saying goes.. easier said than done. We have alternative sources and they all require us to mess up the environment or climate aside from solar energy which doesn't do anything harmful unless you count the manufacturing process.

What, take all their money?

[QUOTE="funsohng"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

As the saying goes.. easier said than done. We have alternative sources and they all require us to mess up the environment or climate aside from solar energy which doesn't do anything harmful unless you count the manufacturing process.

SgtKevali

What, take all their money?

There are actually plenty of viable alternative energies, tidal energy, hydroelectric energy, wind energy, solar energy, many different implementations of natural gas energy, biomass energy, hell even old tires can be used to create energy. The biggest problem is cost, these systems are expensive to install and maintain whereas the infastructure for fossil energies is already set up.

theone86

I agree cost is another huge factor in it. The only thing I was really point out was that alternate sources of energy also cause us to tamper with our climate and environment. I see people also use grease or fat or one of those things from fast food places as energy?

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Absolutely not. Offshore drilling shouldn't be allowed to begin with. OR nuclear power. They all come with extreme risks. And no matter what anyone tells you they aren't safe.Espada12

So what we supposed to do? lol back to the stone age with us!???

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="funsohng"] exactly. If we use all those money that oil companies have, chances are we will find an effective solution that is environment-friendly.funsohng

What, take all their money?

I bolded it for you. That's what you said.

[QUOTE="funsohng"][QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

What, take all their money?

SgtKevali

I bolded it for you. That's what you said.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Absolutely not. Offshore drilling shouldn't be allowed to begin with. OR nuclear power. They all come with extreme risks. And no matter what anyone tells you they aren't safe.EMOEVOLUTION

So what we supposed to do? lol back to the stone age with us!???

Yep I have no clue what you are talking. Would you mind breaking it down for "people like me?"

Absolutely not. Offshore drilling shouldn't be allowed to begin with. OR nuclear power. They all come with extreme risks. And no matter what anyone tells you they aren't safe.EMOEVOLUTION

Nuclear power is safer than any other widely commercially viable form of energy. The popular image of a mushroom cloud cannot happen at a nuclear power plant; nuclear bombs have to be specifically built to facilitate such a reaction.

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Absolutely not. Offshore drilling shouldn't be allowed to begin with. OR nuclear power. They all come with extreme risks. And no matter what anyone tells you they aren't safe.GabuEx

Nuclear power is safer than any other widely commercially viable form of energy. The popular image of a mushroom cloud cannot happen at a nuclear power plant; nuclear bombs have to be specifically built to facilitate such a reaction.

What about the waste?

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Absolutely not. Offshore drilling shouldn't be allowed to begin with. OR nuclear power. They all come with extreme risks. And no matter what anyone tells you they aren't safe.GabuEx

Nuclear power is safer than any other widely commercially viable form of energy. The popular image of a mushroom cloud cannot happen at a nuclear power plant; nuclear bombs have to be specifically built to facilitate such a reaction.

Scientists are really to blame, for creating, and finding practical uses for metal alloys which allowed for the construction of oil rigs.

FrostyPhantasm

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Absolutely not. Offshore drilling shouldn't be allowed to begin with. OR nuclear power. They all come with extreme risks. And no matter what anyone tells you they aren't safe.SgtKevali

Nuclear power is safer than any other widely commercially viable form of energy. The popular image of a mushroom cloud cannot happen at a nuclear power plant; nuclear bombs have to be specifically built to facilitate such a reaction.

What about the waste?

Well, that's still a problem; however, modern nuclear reactors actually produce very little real waste (recycling in reactors has gotten very good), and unlike the pollution produced by fossil fuels, the waste from nuclear power can be effectively contained.

It's not a perfect solution, but unless we find a giant repository of fairy dust whose only pollution is rainbows, we likely will never have a perfect solution.

Before you go all ninja flaming on me, let me explain myself. Environmentalists made a law saying that you cannot drill in shallow waters. (Close to the shore) so BP had to drill out deep right? If they were drilling near the shore it probably would not have happened because of how easier it is. And would be easier to clean.

dunl12496

I appreciate how great nuclear energy is, and I support its use, but the safest form of energy? Although nuclear doesn't go wrong very often, when it does it can be absolutely catastrophic. Modern reactor designs are better, but it's a bit much to say it's the safest.cjek

No one in America has ever died from a nuclear-related accident at a commercial nuclear power plant. There have been more deaths at hydroelectric power plants than at nuclear power plants. Chernobyl, which I'm sure is what everyone thinks of when they think "nuclear power", was caused by the Soviets being stupid.

It's not a perfect solution, but unless we find a giant repository of fairy dust whose only pollution is rainbows, we likely will never have a perfect solution.

GabuEx

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Nuclear power is safer than any other widely commercially viable form of energy. The popular image of a mushroom cloud cannot happen at a nuclear power plant; nuclear bombs have to be specifically built to facilitate such a reaction.

GabuEx

What about the waste?

Well, that's still a problem; however, modern nuclear reactors actually produce very little real waste (recycling in reactors has gotten very good), and unlike the pollution produced by fossil fuels, the waste from nuclear power can be effectively contained.

It's not a perfect solution, but unless we find a giant repository of fairy dust whose only pollution is rainbows, we likely will never have a perfect solution.

Ye

http://www.cite-sciences.fr/francais/ala_cite/science_actualites/sitesactu/question_actu.php?id_article=4743&id_mag=0&langue=an

This explains the waste process. Anyway I'm still waiting on emoevolution to explain what he was talking about :S

Let's just blame industry for requiring oil in the first place.scorch-62

Or you could blame everyone who uses oil...which would be just about everyone in the U.S. They're just meeting the demand for it...

[QUOTE="dunl12496"]

Before you go all ninja flaming on me, let me explain myself. Environmentalists made a law saying that you cannot drill in shallow waters. (Close to the shore) so BP had to drill out deep right? If they were drilling near the shore it probably would not have happened because of how easier it is. And would be easier to clean.

theone86

First off, assuming your conspiracy theory is true (which it absolutely is not), anyone who did that is not an environmentalist, this is going to **** up far more of the environment than it will ever save. Second, you seem to be implying that environmentalists are simply agaisnt oil just for the sake of being against oil and not because it's harmful to the environment, environmentalists have been saying for a long time how harmful all of this drilling is. Drilling in shallow waters is much more disturbing to native species and would be doing far more destruction to ecosystems through normal operations. Furthermore, it would not be easier to clean, it would be easier to contain, but it would also have already completely destroyed the natural estuaries that are already in danger before this oil spill and have now become further endangered. Let's get this straight, you do not simply clean oil, it's not like throwing a dirty shirt in the washing machine. Oil is pervasive, it took somewhere around a decade, possibly more to clean the Exxon-Valdeez spill and even then they were only able to clean the visible damage, an estimated third of the oil spilled was never cleaned and instead affected local ecosystems. WE CANNOT CARRY OUT DRILLING OPERATIONS WITHOUT NEGATIVELY AFFECTING THE ENVIRONMENT. People like to think that we can do whatever we want and even if something goes wrong we can minimize the result, that's a fantasy. You drill near the shore, you're going to throw off the natural balance of the ecosystems, you drill deeper it can be better, but you need proper safety procdeures in place, like the blowout preventer which is mandated in every other country with offshore drilling, and the lack of which was the cause of this disaster, not eco-terrorists.

It's not a conspiracy theory...there is a law saying you have to drill way the hell off shore in deep water. FACT. And if they're wasn't, it'd be much much easier to stop a leak and prevent one from happening.

All I know is right NOW... we should stop pointing the freaking fingers at eachother and start FIXING the problem, and then... drop oil all together. Screw the oil industry. We really honestly dont need it anymore. We can use electric, solar, wind, hydrogen... yes even coal. We can use Electric and Hydrogen for cars. They HAVE the technology for it already, but they wont release it. xhellcatx

They have released it. Nobody wants it. And where do you think that electrical energy is coming from. Out of thin air?

All I know is right NOW... we should stop pointing the freaking fingers at eachother and start FIXING the problem, and then... drop oil all together. Screw the oil industry. We really honestly dont need it anymore. We can use electric, solar, wind, hydrogen... yes even coal. We can use Electric and Hydrogen for cars. They HAVE the technology for it already, but they wont release it. xhellcatx

Wait, "we can use electric"? The point of all of the above is to generate electricity; there's no such thing as an "electric power plant", unless I've misunderstood what you meant.

All of the above have problems. With solar power there's the issue of unreliability based on the weather; with wind unreliability is even higher; with hydrogen.. where do we get the hydrogen?; and with coal, that's even worse than oil in terms of pollution.

[QUOTE="xhellcatx"]All I know is right NOW... we should stop pointing the freaking fingers at eachother and start FIXING the problem, and then... drop oil all together. Screw the oil industry. We really honestly dont need it anymore. We can use electric, solar, wind, hydrogen... yes even coal. We can use Electric and Hydrogen for cars. They HAVE the technology for it already, but they wont release it. SpartanMSU

They have released it. Nobody wants it. And where do you think that electrical energy is coming from. Out of thin air?

it is not that nobody wants it. The tech is very expensive and people dont wanna spend that kind of money, it is not that they dislike the product, it is that the price point is to high for a regular consumer to purchase.

And to change from oil to electric or hydrogen will take a drastic change in infrastructure and would also cost a lot of money

[QUOTE="xhellcatx"]All I know is right NOW... we should stop pointing the freaking fingers at eachother and start FIXING the problem, and then... drop oil all together. Screw the oil industry. We really honestly dont need it anymore. We can use electric, solar, wind, hydrogen... yes even coal. We can use Electric and Hydrogen for cars. They HAVE the technology for it already, but they wont release it. GabuEx

Wait, "we can use electric"? The point of all of the above is to generate electricity; there's no such thing as an "electric power plant", unless I've misunderstood what you meant.

All of the above have problems. With solar power there's the issue of unreliability based on the weather; with wind unreliability is even higher; with hydrogen.. where do we get the hydrogen?; and with coal, that's even worse than oil in terms of pollution.

Wind energy also affects climate.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="xhellcatx"]All I know is right NOW... we should stop pointing the freaking fingers at eachother and start FIXING the problem, and then... drop oil all together. Screw the oil industry. We really honestly dont need it anymore. We can use electric, solar, wind, hydrogen... yes even coal. We can use Electric and Hydrogen for cars. They HAVE the technology for it already, but they wont release it. Espada12

Wait, "we can use electric"? The point of all of the above is to generate electricity; there's no such thing as an "electric power plant", unless I've misunderstood what you meant.

All of the above have problems. With solar power there's the issue of unreliability based on the weather; with wind unreliability is even higher; with hydrogen.. where do we get the hydrogen?; and with coal, that's even worse than oil in terms of pollution.

Wind energy also affects climate.