• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump administration plans to allow drilling off all U.S. waters

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
There's a hole in the bottom of the sea
There's a hole in the bottom of the sea
There's a hole, there's a hole
There's a hole in the bottom of the sea.

There's a pipe in the hole in the bottom of the sea
There's a pipe in the hole in the bottom of the sea
There's a pipe, there's a pipe
There's a pipe in the hole in the bottom of the sea.

There's a pump in the pipe in the hole in the bottom of the sea
There's a pump in the pipe in the hole in the bottom of the sea
There's a pump, there's a pump
There's a pump in the pipe in the hole in the bottom of the sea

There's a leak in the pump in the pipe in the hole in the bottom of the sea
There's a leak in the pump in the pipe in the hole in the bottom of the sea
There's a leak, there's a leak
There's a leak in the pump in the pipe in the hole in the bottom of the sea

There's oil in the leak in the pump in the pipe in the hole in the bottom of the sea
There's oil in the leak in the pump in the pipe in the hole in the bottom of the sea
There's oil, there's oil
There's oil in the leak in the pump in the pipe in the hole in the bottom of the sea

There's a bird in the oil in the leak in the pump in the pipe in the hole in the bottom of the sea
There's a bird in the oil in the leak in the pump in the pipe in the hole in the bottom of the sea
There's a bird, there's a bird
There's a bird in the oil in the leak in the pump in the pipe in the hole in the bottom of the sea
 
ivwshane said:
Back in the day (like in 2009-2016), the right would have been yelling "crony capitalism". Now a days though, they don't even acknowledge it.
Click to expand...

Acknowledge it? It is now the party's motto. I think their vision statement now reads: crony capitalism; GMFY.
 
Zinke partially removes head from ass to un-piss off potential FL Senate candidate:

rFAS4n8.png
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Why? Worst case is that a Republican running for Florida Senate gets credit from some people for fighting for the environment.
Never forget and keep score.
https://www.270towin.com/2018-senate-election/
Click to expand...

Scott has a problematic past on this issue as he previously supported drilling. Resurfacing it isn't at all helpful to his bid even if he got Interior to back off. Will still be used, possibly effectively, against him by Bill Nelson.

Also the problem with being so transparently transactional just here is that there are other GOP governors and congress people who will want the same exemption. For example costal CA Republicans who helped push the tax bill through are going to be left twisting in the wind which makes more retirements likely and harder to find plausible candidates.
 
I'm no legal scholar but I wonder if Interior can be sued over process (angry Scott calling Zinke/Trump) to exclude FL from the plan given the reasons cited and not other states that request to be withdrawn. Federal processes usually have some restrictions on how arbitrarily decisions can be made (not very).
 
Sure helps to be the GOP governor of a large swing state to get some influence with the Trump Administration. Apparently that part of the swamp wasn't drained.

As for California, good luck. You actually have oil offshore and there is not a chance in a million that state will go GOP in a presidential race. I don't feel the least bit sorry for GOP representatives from that state who voted for the tax restructuring bill. That bill was intentionally designed to hurt blue states and help red ones.
 
Thump553 said:
As for California, good luck. You actually have oil offshore and there is not a chance in a million that state will go GOP in a presidential race. I don't feel the least bit sorry for GOP representatives from that state who voted for the tax restructuring bill. That bill was intentionally designed to hurt blue states and help red ones.
Click to expand...

Even if CA doesn't get withdrawn, and they might via legal challenge I think, the state will make such development incredibly unwelcome if not technically impossible.
 
K1052 said:
Even if CA doesn't get withdrawn, and they might via legal challenge I think, the state will make such development incredibly unwelcome if not technically impossible.
Click to expand...

Yes, from my (limited!) understanding it's fairly easy for those states to make oil drilling economically infeasible. The easiest way is to simply ban any pipelines from the ocean to the shore, meaning all oil produced by the platform would have to be picked up by ships.

This is yet another example of a very disturbing and ongoing trend in US politics however, where states and the federal government are becoming more explicitly adversarial. You definitely saw some of it coming from the states in the past as they tried to sabotage the ACA but that policy was at least implemented evenly on a national level. (if anything it actually helped the sabotaging states more on average, but I digress) Now we appear to have national policies being enacted to explicitly favor/disfavor states based on their partisan identification. Attacking your political enemies through policy is unsustainable for a functioning democracy but I don't think conservatives realize that. Could get ugly.
 
fskimospy said:
Yes, from my (limited!) understanding it's fairly easy for those states to make oil drilling economically infeasible. The easiest way is to simply ban any pipelines from the ocean to the shore, meaning all oil produced by the platform would have to be picked up by ships.

This is yet another example of a very disturbing and ongoing trend in US politics however, where states and the federal government are becoming more explicitly adversarial. You definitely saw some of it coming from the states in the past as they tried to sabotage the ACA but that policy was at least implemented evenly on a national level. (if anything it actually helped the sabotaging states more on average, but I digress) Now we appear to have national policies being enacted to explicitly favor/disfavor states based on their partisan identification. Attacking your political enemies through policy is unsustainable for a functioning democracy but I don't think conservatives realize that. Could get ugly.
Click to expand...

I’m no expert either but I’m sure there is a huge list of ways a state could make it difficult like just bust balls on everything
Extra safe oil containers for trucks and storage
Mandatory break times for people in high stress positions that handle the oil
Huge fines for oil spills
Perpetual inspection for oil spills
Perpetual safety inspections
 
fskimospy said:
Yes, from my (limited!) understanding it's fairly easy for those states to make oil drilling economically infeasible. The easiest way is to simply ban any pipelines from the ocean to the shore, meaning all oil produced by the platform would have to be picked up by ships.

This is yet another example of a very disturbing and ongoing trend in US politics however, where states and the federal government are becoming more explicitly adversarial. You definitely saw some of it coming from the states in the past as they tried to sabotage the ACA but that policy was at least implemented evenly on a national level. (if anything it actually helped the sabotaging states more on average, but I digress) Now we appear to have national policies being enacted to explicitly favor/disfavor states based on their partisan identification. Attacking your political enemies through policy is unsustainable for a functioning democracy but I don't think conservatives realize that. Could get ugly.
Click to expand...

On an even larger scale CA is considering banning the sale of gasoline powered cars at some point in the future. The short term gain for the oil sector to have access to the CA costal reserves could lead to an enormous long term loss if CA picked an aggressive date (say 2030). Also other liberal states would probably follow their lead in time. This whole effort just seems very poorly thought out, which I guess is par for the course.
 
darkswordsman17 said:
Until the oil and dead organisms from a spill start washing up onshore...
Click to expand...

Shrug, there are tons of tankers and supertankers that sail right off the coast that could potentially spill a metric shit ton of oil on to its shores. Granted it is funny that he exempted Florida and only Florida so far, especially given his stated reasons.
 
Darwin333 said:
Shrug, there are tons of tankers and supertankers that sail right off the coast that could potentially spill a metric shit ton of oil on to its shores. Granted it is funny that he exempted Florida and only Florida so far, especially given his stated reasons.
Click to expand...

They could, but all you have to do is look at the beaches of Texas and compare them to the beaches of the west coast of Florida and you'll see the difference when you have oil rigs directly offshore. A huge part of Florida's economy is based on having pristine beaches. Florida might gain a few billion a year in GDP from the oil rigs, but we have to be careful we don't impact it's combined $200b+ real estate and tourism of the west coast.

The grim reality is that oil is dirty as hell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top