I regret that I responded

Yes, I think we can all agree on that.

Mike,

You know DW reminds me of an equally obnoxious chap named Doc Washboard who once posted here and a couple of other places I frequented.

I wonder if they’re related.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Dim Wit: We are overquota for more of your bile laced rants devoid of content or meaning today. Pass it along on another thread if you want, but this one is closed to any more of your buffoonery for at least 24 hours.

You’ve been proven WRONG so many times I don’t see the point in continuing.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

It’s interesting how messages I post that A) take you down on the facts, B) take you down on the logic, or C) explicate in a step-by-step fashion precisely how your latest series of posts makes you look like a deceitful fool seem to get disappeared.

This most recent instance was certainly not because I made fun of your handle, of course. Of course not, because you’re all about the namecalling, right? Right? Are you about ready to start thinking about truly unleashing the full fury of your namecalling yet?

If you were half as smart as you seem to think you are, you might be nearly an eighth as smart as you’d need to be to perform this task well.

Like I said earlier: low-hanging fruit.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

That’s right. Dim Wit, or Doc as he used to be called, is constantly demanding full and complete up to date documentation of EVERY claim or assertion that ANYONE ELSE wants to make and he simply cannot live by that same standard.

You’re asking me to provide proof for an assertion that I never made. I’ll do my level best to provide proof for the assertions I do make, but history has shown that you will disregard those proofs simply because you feel like it.

You are the one who has insisted on restricting me to “oil and gas platforms.” It’s a dishonest and pointless restriction for this discussion.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Can you provide for us, DW, something, anything which shows that there were oil spills during Katrina or Rita as a result of damage to “oil and gas platforms”?

No, I can’t. Nor do I have to.

That’s right. Dim Wit, or Doc as he used to be called, is constantly demanding full and complete up to date documentation of EVERY claim or assertion that ANYONE ELSE wants to make and he simply cannot live by that same standard.

It has been shown above where he used misleading information to try and make a claim that the statements I made in the post were false. Instead, it is he who consistently demonstrates a total lack of any intellectual integrity on this issue as well as many others.

This is further proof, not that any were needed, of the derangement which comes from investing in a delusional ideology of hate for the last 7 years.

It is really a sad sight to behold, but in Dim Wit’s case and in so many others, they have only themselves to blame.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Can you provide for us, DW, something, anything which shows that there were oil spills during Katrina or Rita as a result of damage to “oil and gas platforms”?

No, I can’t. Nor do I have to. Hurricane Katrina was a MikesAmerica red herring. The comments in this thread kicked off with a discussion of ANWR, and I regret that I responded to Mike’s distraction.

I’m not saying that we should not drill in the Gulf of Mexico, and you look like an ass when you pretend that I am saying that.

Also: the emphasis on “oil and gas platforms” is dishonest. You’re pretending that the actual drilling platform is the only component of a drilling operation. I guess you could take it even further if you’d like, by asking, “Can you provide us any proof that there has ever been an oil spill on account of an oilworker’s hard hat?” The answer to that would be, “Well, no, but that doesn’t mean that oil spills are unrelated to oil extraction.”

On the other hand, in another thread I provided several links’ worth of proof that the oil extraction process–including storage and transport–causes pollution in the Alaska oilfields.

Also, could you point me in the direction of information regarding the last Category 3, 4, or 5 hurricane that has struck Alaska because, you know, if there’s gonna be a storm of that consequence then perhaps we should look at the storage tank issue.

Oh, almost forgot. While you’re searching for the Alaskan hurricane info, find for me the last time they had a storm surge, 20″ of rain, and a levee failure all at the same time will ya?

Why should I? Now I’m supposed to provide proof of some dumb idea that you made up? You’re barking up the wrong tree, buddy. Nobody is saying that ANWR should be off limits because of hurricanes. That is your own invention.

Please don’t be sad because I kicked down your strawman. You’ll build another, I’m sure.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

DW is putting words in my mouth, ala

MataHarley has made a particular point of saying that there has been no pollution from the Prudhoe Bay facilities.

I have said no such thing, and never will. And I suggest that if DW charges me with that, he’d better provide a full quote and link. I know of no possible way that pollution can be completely eliminated from any type of industrial facility, thus these words would never be uttered or typed by me. DW has chosen to embellish, at my expense, for his point.

What I have said is that our technology and drilling production is cleaner and faster today than earlier endeavors. Disregard the man behind the curtain, attempting to manipulate my words. I am no one’s ventroliquist dummy.

Dave Noble… conservation is being preached, and yet the preachers ignoring that the US is conserving. You state the US consumption was 7.6bbl in 2005. In 2007, our consumption of all petroleums fuels was 7.55bbl annually, or 20.7 mil bbl/d. Over two years, our annual consumption has gone down. This per EIA stats. US consumption over the past decade has only risen about 3%.

Also via same EIA link, 2008 is anticipated to be a year of decline in consumption based on 1st quarter estimates.

World oil consumption is projected to grow by 1 million barrels per day (bbl/d) in 2008. U.S. consumption of liquid fuels and other petroleum is expected to decline by about 290,000 bbl/d in 2008 because of higher petroleum product prices and slower economic growth. Adjusting for increased ethanol use, U.S. petroleum consumption is projected to fall by 440,000 bbl/d in 2008.

snip

Based on prospects for a weak economy and record high crude oil and product prices extending into next year, consumption is projected to shrink by 290,000 bbl/d in 2008, a sharper drop than the nearly 200,000 bbl/d projected in the previous Outlook. In 2009, total consumption is projected to rise by 140,000 bbl/d, somewhat less than the nearly 200,000 bbl/d increase projected in the previous Outlook.

In fact, it is the Americans that seem to be doing the bulk of the “conservation”..

Most of this downward revision occurred in the OECD countries. With this revision, OECD consumption during the first quarter is estimated to have fallen by 460,000 bbl/d from year-earlier levels, with the declines concentrated in the United States. Consumption in the other OECD regions was flat during the first quarter, with European consumption increasing relative to year-earlier levels only because warmer-than-normal weather led to unseasonably low consumption in first quarter of 2007.

If you’re a conspiracy sort, of which I’m not, one would have to observe that the speculators, supposedly to blame for the price of oil, are actually acting on behalf of the environmentalists… driving down demand via astronomical prices. Odd how that works out, eh?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Udder,

Glad to help.

As a side note, if you see my 17 year old 6’4″ son on the beach this weekend please remind him to wear sunscreen.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Thanks Aye Chi. I had a reply to DW typed out and when I posted it, I received a server error and lost it. District Attorney Santa Clara County

What you’re really doing here is arguing for tighter control of oil disposal. I love how you can’t even focus your own rant in the proper direction.

Stay with the conversation DW. I said that Jiffy Lube caused more spills than the oil platforms. You said prove it. I post links on Jiffy Lube known spills. Now you claim I’m arguing for tighter restrictions? You’re not the sharpest stone in the knife drawer are you?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Jiffy Lube pays $35,000 fine in Santa Clara County case

You forgot this part:

For release: January 14, 1997

Sorry DW, you’re wrong on that one.

The date line on the other article was from Jan 1997.

The date line on the Santa Clara case is Aug 25, 2006.

Here is an article about JL paying a $500,000 fine. Sacramento, CA (May 9, 2008)

Now DW,

Let’s get back to what Mike originally said:

Nearly 100 oil and gas platforms were damaged or destroyed by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and there was not one oil stained beach.

You posted some nonsense about storage tanks and such that were damaged during Katrina. You don’t realize that storage tanks are not the same as “oil and gas platforms”?

Can you provide for us, DW, something, anything which shows that there were oil spills during Katrina or Rita as a result of damage to “oil and gas platforms”?

Also, could you point me in the direction of information regarding the last Category 3, 4, or 5 hurricane that has struck Alaska because, you know, if there’s gonna be a storm of that consequence then perhaps we should look at the storage tank issue.

Oh, almost forgot. While you’re searching for the Alaskan hurricane info, find for me the last time they had a storm surge, 20″ of rain, and a levee failure all at the same time will ya?

Like or Dislike: 0  0