Time to Reconsider Off shore drilling in Lake Michigan?

**rb336** · May-03-10, 03:24 PM

Exxon did a better job than they are given credit for. My cousin actually made more in the clean up than he usually did fishing [[then his wife made him quit fishing and get a land-based job...)

of course, if they had switched out to a double-hull for $300 million, they may well have saved a lot of money [[is the phase-out still set for 2015, or did that go away?)

what toubles me is that BP is starting with the Blame Game now. If it really WAS Transocean at fault, if i were a BP shareholder, I would be curious why they aren't sticking them with the bill. From a PR standpoint, I wonder how wise it was to say "yup, our responsibility" and later try to shift the blame.

This thing is a freak accident, seriously. much more so than a drunk guy plowing a ship onto the shoals. yes, it is tragic, but the overall safety record of those rigs is very good. much better than, say, coal mines or refineries

**Papasito** · May-03-10, 03:35 PM

you said : "Exxon never paid their bill"

that implies they paid nothing at all.

**oldredfordette** · May-03-10, 06:36 PM

I'll try that next time I go to dinner. I'll pay some of it, and walk away from the rest, then get a lawyer to delay payment, and lie about the whole thing. Good plan!

**Diehard** · May-03-10, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by 3WC

Oldredfordette says: " Exxon never paid their [[sic) bill, what makes you think BP will?" Where do you come up with such ridiculous statements? What do you know about the Exxon situation? Do you have even the slightest idea of what Exxon paid? Do you have any basis whatsoever for making such an ignorant statement?

1Kielson, who knows less about most things than others, of course chimes in with his agreement. Surprise, surprise. Dumb and dumber.

The fact is that Exxon paid all of the required cleanup costs and substantial punitive damages as well.

Having been to Alaska many, many times, and owning property there, and after having talked with many commercial fishermen in Kodiac [[where I own property), I know for a fact that Exxon fulfilled more than its legal obligations to everyone.

I own a marine lien on a commercial fishing vessel owned by a friend who was a commercial fisherman during the spill period [[and he still is, one of the best), and he made a fortune working for Exxon during that period. Hundreds of commercial fishermen, who couldn't fish until the spill was cleaned up, worked for Exxon hauling and setting booms, and made far more money than they would have fishing. They're called "spillionaires."

Last September, he received a check in the amount of $44,000 as his share of the punitive damages award. He was not happy with the amount, but freely admits that he made rather than lost money as a result of the spill. His experience is typical.

There are so many nonsensical, idiotic, ignorant comments on these threads, usually unchallenged, that one wonders if it's worth reading some of these comments even for their entertainment value.

I'm wondering when you're going to get around to mentioning that you are in the oil exploration field and have made a lot of money from it over the years. Does that cloud your impartiality just a bit?
The fact that you see only money and opportunity in an environmental disaster is ludicrous. You're saying the Exxon Valdez was a good thing because all those fishermen whose livelihoods were ruined made some money in cleaning up the spill that ruined their livelihoods? Are you rubbing your hands and cackling like Mr. Burns at the sight of the ever-growing disaster down south?
Some of the "Idiotic, ignorant" people you're insulting here would have preferred that all that oil stayed inside the tankers.

**Papasito** · May-04-10, 07:53 AM

Orf, I'm not making Exxon out to be a hero, I'm just saying they did pay out some money. I'm sure there's tons of people who think it wasn't nearly enough.

The point of my thread was that the full power of the Federal Government should have been immediately dispatched when this oil disaster occurred. Now it's washing up on our beaches because they dragged thier feet responding.

Some people try to derail threads like these by making the "alternative energy" point, because they are raging that we still use oil in the first place. Truth is, most Americans don't care where thier power is coming from, be it a windmill, a coal powered plant, a solar farm, or a hydroelectric dam, as long as when they plug in thier TV or turn on thier Air Conditioner it works. Honestly I am sick and tired of the alternative energy argument. I have no problem with shutting down big oil and evil devil coal as long as I have electricity at the same price I pay now, and my truck has fuel and takes me where I want to go. So what's the holdup? Why aren't these folks putting thier money where thier mouth is if alternative energy is as doable, practical, and necessary as they make it out to be? Guys like Michael Moore, Al Gore, and Soros need to put thier money where thier mouth is or stfu because I dont see a megawindturbine or a solar farm going up down the street from my local coalfired power plant anytime soon.....

**Detroitej72** · May-04-10, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by Diehard

You're saying the Exxon Valdez was a good thing because all those fishermen whose livelihoods were ruined made some money in cleaning up the spill that ruined their livelihoods? Are you rubbing your hands and cackling like Mr. Burns at the sight of the ever-growing disaster down south?

I'm sure some were happy when Chernobyl blew because of the wonderful job openings cleaning that mess too.

Anyone who thinks an environmental disaster is great for commerce is an idiot, plain and simple. You can't put a price on the devastation and destruction of a habitat and to do so shows that all you value in life is the almighty dollar.

**Diehard** · May-04-10, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by Papasito

Some people try to derail threads like these by making the "alternative energy" point, because they are raging that we still use oil in the first place.

Ever seen a "wind spill" or a "geothermic meltdown"? There's a very good reason people are calling for clean energy - because it's not volatile, explosive, polluting and potentially threatening to the entire globe. It also doesn't require us to borrow money from China and hand it to nations that want to kill us. But none of that's important, right?

Truth is, most Americans don't care where thier power is coming from, be it a windmill, a coal powered plant, a solar farm, or a hydroelectric dam, as long as when they plug in thier TV or turn on thier Air Conditioner it works.

Tell that to the people on the coast watching the oil slick approach and stepping over dead sea turtles. What a dumb, selfish, short-sighted ugly American attitude you have. Environmental disasters, the kind that kill wildlife, destroy people's livelihoods and poison the water and air are OK with you, as long as you're fat and spoiled and don't have to see it. But believe it or not, you WILL see it, soon enough. The fallout will hit you in your precious pocketbook.

Honestly I am sick and tired of the alternative energy argument. I have no problem with shutting down big oil and evil devil coal as long as I have electricity at the same price I pay now

Not for long.

and my truck has fuel and takes me where I want to go.

Of course you drive a truck. A big, badass truck, right?

So what's the holdup? Why aren't these folks putting thier money where thier mouth is if alternative energy is as doable, practical, and necessary as they make it out to be?

Because Bush and the GOP sold out our country to Big Oil? Because our entire infratstructure was built for fossil fuels and nobody wants to be the bad guy who dares to spend a few tax dollars to update it? Because fat, spoiled, stupid voters don't want to pay a penny more for their air conditioning? Because there are still people with shortsighted, dumb attitudes like yours getting in the way?

Guys like Michael Moore, Al Gore, and Soros need to put thier money where thier mouth is or stfu because I dont see a megawindturbine or a solar farm going up down the street from my local coalfired power plant anytime soon.....

Those guys aren't elected officials. They don't have control over tax dollars and infrastructure. They're advocates calling for our elected officials who do have that power to do the right thing. They ARE doing what they can, which is to speak often and loudly about how f'ed up things are now.

**Diehard** · May-04-10, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

I'm sure some were happy when Chernobyl blew because of the wonderful job openings cleaning that mess too.

Anyone who thinks an environmental disaster is great for commerce is an idiot, plain and simple. You can't put a price on the devastation and destruction of a habitat and to do so shows that all you value in life is the almighty dollar.

I'm sure the fine folks who poison the air and sea in their quest for the almighty dollar will glady sell you a gas mask and bottled water, too. At premium prices, of course, since you'll need them for your very survival.

**3WC** · May-04-10, 08:10 PM

Sigh. Did you, oldredford, think I wasn't going to read the material in the three links you posted. Well, I did. You should be embarrassed posting that stuff to support your animosity towards Exxon. Two of the links were to dated comments asserted by a law firm representing some aggrieved Alaskans and the other by a group of aggrieved Alaskans. Both were written before the litigation was completed. Neither article had an unbiased word in them, and no verified facts to support their whining. The third blog was very funny. The author claimed that Exxon didn't really pay $3.4 billion in damages because they had tax credits and a considerable amount of insurance so it only cost Exxon $1,776,000,000. Do you think the tooth fairy just dropped that insurance money on Exxon? Who do you think paid the premiums for years without such a claim? Exxon's not a citizen entitled to whatever benefits are available to them? Talk about fuzzy thinkin.

What neither you nor yor bloggers ever stated, much less proved, is your contention that Exxon did not satisfy its obligations. It paid every cent and much more of every one of its obligations to the Federal Government, State of Alaska and the aggrieved citizens. Why not just admit your allegation to the contrary is simply wrong?

By the way, none of the aggrieved citizens refused to accept the annual payments of about $1700 to every man woman and child from the state's oil revenues. Year after year. At that time of year each year everyone loves the oil companies.

Finally, the Good Friday earthquake and tsunami in 1964 wiped out the city of Valdez and much of Kodiac. The tsunami killed a thousand times more fish, sea otters and birds etc than the Exxon Valdez oil spill [[which was analogized by a leading environmental professor at the U. of AK - Fairbanks as akin to one drop of oil dropped into an average sized bathtub.)

Diehard: What version of the English language did you study in whatever school you may have attended? [[BTW, I've stated many times on here that I'm in the oil business. What makes you think I'd be biased? I could care less what happens to Exxon in a case like this. They screwed up and paid the price. I just appreciate people familiarizing themselves with the facts, whatever the issue,and few people on this forum ever do that.)

You refer to me as seeing "only money and and opportunity in an environmental disaster." You're the one who is ludicrous if you believe I stated or implied any such thing. Reading comprehension problem?

Then you state I think the Exxon oil spill was a good thing because fishermen made money off it. I should be insulted but I'll consider the source.

The fact is I have been a member of the Sierra Club for almost 45 years [[well before guys like Carl Pope took it over and milk their $750,000 a year base salaries off the folks and flit around by Lear jet when the mood strikes.) I've backpacked over many areas of Alaska for years and appreciate the beauty of nature as much as anyone. I do think that that the oil spill was a bad thing but I long ago ceased looking at the world through rose colored glasses and realize that accidents happen and one must make the best of them. Your comments about me are pathetic and so must you be.

Anybody see what crude oil does to growing wheat. We have several small spills a year, usually in the wheat or cotton fields. When we do, we pay for the damaged wheat or cotton. That's it. However, the next growing season it's easy to locate the previous year's spills because the wheat growing on them is much greener and is several inches taller than the wheat around it. Crude is great fertilizer.

**Diehard** · May-05-10, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by 3WC

Finally, the Good Friday earthquake and tsunami in 1964 wiped out the city of Valdez and much of Kodiac. The tsunami killed a thousand times more fish, sea otters and birds etc than the Exxon Valdez oil spill [[which was analogized by a leading environmental professor at the U. of AK - Fairbanks as akin to one drop of oil dropped into an average sized bathtub.)

So that makes an oil spill OK, in your eyes? The oil spill was preventable. Earthquakes and tsunamis are not.

Diehard: What version of the English language did you study in whatever school you may have attended?

Well, that's a first. People sometimes attack me for my opinions, but I've never had a comment on my English skills. What, pray tell, did I spell wrong or state in a grammatically wrong fashion? Not that it makes any difference, but you brought it up.

[[BTW, I've stated many times on here that I'm in the oil business.

You didn't on this thread until I prodded you to do so.

What makes you think I'd be biased?

Because you've stated before that you're in the oil business and have made a lot of money from it?

I could care less what happens to Exxon in a case like this. They screwed up and paid the price. I just appreciate people familiarizing themselves with the facts, whatever the issue,and few people on this forum ever do that.)

I don't know the details of the Exxon settlement, and thus did not comment on it.

You refer to me as seeing "only money and and opportunity in an environmental disaster." You're the one who is ludicrous if you believe I stated or implied any such thing. Reading comprehension problem?

OK, let's go to the tape. Ahem:
May 3, 10:15 a.m.: "I own a marine lien on a commercial fishing vessel owned by a friend who was a commercial fisherman during the spill period [[and he still is, one of the best), and he made a fortune working for Exxon during that period. Hundreds of commercial fishermen, who couldn't fish until the spill was cleaned up, worked for Exxon hauling and setting booms, and made far more money than they would have fishing. They're called 'spillionaires.'
Last September, he received a check in the amount of $44,000 as his share of the punitive damages award. He was not happy with the amount, but freely admits that he made rather than lost money as a result of the spill. His experience is typical."
And not a peep about the negative effects of a catastrophic oil spill. That sounds a lot like you're seeing dollar signs and nothing else. Maybe that's just my comprehension, though.

Then you state I think the Exxon oil spill was a good thing because fishermen made money off it.

Then tell us what you really think. Please elaborate and clarify your previous comments if I somehow misconstrued them.

I should be insulted but I'll consider the source.

I don't care about your opinion of me, but a personal jab like that doesn't advance your position or make you look any smarter.

The fact is I have been a member of the Sierra Club for almost 45 years [[well before guys like Carl Pope took it over and milk their $750,000 a year base salaries off the folks and flit around by Lear jet when the mood strikes.) I've backpacked over many areas of Alaska for years and appreciate the beauty of nature as much as anyone.

Good. That speaks volumes.

I do think that that the oil spill was a bad thing but I long ago ceased looking at the world through rose colored glasses and realize that accidents happen and one must make the best of them.

First of all, why do you minimize a major environmental catastrophe as an "accident"? Second, didn't you see it as a wake-up call to prevent future disasters? The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico never should have happened. It was preventable, and shouldn't be brushed off as an "accident."

Your comments about me are pathetic and so must you be.

That really hurts, dude.

Anybody see what crude oil does to growing wheat. We have several small spills a year, usually in the wheat or cotton fields. When we do, we pay for the damaged wheat or cotton. That's it. However, the next growing season it's easy to locate the previous year's spills because the wheat growing on them is much greener and is several inches taller than the wheat around it. Crude is great fertilizer.

That makes sense, seeing as how it's formed by decomposing organic matter. I'd love to see a study on that. Got a link?