Comments on: Study Reveals the Gulf of Mexico Permitting Mess

By: rightlane1111

rightlane1111 — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:15:53 +0000

This is just plain common sense. First…has the government succeeded in anything that benefits the American public? I can’t think of anything that has brought any revenue into the government…not one thing…they are all in the red. Yet, here we are, letting them run energy. Why? Why do we continue to elect people that want more control in Washington? Are we that lazy or stupid? Gee…the Post Office is in the red…Federal. Medicare/Medicaid/SS in the red…no fix…just continue on. Amtrack…in the red. Obamacare…is going to cost us mega money. Student loans under Federal control in Obamacare bill…NEXT BUBBLE TO BURST. Quasi government agencies…Fannie/Freddie…still doing the same thing…loan at 90-125% with no income.

And…I bet you all can think of plenty more.

So…here we are..drilling is down in the Gulf. Obama gave $2 BILLION of our money to Brazil (Petro Bras) to drill where…IN THE GULF OF MEXICO. China needs oil/gas…they are doing “horizontal drilling” off the coast of Cuba…taking it right under the Keys. How many other international oil concerns are drilling in the Gulf? Probably plenty…but we are not getting the results. So…I ask…why are we electing the same dummies back into government…WHY. If the government was so darned concerned with environmental issues…why not make a stink about other government drilling who could care less?

No…I don’t want a “golf cart” type car…run on “expensive electric” batteries. We have lots of oil/gas sources….DO WE LIKE HAVING LESS MONEY? No….BUT OBAMA DOES.

By: ihateliberals

ihateliberals — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:04:42 +0000

n/t

By: brojohn2

brojohn2 — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 12:16:20 +0000

less productivity. The more government is involved in the economy by regulating business the more problems surface, the longer the time for anything to be accomplished the less profit to the company and the greater the cost to them the greater the cost to the consumer. This administration talks about an “all of the above” energy policy, but they really mean, alternative energy above any other. No nuclear, no oil or gas, unless of course it is supplemented by corn or some other product that will take away from the economy, namely the grocery store.

This administration knows only socialist policies, and we see how they work in Europe, soon Europe will begin to look pretty good to those of us who seek free markets, because this president wants to be dictator for life, just like Chavez in Venezuela. Don’t let these people fool you, they are socialist to the core, some even want to see the Soviet Union model instituted here. They will continue to trash the Constitution, they will do all in their power to keep power and destroy anyone who gets in the way.

By: commonsenseobserver

commonsenseobserver — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:02:31 +0000

Will only be strangled by big government crony socialism, which is what I think Romney is targeting.

By: davesinsanantonio

davesinsanantonio — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 09:55:34 +0000

“drill here, drill now” is not the answer, and that we need to pursue alternative sources and forms of energy!

By: Steve Maley

Steve Maley — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 03:16:22 +0000

Most of the permits the BSEE was counting were restarts of operations suspended due to Macondo. Some were batch-drilled wells, suspended at a pipe point to be finished later.

The odd thing is that sidetracks continued to be permitted right through the moratorium. Those permits were easier to get because they were not “new drills”. Completions continued too, even though Macondo was completing, not drilling, when it blew out.

Very little engineering logic applied. Lots of politics.

By: citizenkh

citizenkh — Thu, 31 May 2012 23:03:55 +0000

of those new wells were sidetracks from existing wells and performed with self erecting drilling rigs on existing production platforms?

By: ss396

ss396 — Thu, 31 May 2012 17:38:03 +0000

The AP Fact Check column in today’s Houston Chronicle made a big deal out of the fact that EPA enforcement activities are below those of during the Bush years. This was to counter the claims that over-zealous regulators are impeding development and production.

Of course, they did not bother to inform readers that activity is down by over 1/3 from the Bush years. In light of that, I would certainly hope that enforcement activities are also down. I also expect that the production companies have modified their operations in order to enhance compliance, and that this would also contribute to reducing enforcement activity.

Regulators and auditors always need to find something in order to justify their continued existence, so there will never be 100% compliance. AP Fact Check didn’t bother to point this out, either.