Yes, I am sure that will do wonders for our economy.

But in all seriousness, that is the stupidest thing we could do right now.

Yes, because I'd rather pay a bajillion dollars a gallon.

No, that's mental. Until the ice melts enough for us to get at the Arctic properly, GOM is the frontier for deepwater drilling- it's where the last of the big fields are being found. It's up there with Northern Iraq and West Africa. To pull the plug on E&P because Transocean can't look after their kit properly is just retarded.

What you should be doing is starting to legislate for much, much more stringent controls on HSE offshore... and onshore, now I think of, impose heavy fines on those that flout them and nationalise your fields- that way your country will make much more money from them than it does now.

In short, you want to do it like these people http://www.npd.no/en/

What sort of retard would actually take this suggestion seriously?

Hugo Chavez should have...ANOTHER leak?? Sounds like they have better plans for this one...and a safety valve. Look how they work BP.

Gulf oil spill: Natural-gas rig sinks off Venezuela

That's like saying one doctor f*cked up, so we should ban all doctors.

I'd rather not pay $8 a gallon, thanks.

Well that would probably be the best idea if you were looking out for the environment so that more oil wouldn't happen to spill out into the ocean while there is already tons there but probably not a smart economic move.

no we need to go further, and get rid of oil entirely. Funny how our current government pushes that "green" "global warming" and "carbon footprint" nonsense while doing NOTHING to move toward oil alternatives. Golly, why would that be so?

I don't think they should stop drilling, but the new proposal to add more platforms in the gulf and eastern seaboard should be put on hold until they fire Halliburton as concrete supplier, come up with something better than a 'Tophat' and crack cold fusion.

Uhh definately not.

I'm going to assume whoever asked this question is either A) five years old or B) has an IQ of a similar number

I doubt that will happen, despite all his eco-promises...

Green Groups Again Call on Obama to Ban New Offshore Oil Drilling

I thought his administration was for more offshore oil drilling, if anything.

That's a good thing btw. Less dependence on the middle east and stuff.

I can't imagine any 'real' reason to be against it other than vested interest in middle east oil trading. The environmental concern is at best a smokescreen, given added credence by the very real crisis going on right now.

WTF is right, it's all you can say...

WTF: Louisiana Governor Calls for More Offshore Drilling

More offshore drilling is actually a pretty good idea you know.

On Thursday 6/3/10 - 3:53:45 PM KikiPeepers wrote: WTF is right, it's all you can say... [link]

Consider how many wells have been extracting oil offshore for quite a few years without incident.

It seems a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to ban offshore drilling because of this one well. It's kinda like banning cars or air travel because people got killed in a crash...

I think it should at least be 'banned' until we make sure every pipe and every rig is safe and can't do this ... safety measures weren't in place, and from the news articles coming out, disasters are so ready to be sprung that it's surprising it hasn't happened more often. If we MUST use oil, let's find a way to do it without putting oceans and wildlife and fishermen and everyone affected in harm's way. It's 2010, I think we can come up with something. BP HAD something to stop this from happening and they just didn't use it.

On Thursday 6/3/10 - 4:11:02 PM KikiPeepers wrote: I think it should at least be 'banned' until we make sure every pipe and every rig is safe and can't do this ... safety measures weren't in place, and from the news articles coming out, disasters are so ready to be sprung that it's surprising it hasn't happened more often. If we MUST use oil, let's find a way to do it without putting oceans and wildlife and fishermen and everyone affected in harm's way. It's 2010, I think we can come up with something. BP HAD something to stop this from happening and they just didn't use it.

What didn't BP use to stop this from happening?

...besides, if BP indeed could have used something to stop this from happening, doesn't that mean that these offshore oil rigs can be safe?

On Thursday 6/3/10 - 4:24:20 PM CowDung wrote: What didn't BP use to stop this from happening?

They didn't use these safety measures, because they were trying to cut costs. With them, this wouldn't have happened...

http://www.newinweekly.net/?p=163

So it would seem that this type of thing really isn't all that likely to be repeated...

Is it possible that the valve they are claiming to have been missing is actually the blowout preventer that was found to be leaking?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100512...

It sounds more like an equipment failure/malfunction than a case of not using a safety measure...

...and wouldn't it be more reliable to link to actual news sources rather than blog articles that quote 'lawyer-environmentalists' instead of BP spokespeople or Federal investigators?

Yeah the BP spokepeople are SO much more unbiased (-| ... They're the morons still saying only 5000 gallons are leaking daily and that they'll 'clean every drop of oil' and 'restore the Gulf'.

Is the Wall Street Journal credible enough for you? Or The Guardian? These safety measures that weren't put into place are widely documented - BP officials have even said they aren't used often because of the cost.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...

Yes, those are much better sources. I'm not sure why you don't post them more often instead of your 'treehugger.com' type of stuff.

...and the WSJ article seems to confirm that the 'missing' acoustic valve is indeed the blowout preventer that was determined to be leaking, not missing.