Complaining about the source, rather than the facts, Jake!  Are you denying that there is a significant amount of oil entering the ocean through natural seepage and it may equal or exceed man made leaks?  Would a source from PS1 or NPR be better than the Smithsonian, NASA or the U.S. Geological Survey?  Facts are facts: http://www.springerlink.com/content/bya6g7r7ceebanrl/ ; http://www.countyofsb.org/energy/information/seepspaper.asp#_ednref3 & http://www.hrt.com.br/Default.aspx?s=69; http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=2441

Lets drill offshore now before all the gas and oil leaks away!

LarryD

   I agree that we should be exploring, tapping, and exploiting all sources of petroleum & methane, so long as the work is closely monitored by the EPA and by any/all other applicable regulatory agencies.  The track record for off shore oil exploration and procurement, along with the tapping of Alaska's black gold, has shown to be very safe (though not perfect, but what is?) for the environment.  We can thank the environmental movement for the EPA, and all of their and other agency regulations, which made it possible for such safety. As I've said a zillion times, big business cannot be expected to regulate itself, especially in matters such as the environment.  It's just not cost effective; which is why the regulatory agencies are absolutely necessary.  Look at how hard they fight what regulations there are.  That tells you what they would do, if there were no regulations in place.        

   If we were not so dependent on foreign sources of petroleum, and our imports were in the vicinity of 15-20%, or less, then I might agree with not tapping so much oil, with so many offshore rigs (and there are hundreds of them).  Even then I would still agree with exploratory drilling, so we would have a heads up on what we can look forward to, in case we would have the need to start tapping.

   We are bleeding money to the tune of around $700 billion a year, as T. Boone Pickens states (and I don't doubt him), just for foreign oil to feed our huge demand.  It's 21 million barrels per day, which is a demand so great, that no one country (or even a few), can supply.   We have to balance the ability of our country to function, with the needs and care of all things environmental.  Right now, we have to weigh the potential negative economic and industrial consequences against the potential negative environmental consequences.  We have to seek a balance.  We need to seriously increase renewable source power generation, explore alternative fuels, and I don't mean food crop ethanol, and to exploit all the petroleum and methane reserves we have.    

   Right now, as our country sinks deeper into the depths of economic degradation, we stand to lose our place on the world power stage.  At this very moment, all it would take is for China and the Middle Eastern oil countries to conspire, and to enact measures which could bring the U.S. to its knees, economically, industrially, and ultimately, militarily.  Of course, they would do that (yet), because it would force a first strike military attack, by us.  No country (or coalition of countries), at this time, could survive the full onslaught of such an action by the U.S. 

   We can thank big business, and our sellout, ass kissing leaders and legislators (both Democratic and Republican), for the position we're in now.

   As far as the WSJ article is concerned larryd, it is an article of opinion (like an editorial), not a news article or even a research or investigative article.  As with all such articles, one has to first get past the bias of the writer.  I would never, ever use an opinion piece as a source for factual information.  I would go directly to the initial source(s), and/or just ignore the opinion piece altogether.  In this case however, you did investigate with reliable sources (for the most part), by using the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, and the investigative commission report of Santa Barbara County.  However, the Woods Hole source article was on methane seeps, not oil seeps, which have a whole different set of unrelated environmental and marine related circumstances.  A good example would be if a ship were in a position directly above a huge release of seafloor methane, the methane would neutralize the water's buoyancy and sink the ship.

  Your safest bet would have been to not have referenced the WSJ article at all, but to have referenced the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute's website, and the U.S. Geological Survey's site.  The best thing of all, would have been for you to have found that NASA/Smithsonian study, and have referenced/linked that too. 

   I'm going to read the stuff, from all those links you provided.  It looks very interesting.

   When you want to talk of things environmental and scientific, you gotta stay away from that Wall Street Journal, larryd.  That's why you got the reaction you did, from Jake.  The WSJ is biased towards Conservative, and big business interests, larryd.  It's name says it all.  Anything other than big business information which they might include in their publication, are just bones that they toss to the public, trying to increase their non big business readership; which (of course) is beneficial to their bottom line.

   Overall, you did well this time.

   The beauty of being an Independent is that I don't have to support any party platform, or their narrow minded, stubborn point(s) of view.  I just think things out, weigh all the evidence, evaluate all of the negative and positive consequences, and search for the most rational, overall possible solution(s), and all the while knowing that you can't please everyone.  Being an Independent, means being able to see the "big picture".  On any given issue, a conservative viewpoint might be the best way to go, while another might best work with a liberal idea.  Still another might require yet a completely different, or a new train of thought.  Independents understand the true value and importance of compromise.  Independents have the flexibility which Conservatives and Liberals lack, but are what this country severely needs.  Mostly though, being an Independent means never having to get caught up in the absolutely asinine concept, of having to align with one of two sides, to run a country.             

Charlie.                  

Previously Jake wrote:

Love those pro-oil debates from a conservative newspaper.



It is like hearing Bush talk about winning the war in Iraq.



Jake


And I love the anti-oil debates from the liberal newspaper (New York Times).  It goes both ways Jake.  I could care less if Fox, CNN, or MSNBC reports a story, I will not automatically discredit it just because of the source. Bottom line, I'm for any policy that decreases our dependence on foreign oil. If that means wind, nuclear, offshore drilling, natural gas, go for it. And if it helps the environment, even better. By the way, why are so many politicians against nuclear power? I understand France of all places has been using it for years without any problems.