The mortality rate in this movie always bugged me. I mean, sure, maybe they were in the north atlantic and everyone else freezed to death, but you can't tell me only a single tiny group of people got out of the hull itself.

Cato Institute:

Established: 1977
Founders: Edward Crane and Charles G. Koch
President: Edward Crane

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/cato-institute

Cato Institute was founded by Ed Crane with a $500,000 grant from Charles Koch, a chemical and petroleum heir who was active with Crane in the Libertarian Party.

Cato's corporate sponsors include: Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Bell Atlantic Network Services, BellSouth Corporation, Digital Equipment Corporation, GTE Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, Netscape Communications Corporation, NYNEX Corporation, Sun Microsystems, Viacom International, American Express, Chase Manhattan Bank, Chemical Bank, Citicorp/Citibank, Commonwealth Fund, Prudential Securities and Salomon Brothers. Energy conglomerates include: Chevron Companies, Exxon Company, Shell Oil Company and Tenneco Gas, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Foundation and Atlantic Richfield Foundation. Cato's pharmaceutical donors include Eli Lilly & Company, Merck & Company and Pfizer, Inc.

Other non-Bush Administration alumni include former board members: Rupert Murdoch and Theodore J. Forstmann, also founding chairman of Empower America, now FreedomWorks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreedomWorks

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Keane - Atlantic. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Ya man, its terrible. I live over here in texas so it should be slowly circling around here

And they haven't even plugged it yet, chances are this could affect the greater Atlantic waters as well. The only good thing is that perhaps this will light the fire so to speak on cleaner energy coming to fruition some time soon. And it only took destroying our gulf for 200 years!

In reply to this comment by NobleOne:
Yes, you said it the gulf is dead...This is America's worst nightmare...right now i am living in FL lucky for me it is only till Nov. Though right now it is hurricane season till i leave. The sad part is even the local morning news acts if everything is alright i guess not to depress the shit out people or cause mass rioting. The shit that is happening to the Gulf is or could be quite apocalyptic for this region of the United States...

I think that Zakaria was trying to make the point that the media was more concerned about what the president appeared to be doing about the oil spill, and about how he appeared to feel about it, but maybe I'm wrong.

However, I pretty much agree with Carville on this one, and I can't claim to be a fan of his.

If we couldn't do more about the spill, I think that more could have been done to protect the shores, at the very least.

I hate to say it, because it gives the cons on the web very tight pants and palpitating heart rates, but Obama has not taken this seriously enough.

This thing has the potential to haunt us for generations, not just a few months.

This thing can create dead zones the size of a floating state of Texas in not only the gulf, but in the Atlantic as well.

This is a greater threat to our country and its welfare than 9/11.

[redacted]

>> ^blankfist:

Do you mind citing?


I did some figurin' using ANWR's numbers, back when the Right was making a big stink about it, since it's the favorite one to get trotted out. At peak output (which it wouldn't reach for more than a decade if we opened it now), it would account for less than a million barrels a day -- ~0.5 to 1.0% of total global oil production (which is ~85 million barrels a day) and <5% of (current) US oil consumption (~20 million barrels a day).

If it were possible to exhume all of ANWR's estimated oil (7 billion barrels) in one go, it would last the United States one year.

So that's just ANWR--but what about all of the other off-limits places? Here's the EIA's report. In short: If the outer continental shelf were opened now, nothing much would change through 2030. There's an estimated (undiscovered) total of 50 billion barrels of oil that are currently off limits to drilling. Total US production would be 1.6% higher than the reference (no OCS drilling) projection for 2017-2030, and 3% in 2030. Finally,

Although a significant volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources is added in the OCS access case, conversion of those resources to production would require both time and money. In addition, the average field size in the Pacific and Atlantic regions tends to be smaller than the average in the Gulf of Mexico, implying that a significant portion of the additional resource would not be economically attractive to develop at the reference case prices.

More numbers: In 2008 the entire world produced ~26 billion barrels of oil and the US produced about 1.8 billion--which will stay essentially flat through 2030 even if we opened ANWR and the OCS to drilling.

The US's total proven oil reserves are about 21 billion barrels--maybe a total of ~120 if you go with estimated undiscovered oil--compared to 1200 billion (proven) for the entire world.

Sorry for some inconsistent numbers: Figures are from 2007, 2008, and 2009, so there are some inconsistencies there. I think I properly kept barrels per day lumped together and barrels per year lumped together.

But anyway: The US has a total of less than two percent of the world's proven oil reserves. We currently produce around 5-6% of oil. Oil is a commodity and gets sold on the world market; more than a fifth of US oil is exported even while we're using 4x as much as we produce. Opening protected areas to drilling would have a marginal impact on total US oil production and an even more marginal impact on world oil production.

Oil reserves.
ANWR oil reserves. Sorry for Wikipedia links--you can follow their citations.

Edit: I used this page too.

>> ^quantumushroom:

"Here's my question: Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?
Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we've had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge...."
http://tinyurl.com/3afklpq
--Charles Krauthammer


I tried to rape her from the front but she said no. It's her own fault I had to rape her from behind.

>> ^quantumushroom:
"Here's my question: Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?
Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we've had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge...."
http://tinyurl.com/3afklpq
--Charles Krauthammer


QM just wants the most negative votes ever on the Video Sift site. That is an accomplishment I reckon.

Why are oil thiefs out 5000 feet? For greed.

"Here's my question: Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?

Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we've had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge...."

http://tinyurl.com/3afklpq

--Charles Krauthammer

>> ^NordlichReiter:

>> ^Hive13:
Not to point out the obvious here, but Palm Beach is on the Atlantic side of Florida and is not near the threatened area from the oil spill. Fish die and are washed up on shore all the time. There is still a small possibility that these fish were killed from oil spillage, but I would say the possibility is slim.

I'd be more inclined to believe it was oil if the video was taken from a beach in Sarasota or something like that.


That makes much more sense.

>> ^Hive13:

Not to point out the obvious here, but Palm Beach is on the Atlantic side of Florida and is not near the threatened area from the oil spill. Fish die and are washed up on shore all the time. There is still a small possibility that these fish were killed from oil spillage, but I would say the possibility is slim.


I'd be more inclined to believe it was oil if the video was taken from a beach in Sarasota or something like that.

Not to point out the obvious here, but Palm Beach is on the Atlantic side of Florida and is not near the threatened area from the oil spill. Fish die and are washed up on shore all the time. There is still a small possibility that these fish were killed from oil spillage, but I would say the possibility is slim.

[redacted]

proof?
ok..lets use the same anecdotal evidence you used from the very SAME interview.
http://videosift.com/video/60-Minutes-Deepwater-Horizon-s-Blowout-Part-1
part 2.
http://videosift.com/video/60-Minutes-Deepwater-Horizon-s-Blowout-Part-2
notice anything that may ADD to what you posted?
would you like me to post the senate hearings from c-span while those companies involved all try to pass the buck?
would you like me to also post the comparisons of regulations comparing the countries in the north atlantic with the USA?
or the fines over the past ten years levied against haliburton for similar malfeasance?
would you like me to spoon feed this to you?


listen man.
you want to believe this was all just a small random quirky accident that nothing or nobody could have stopped..well,that is your choice.
but dont come to the table with that flimsy flaccid thing you call an argument,because it is small,wimpy and weak.
the next time you want to spout off do a bit of leg work so you dont get tagged in the nose.
you have a right to your opinion but not to your own facts.
and the fact is:BP used political influence to avoid having to keep safety standards by having regulations thrown out the window.the result of this was 11 dead and whole communities and eco-systems wasted.
so you call this a random freak accident.
well..sure.you are correct..
BUT if BP had been forced to be inspected every month and haliburton had to keep strict production values.
FOUR failsafes would have never failed.
at least not all of them at the same time.
and then...using your anecdotal premise...look at how the BP manager dealt with the destroyed rubber.
so you are right about the freakishness of the events but EACH one was due to malfeasance on BP's part.
why?
greed and profit.