Powered by TypePad

« Traditional Sunday Morning Open Thread | Main | The History Of Corn »

May 30, 2010


L!ink U!nder N!ame.

Eyton and his boss are the subject of Steve McIntyre's latest curiosity.


Is it true that the reason they're drilling far off shore is because they were forced there by regulators, or is it because that's where the oil is? I've heard some people say it was regulation, but I don't know if it's true or not.


It's a combination of both, jimmyk, the largest reserves are in ANWR and the Gulf,
but we can't drill in the former, and now
not even in the latter

Now for the flip side, Jane.

Excellent question, jimmyk, to which I do not know the answer. I suspect they were drilling where the oil is, in hopes of a big payoff, which they obviously got. I think, but do not know, the argument that regulation forced them into risky adventures is a poor one. Sure, regulation has done all sorts of anticompetitive things, but maybe not this one. I think it is Steyn that is laboring under this thought, so it is worth straightening out.

You know the BBC has nearly its entire retirement fund in the Green Tulip Mania, don't you?

Some of the irony that Steve is working with is that BP was just about the 'greenest' of the energy companies. Remember, 'Beyond Petroleum' and their big ventures into alternatives? They are big, big supporters of the AGW scam and now it turns out that they've corporately supported the UN, the IPCC, the attached academies and banks and are probably well represented in the portfolios of Obama's puppetmasters, the Masters of the Universe, like Soros, and Strong, and Stern.


The Esso spill in '69, foreclosed most drilling off California, the Exxon Valdez
closed off ANWR, driving more production toward the Gulf, we should have learned, then this peak oil garbage started filtering through


You're a bad, bad man, McGuire [which is precisely why I read your blog]. ;->=

And it appears that we drill in mile-deep water because we're not allowed to use techniques like slant-drilling from more shallow [and therefore inherently safer for drilling] waters, probably, at heart, for the same reasons it took so long to get the okay to put windmills off Martha's Vinyard -- i.e. way too many 'Greens' who push policies are NIMBYs when it comes to actual work getting done.


LUN: Media being kept away from spill area? Local Coast Guard PR guy says the WH must approve requests, but WH says that's not so. On this, the msm may actually report who's right.


It ain't the guvm't (per se), nor is it BP (though eventually I think they will get their fair share of the blame), it's Obama and his close circle of Harvard-trained activists that's running the government that gets my ire up.

Notice the pattern... Six months or so ago when Obama's hand-picked commander in Afganistan requested more troops, Obama & Co. sat on the request for months "while they studied the situation", and then eventually agreed to send half(?) the troops requested.

When the people of Arizona get so frustrated that they pass a law so they can do something about it, Obama doesn't even recognize the underlying problem and attempt to find some relief for the problem; no, he sics the DOJ onto a study of Arizona's law. And then promises (notice it was just a promise, with no action behind it) to send a fraction (~1/3) of the NG troops requested. Stall, stall, stall - that's this administration's game plan for anything they didn't initiate.

And now we have a real crises in the GOM, and what do Obama & Co. do? Why they study it, they blame everyone else for it, but heaven forbid that they actually do the things that they can do to alleviate the crises - except make photo ops, as if that helps. The situation in the GOM and in Arizona are strikingly similar to me - both of which boil down to creating distractions to prevent having to do anything to help because THE PRESIDENT might be tainted, or get his hands dirty doing what he was elected to do, or thrown off message, or something.

Yet when Obama & Co do want something done, why it's a crises that requires action NOW! The stimulas that wasn't a stimulas, the HC Bill, etc., etc.

This all reminds me of a sports analogy. Imagine that you've a stake in a Super Bowl caliber team. It's late in the season, and a critical game is on the line. Yet the starting quarterback is having an off day. So the coach looks to the young hot-shot replacement on the bench and tells him to go in and take over. The young prima-donna sits there and petulantly thinks about it for a quarter, then calls a news conference (in the middle of the game) to announce how it isn't his fault that the game is so close: it's the other team's fault, it's the coaches fault, it's his own teammates' fault, it's the weather, it's the starting quarterback's fault, and it's not his own game plan. How long will he last?

But we're tolerating the same thing from Obama & Co.? Why isn't it patently obvious to everyone by now that Obama & Co. simply cannot, and will not, handle "ad hoc" situtations that they haven't carefully and fully game-planned in advance?

Frustrated? You bet I'm frustrated! The much touted "transparency" is true after all; it's patently transparent that Obama & Co are the biggest joke ever foisted on America.


The Esso spill in '69, foreclosed most drilling off California, the Exxon Valdez closed off ANWR, driving more production toward the Gulf

The Republicans (especially Sarah) should be making this point: This might never have happened if we'd been allowed to drill on land in ANWR. (I'm not sure it's true--the gulf drilling might have occurred anyway, but it's a good sound bite, and not easy to refute.)

Jane says obamasucks

Well most of us aren't tolerating it Lou - just the media.

Frau Fiesvor

IIRC Steyn quoted Charles Krauthammer.

As for Martha's Vineyards, let's see how long it is before any windmills are installed.

Frau Fiesvor

The prohibition on drilling is going to impact many more industries and workers than just the oil companies.


"The prohibition on drilling"

Will Kill US.

My guess is it will destroy any thing left in the American economy.


What prohibition on drilling?

">http://www.businessinsider.com/20-oil-projects-now-owned-by-china-2010-5"> The Chinese don't seem to have heard about it.


Will kill Us Link Again.

Because the first one didn't work.


Drilling/energy production, illegal immigration, & spending are the 3 areas that I get so mad at Republicans for. Why didn't they address these more when they were in power?
Why are we at this catastrophic place now?
I agree the Dems. are worse, but the Republicans have never had any backbone on these issues. They use them to rile up the base (me), but never get anything done.

Danube of Thought

Janet, to take tem in reverse order: on spending they were inexcusably and recklessly irresponsible, and deserved to get hammered for it; on immigration Bush went along with this mania for "comprehensive" reform, and the public perceived that securing the border was an empty afterthought, so in the end nothing was done; and on energy they were looking at Dem filibusters on ANWR and offshore drilling, so again nothing was done.

But any day when Frank Rich concedes that something is worse for Obama than Katrina was for Bush must be celebrated in its own right.



I share your anger with the last 2 items but the break I'll give the Repub's, at least on Oil, is that they fought hard to Drill ANWR, but Clinton vetoed the Bill and they didn't have anywhere near the votes to override the Veto. Just FYI, the other day in some story talking about Shell's planned (now halted) exploratory drilling of the Chukchi, was the statement that even if it had been allowed to go ahead and was successful, they were looking at a lagtime of many years to actually get the project up and running and shipping product to market. So even if we do get any sanity in DC in the near future, which I doubt, we will still be playing catch-up for a very long time.


I keep pointing out to my associates that the real insanity is not in Washington; the real insanity is that 45-47% of the voters (depending upon which poll) still approve/support Obama. Until that goes way down nothing is going to matter.

What in the heck is going on? The only time the left starts getting antsy is when they wake up in the morning and don't find new talking points with which to rationalize, or point the finger of blame, at some new event that occurred overnight. 45-47% of the lefties are acting like programmed robots to me, and that's the real problem.


"[edited] No goal may be more sweeping than to prove that government is not always a hapless and intrusive bureaucratic assault on taxpayers’ patience and pocketbooks, but a potential force for good."

What faint praise. After 80 years of big government, with government at all levels organizing 40% of all activity, Obama is going to show us that the government is not always a hapless, intrusive, assault on us but is a potential source for some good.

Summary: "Wait guys. Government isn's all bad. I'm sure we'll find something in the future that government does well."

So, this is what a liberal columnist is arguing? Wow. Why do the Democrats or "government" have any supporters at all? If government wasn't collecting and handing out money, people would laugh at the government and walk away.

Some movie had this approximate dialog:
Thug: So man, do you respect me, or just the gun I'm pointing at you?
Person: I respect you, but my view might change if you didn't have the gun.


The BP oil spill has shaken my faith in PC Nobel Prize laureates. Unless they replace Chu with Al Gore, and he handles the situation as deftly as he did the Russian economy's takeover by the "oligarchs," I don't know if I'll recover.

Rick Ballard

"Is it true that the reason they're drilling far off shore is because they were forced there by regulators, or is it because that's where the oil is?"


A very good question which I've been pondering since I read it this morning. Who could provide a believable answer? Windy Pickens? One of Lord Blakfiend's $150 dollar a barrel Vampire Squid energy desk minions? Hugo Chavez? An Obamunist credentialed moron peddling Air Taxes? A Beyond Petroleum exec tasked with illusion creation and maintenance? An Oil Drummer watermelon pimping a return to footpaths and oxcarts?

I wish I could provide an honest answer but I don't believe there's an honest player left in the whole damned game. When I look at gasoline deliveries for the latest six months on a YoY basis and note that the Jan-Feb deliveries were 5% below 1983 levels I'm rather curious just what it is exactly that is propping prices.

Cuz it ain't nothin' to do with supply and demand.


i haven't been able to post for most of the day. You're right Rick, none of those sources
are adequate to explain this situation


“At the end of the day, the government tells BP what to do,” [White House energy and climate adviser Carol] Browner said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Danube of Thought

I attribute the 45-47% support to (a) black and Hispanic respondents and (b) the fact that scores of millions of Americans pay very little attention to political matters except in presidential election years.

Rick Ballard

BP and the WH are now coordinating the message on the leak:

The Government, together with BP, have therefore decided to move to the next step in the subsea operations, the deployment of the Lower Marine Riser Package (LMRP) Cap Containment System.

The article notes that the relief wells are coming along. I'd say this thing is pretty much in hand with BOzo now being cast as savior. If the LMRP doesn't work immediately, it's still in place for when the relief wells take enough pressure off for cementing operations to actually seal the bore.


Here is the latest conspiracy on BP and the WH:

Bombshell expose'. The real reason the oil still flows into the Gulf of Mexico

Considering all the bribes and coercions it took to ram through the healthcare bill,the offering of high level jobs in the executive branch, or anything of value, to influence an election, and all the other lies, I am about to believe anything with this administration.

Note the numerous links and the fact that if you dig a little deeper you will find NALCO is also associated with Warren Buffett, Maurice Strong, Al Gore, Soros, Apollo, Blackstone, Goldman Sachs, Hathaway Berkshire.

Well, it is either true or I am going to have to shave my hair off so it doesn't catch on fire everyday.


--Well, it is either true or I am going to have to shave my hair off so it doesn't catch on fire everyday.--

Hope you look good bald, Ann.

There is a lot more going on here than NALCO.

Very, very interesting, Ann. I've been bothered by two things. One is that a gushing rogue well fits right into the plans of those who want to dominate us with energy controls. The other is that BP(Beyond Petroleum) is situated to become a dominant company in a carbon controlled so called 'green' economy.

That said, I think that both Obama and BP would like the gushing to stop. But what was that about never letting a crisis go to waste? I'm hoping that a crisis will eventually waste this sick bunch.

Drill, Baby, Drill.  Drill here and now, not way off there and ten years from now.

jimmyk and rickb, HughS at Wizbang has a little stuff on your pertinent question, whether or not environmental regulations have pushed oil exploration into deeper waters. Yes, Krauthammer has it, and he's not sloppy, so there may well be a political point there.

connect the dots

Snip: Dr. Chu received the grant from BP’s chief scientist at the time, Steven E. Koonin, a fellow theoretical physicist whom Dr. Chu jocularly described as “my twin brother.”

Snip: Today, Dr. Chu is President Obama’s energy secretary

Snip: Dr. Koonin, who followed Dr. Chu to the Energy Department


Think again, World.  What's that chill from?

It's an evil bunch of thug crooks, ctd, despite their high'falutin' manners. They nearly pulled off the heist of the millenium, but a night watchman in Canada saw a door that had been taped unlockable. The problem now, though the world is on to the theft, is that they have such chutzpah that they continue with the plans for the heist in full public glare.

Well, there's a couple of curious onlookers. The flashing photographers, the cops on the beat, the politicians on the hill, they are all cheering on the thieves, thinking they have the high moral position.

Rick Ballard


Here is a rig data source from which some conclusions may be drawn. Right now the hot oil plays appear to be Brazil and it's offset across the Atlantic in West Africa. Petrobras actually has at least one rig drilling in Angola - the rumors are that the West African deepwater play may well tap into a Tupi size field. The other hot spot is Southeast Asia with a ton of rigs under construction.

I wonder if deep water drilling may also be a response to political risk. It takes a much higher skill set to keep a deep water system functioning than it does to keep the shallow and dry plays going. That means that thugs like Chavez or the Iranian mullahs would have to think a bit longer before grabbing fields and wells.


I would venture to guess that if this well was worth drilling absent ANWR, it would have been worth drilling even if ANWR were available, since it's unlikely the price of oil would be very different. Still, I think it's an effective response to say that rather than reduce drilling, we should be relocating it on land. And if the Republicans want to claim that the spill wouldn't have happened if ANWR had been available, I won't contradict them, since it seems like good politics.

Guess who can see the truth from her back porch?

Yes, I'd agree, but I think it would be nice to know the truth of it. For policy reasons. God knows we need a little truth in policy decisions in energy and climate.


Gotta love the combo of the Gingrich Revolution and Militia Mobilization of 1994-5 from Frank Rich. The man is a total fool.

The comments to this entry are closed.