The unambiguous message from top executives of BP rivals Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Royal Dutch Shell: It’s not drilling on the outer reaches of the continental shelf that’s a problem; it’s BP.
[…]
“We would not have drilled the well the way they did,” Exxon chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson bluntly told members of the House subcommittee.
For example, Exxon would have used a different cement to build the well casing, designed the well differently and responded more aggressively to early signs of trouble, Mr. Tillerson said.
He pointed out that 14,000 deepwater wells have been drilled around the world, with few problems until now.
“It’s not a well that we would have drilled,” echoed Shell Oil president Marvin Odum.
along with the stagnant technology associated with O&G that are the problem.
~BTF
Rubbish.
The O&G Energy industry has developed and is developing new technologies to improve yields and drilling techniques all the time.
http://tinyurl.com/33zeu3d
I am in a position to recognize the general short comings of current O&G industry, rather than claiming that ‘it’s all good, except for BP’.
~BTF
I doubt you’re in a position to make such claims.
I say you’re full of shit.
BTJ
Not just the casing centralizers, wiper plugs, the casing weight(wall thickness) seems to have been inadequate for this type of “wildcat” (exploration) well as well as the skipping of procedures I mentioned above.
I must add that I never worked offshore but I have worked on high pressure, deep (14,000 foot +) class 3 (high H2S) wells up and down the foothills.
The lack of certain procedures and the overall well design in my mind, is appalling.
Then again I am not an engineer, just an ex-rig pig that’s seen a few hot wells.
Syncro
Correction
The above should read (12,000 foot +) wells.
I had the 14,000 foot figure stuck in my brainpan from the above comments.
Syncro
“I am in a position to recognize the general short comings of current O&G industry” BTJ
Argument from authority is terrible under the best of circumstances but your appeal is deliberately vague and meaningless. It can mean anything from PR manager of the Pembina Institute to O&G environmental regulator to anonymous poster with delusions of grandeur.
“Rubbish.
The O&G Energy industry has developed and is developing new technologies to improve yields and drilling techniques all the time.”
And yet they still spill oil everywhere, everyday, yet we still drive cars using gas, yet we still use the concepts of decades ago. I didn’t say they don’t make ANY advancements…just slowly and inadequately. Not to mention that many of the latest tech’s are not used in order to increase ECONOMIC yield.
“Argument from authority is terrible under the best of circumstances but your appeal is deliberately vague and meaningless. ”
Argument from authority? It is deliberately general because it doesn’t take a rocket scientist…or in this case a rig engineer…to see that technological progress in the oil industry has given way to gov’t lobbying, corner cutting, gov’t bribery, and being an old boys club who has more power and influence than most countries…all the while having a fraction of the responsibility when the shit hits the fan (ie. ridiculously low financial responsibility cap)
I think it’s pretty safe to say that BP oversaw a drilling operation that was under pressure (pardon the pun) to get results and that was struggling to meet cost and time targets. What caused the accident was a lack of leadership that put safety and standards at a lower priority than cost control. In any activity this is a recipe for disaster. I doubt BP is the only company that engages in such tactics when put under similar pressure.
Having acknowledged all of that, there is some evidence that safety standards were not a high in this juristiction than they are in others – offshore Newfoundland for example, where operating conditions make the gulf of mexico look as easy as drilling onshore.
Just as the negligent operating of the Valdez caused the grounding, the lack of a mandate that all tankers be double-hulled made a bad situation far worse the lack of pre-eminient operating protocols has made this accident several orders of magnitude worse.
It is convenient to blame the oilcos for lobbying the regulators to relax the rules, but pressured or not, the rulemakers are largely to blame for the scale of what has happened – not the operator.
I think it’s pretty safe to say that BP oversaw a drilling operation that was under pressure (pardon the pun) to get results and that was struggling to meet cost and time targets. What caused the accident was a lack of leadership that put safety and standards at a lower priority than cost control. In any activity this is a recipe for disaster. I doubt BP is the only company that engages in such tactics when put under similar pressure.
Having acknowledged all of that, there is some evidence that safety standards were not a high in this juristiction than they are in others – offshore Newfoundland for example, where operating conditions make the gulf of mexico look as easy as drilling onshore.
Just as the negligent operating of the Valdez caused the grounding, the lack of a mandate that all tankers be double-hulled made a bad situation far worse the lack of pre-eminient operating protocols has made this accident several orders of magnitude worse.
It is convenient to blame the oilcos for lobbying the regulators to relax the rules, but pressured or not, the rulemakers are largely to blame for the scale of what has happened – not the operator.
BJT I know you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night but please for your sake, quit while you are still ahea… well at least quit before you get any farther behind.
I didn’t say they don’t make ANY advancements…just slowly and inadequately.
~BTJ
Stagnant means little or no technological advancement.
As I said, advancement is steady, there is progress in nearly every area yearly.
It has to be remembered that O&G are 100+ year old technology and that most of the advances have already been made.
And yet they still spill oil everywhere…
~BTJ
Exaggeration of that proportion is lying.
Spills are rare.
Large spills are even rarer, only 2, 3 at most since the 19th century while 100s of billions of barrels have been harvested and 100s of millions are safely moved around the globe 24/7/365.
Who are you to say what is inadequate advancement?
Toward what goal is inadequate advancement being made and why is speedy advancement toward that unnamed goal necessary?
I am in a position to recognize the general short comings of current O&G industry, rather than claiming that ‘it’s all good, except for BP’.
~BTF
I doubt you’re in a position to make such claims.
I say you’re full of shit.
You’re just another eco-nut that’s part of the EnviroCult.
“I am in a position to recognize the general short comings of current O&G industry” BTJ
What I want to know is this: what places you in a position to think that you know all the effing answers? What are your qualifications, pal? Got a high school diploma? Been to a trade school? Got a degree? Got any experience at all in the O&G business? Has someone certified you as a Master of the Universe?
BTF:
the rewards for making advancements in oil and gas exploration and development are immense. The big oilcos stand to reap these rewards more than anyone else. To say that technology is slow to develop and is inadequate is, frankly, asinine and ignorant and thus inflamatory as a result.
If you had anything of significance to contribute no one is heeding it as a result of such comments.
stop for a moment and calculate how many bbl a day this well is spewing. multiply by $70 per barrel just for a nice round number X 50 days.
What was the big hurry? this well would have paid out in no time at all.
Offshore in the persian gulf, 200 feet of water true vertical depth of 18000 ft. 4000 psi on tubing withhin 30 minutes of perforating. Gas flow rates of 800 million cf/day
At these depths and pressures you do not take short cuts.
5 gas zones are exploitable whith strict instruction not to drill into a sixth zone.
We do not have the techknology to contain that pressure.
“We do not have the techknology to contain that pressure.”
What in the world are you talking about?
Davy Jones has been drilled to 28,000 feet. No problem there.
http://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/McMoRan+Exploration+%28MMR%29+Announces+Discovery+in+Davy+Jones+Ultra-Deep+Prospect+%28EXXI,+PXP%29/5236565.html
The rig on Deepwater Horizon is built to drill in 8000 ft of water with the well depth max of 40,000 ft.
No need to drill deeper – heat frys oil at depths over 40,000.
And out of 126 workers on the rig, only 8 were actually BP employees.
BTW now that the BP shares are in the tank, why doesn’t Pres Hugo Obama just buy out BP and run the foreigners out of the country like his apparent idol Hugo Chavez does?
Barack Petroleum – has a nice ring to it.
IMO, justhinkin, you pinpointed the ‘spill game’ being played out on the World Gument Stage – opening act in the Gulf of Mexico where the Democrats didn’t score big in the last election. Damn independent rednecks clinging to their guns and Bibles! The anointed one is out for revenge.
“Nothing is what it seems” in the wonder boy’s administration. We put a man on the moon decades ago…and technology has advanced. Why is the ‘anointed one’ claiming that BP/technology cannot stop this gusher?
Here’s the congressional letter sent to Hayward. Lot’s of details and obviously well researched by someone with technical knowledge of drilling operations:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJ-20100614-LetterToHayward.pdf
There are two conclusions:
1. The events and references in the letter are a fabrication by left wing, anti-business politicians.
2. BP displayed a stunning amount of willful negligence when they drilled this well. Such levels of negligence are not normal in the industry, even amongst small companies with shallow pockets.
Even though I am a pro-business conservative I bet on scenario #2.
The other energy companies aren’t killing BP. It’s BP that is screwing up the reputation of the whole industry.
Fascinating stuff. Quite a few knowledgible posters here familiar with oil rigs/drilling.
Could any of you tell me (best guess):
1) Diameter of borehole
2) Depth of casing inside the borehole
3) When/how is BOP installed. ie: during drilling?
Trying to get my head around something here…
Thanks
My number one son works in the Gulf. He tells me that it is disgusting to see how the entire industry has turned its back on BP and is sucking up to Washington. He wonders (musing out loud) if the other majors are licking their chops at sharing the carcass of BP if it is overwhelmed by the drag of reparations on its cash flow.
Snagglepuss at 12:55 AM
here are a few diagrams that might help:
1)General casing layout,
http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/files/OGL00003.gif
2)WHAT HAPPENED ON THE DEEPWATER HORIZON
http://media.nola.com/news_impact/other/oil-cause-050710.pdf
3)And a diagram of the Macondo well in !970 for rough reference only. This is not the Deepwater well and I have no clue if the setup was the same
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967
All references courtesy of the article in the “THE OIL DRUM” I referenced to previously
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967
Correction to my 3:55 post
Macondo appears to be the name of the well and appears to be the same well as referred to as Deepwater.
Another spec sheet on the hole:
http://www.drillingahead.com/page/transocean-disaster-info
Scroll down to Macondo Casing Layout in .xls Format
“Stagnant means little or no technological advancement.
As I said, advancement is steady, there is progress in nearly every area yearly.
It has to be remembered that O&G are 100+ year old technology and that most of the advances have already been made.”
Stagnant may have been exaggerating, but little is not. Advancement is slow and steady…key word being slow. We still do things relatively the same as way, especially considering the advancements in weaponry and military technology. No?
“Exaggeration of that proportion is lying.
Spills are rare.
Large spills are even rarer, only 2, 3 at most since the 19th century while 100s of billions of barrels have been harvested and 100s of millions are safely moved around the globe 24/7/365.”
Really? Did you research that or is it just opinion.
The following list only provides a good introduction to the history of spilling oil
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills
One incident it fails to mention is the following:
“A ruptured oil pipeline caused 14,000 barrels of crude to spill into a river in the Napo region in northeast Ecuador, an area known for its high biological diversity, reports Reuters.”
and
“In Ecuador, the law suit against Chevron estimates that Texaco spilled more than 17 million gallons (64 million liters) of crude oil and dumped some 20 million gallons (68 million liters) of other toxic chemicals into rivers during its years of operation.”
“Who are you to say what is inadequate advancement?
Toward what goal is inadequate advancement being made and why is speedy advancement toward that unnamed goal necessary?”
I got my eyes burnt with lasers and now I can see perfectly…and we’re still drilling oil much like we did decades ago, close to a century ago. Oil companies have not learned from past spills and catastrophes…often because they’re efforts go to PR management rather than research, observation, assessment, analysis, and invention.
“You’re just another eco-nut that’s part of the EnviroCult.”
Right, because I have a problem with old ways of doing things that create disgusting and tragic consequences on global scales, all the while not solving our long-term needs (especially energy) I’m an ‘eco-nut’ part of some cult. Great try.
“What I want to know is this: what places you in a position to think that you know all the effing answers? ”
Where did I state I ‘have all the answers’. I just didn’t agree that the O&G industry is ‘all good except BP’. I see that things have not really changed much compared to what humans have been capable of.
“the rewards for making advancements in oil and gas exploration and development are immense.”
That does not ensure reason and ingenuity whatsoever…it all depends on how rewards are given and how ‘advancements’ are perceived. If the real advancements (ie, innovative, new ideas) are passed off for the ‘usual’ advancements (ie. copying old things and making slight tweaks)…as is often the case in the world of old boys clubs…then no real progress is made.
This is ALL about carbon derivatives – all the big players are heavily invested.
Snagglepuss at 12:55 AM
Sorry ,,, I gave out a bad link
Diagram of Macondo well casings and diameters:
http://www.energy.gov/open/documents/3.1_Item_2_Macondo_Well_07_Jun_1900.pdf
“I see that things have not really changed much compared to what humans have been capable of.”
I don’t see that you’re doing much other than mouthing platitudes and making inapt comparisons. It’s real easy to say that goods and services of a particular type should be “more efficient” or “safer” or “cleaner” or “cheaper.” Anyone can play the role of backseat driver even though they don’t have a driver’s license or any experience. But some activities are inherently difficult and risky. Motor vehicles are conceptually similar to the ones produced a hundred years ago, and 1.2 million people (2004) or so people die each year using them. Thus, those, such as you, who find it pleasurable to be back seat drivers on “business shortcomings” ought to turn your attention to the auto industry (now run by the glorious Feds in both Canada & the US) and tell them “things haven’t changed much compared to what humans are capable of.”
“I don’t see that you’re doing much other than mouthing platitudes and making inapt comparisons.”
Hmmmm…have any reasons?
“It’s real easy to say that goods and services of a particular type should be “more efficient” or “safer” or “cleaner” or “cheaper.””
Yup, because most should. There has been a serious lack of innovation for the past half century +
You’re not presenting any argument concerning the lack of progress in O&G…you just keep saying that I don’t know what I’m talking about, without supporting evidence.
Reasons? You want reasons? Okay. The “reason” you are mouthing platitudes and making inapt comparisons is that you are mouthing platitudes and making inapt comparisons (such as comparing O&G drilling to laser eye surgery). When something is missing, it is missing. Do you need further explanation? You do? Okay, I’ve got an experiment for you. Go out in the back yard and dig a 12″x12″x12″ inch hole in the ground. After you have dug the hole, please observe that the hole is empty. The reason the hole is empty is that it is empty. Got it?
Your assertion that the O&G industry has not made significant technological advances is so absurd as to be laughable. Look, Kiddo, you need to toss your copies of National Geographic on the shelf and do some real research before you start mouthing off about an industry which is exceptionally advanced in the technology it employs. Here’s a good place for you to start:
http://www.aogr.com/index.php/magazine/cover_story_archives/april_2010_cover_story
Or, go to the Schlumberger website and read (all day long) about its technology.
The wells name, Macondo, is a curious choice. How are well names chosen and who named this one? I read this info in the comments at Maggies Farm a few days ago….
From Wiki….Macondo is a fictional town described in Gabriel García Márquez’s novel One Hundred Years of Solitude. It is the home town of the Buendía family.
In the narrative of One Hundred Years of Solitude, the town grows from a tiny settlement with almost no contact with the outside world, to eventually become a large and thriving place, before a banana plantation is set up. The establishment of the banana plantation lead to Macondo’s downfall, followed by a gigantic windstorm that wipes it from the map.
“A ruptured oil pipeline caused 14,000 barrels of crude to spill into a river in the Napo region in northeast Ecuador, an area known for its high biological diversity, reports Reuters.”
and
“A ruptured oil pipeline caused 14,000 barrels of crude to spill into a river in the Napo region in northeast Ecuador, an area known for its high biological diversity, reports Reuters.”
and
“In Ecuador, the law suit against Chevron estimates that Texaco spilled more than 17 million gallons (64 million liters) of crude oil and dumped some 20 million gallons (68 million liters) of other toxic chemicals into rivers during its years of operation.”
~BTJ
You got those cut and pastes from Mongabay.com a radical Leftist environmentalist website.
Now we know where you get your perspective to use terms like “stagnant” and “inadequate advances” etc.
I’ll bet you believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming and are on this thread to stick it to Big Oil on behalf of your environmentalist brethren.
Wikipedia cannot be trusted on any issue that divides between the Left and Right political spectrums and on environmental issues in particular.
I’ve got to hand it to you, BTJ, you’ve done a great job of dancing around the fact that you’re an enviro-nut.
Thank-you G! for your response, and especially for your 3rd link @3:55 AM to theoildrum.com. Much appreciated.
That answered what I wanted to know, and more…. but it’s looking like we ain’t seen nothing yet!
Finally, perspectives from industry experts and insiders, not the vapid and shallow coverage from the inept media.
I’d recommend everyone check out the link. It’s a long read, but will outdo any suspense thriller you could possibly want. If they’re right, so far we’ve only been watching a Sunday School picnic.
“The “reason” you are mouthing platitudes and making inapt comparisons is that you are mouthing platitudes and making inapt comparisons (such as comparing O&G drilling to laser eye surgery).”
Wow…I can tell this is going to be mentally stimulating :S The reasons as in a logical rational as to why comparing the slow technological advances in drilling oil cannot be compared to the rapid rate of tech advance in other sectors? Let’s make this apples to apples if it’s so hard for you to grasp. Look at how much advancement humans made in O&G during the industrial revolution and shortly thereafter…now look at how little has changed since, and especially in the last few decades.
There are airplanes that fly by remote control hundreds if not thousands of miles away from the ‘pilot’ that can hit a 3 x 3 foot target with a missile from a km away. There are remote control tailless airplanes (stealth bombers) that can land and take off from an aircraft carrier. Yet oil and gas is leaking everywhere and solutions are being sought out by random contributers to youtube…BP tried pumping random junk (balls and shredded tires) to plug the hole…straw and panty hose is the ingenuity being brought in to clean up that crap!
OZ: You’re a Neo-Con, you find any chance to label the person you disagree with as a “liberal”. This time just for getting a description of an event that is fairly widely known from a ‘leftist’ website. All the while ignoring the dozens of oil spills I provided you with from Wikipedia…but oh wait..it’s all lies too..all those well known oil spills are lies because somehow it’s a political issue. (what are you smoking?) Apparently everything is lies except what you believe. Funny that. There have been more than half a dozen oil spills this year alone genius.
The fact is you got called out for lieing…for making unsubstantiated claims…for not knowing what the hell you’re talking about…only 2 or 3 major spills since the 19th century? Since oil was first drilled? You’re so off it’s no funny…it’s pathetic.
“I’ll bet you believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming ”
Of course I do! It’s not something to ‘believe in’…it’s fact…rational thinking…scientific research has shown it to be exceedingly probable. What proof do you have against it?
“What proof do you have against it?”
It’s a waste of time to talk to people like you. You’ve joined a fundamentalist religious cult & accept everything on faith. Goodbye.
Texan: Nice, that was pretty easy. You didn’t answer your own questions or any of OUR conversation because you can’t. You don’t have a rational behind your claim…you just used some interesting words to create an empty statement.
Do you have anything of content to contribute?..Or are you typing for the sole purpose of defending an opinion that you cannot explain?
The tactic of attempting to question my character by making assumptions, grouping me to some generalization you’ve formed concerning people who you don’t agree with…over issues you can’t discuss further than blind statements…is not a very strong one.
BTJ: We’re off topic here but, it isn’t up to Texan or anyone else to prove that AGW isn’t happening. To the contrary, its up to the warmist faction to prove that it IS happening. Its impossible to prove a negative.
Until now, no strong evidence (much less proof) of the AGW phenomenon has been offered. The entire fantasy is based on computer models which can only predict what will happen if certain pre-conceived conditions are met. By varying the inputs, it can be predicted that average global temperatures will rise by several degrees before the end of the century or that we are heading into another mini ice age. That’s not science; it’s computer assisted astrology or, in the jargon of computer geeks, garbage in, garbage out.
I’d like to believe that warming is more probable since cooling would be a greater danger to civilization. However, as a geologist with a modicum of paleoclimatological knowledge, my money would be on cooling over the long term. BTW, if you check the numbers of NOAA or CRU, you’ll find that, contrary to the cacophany of warmist denials, there’s been a cooling trend for the last 12 years. That’s not meaningful in the big picture, so I can’t understand why warmists as a group are so determined to “hide the decline”.
Zog:
You have no idea what you’re talking about…blatantly clear in the following:
“Its impossible to prove a negative.”
That is the very basis of the scientific method…your experimental hypothesis is virtually always the negative.
Google ‘hypothesis’ and read on.
“Until now, no strong evidence (much less proof) of the AGW phenomenon has been offered. ”
Or is it that you just haven’t really put any effort into to gaining any knowledge about the issue…you just listen to what people tell you.
You all say the same thing…the computer models are inaccurate and flawed. Of course they are! They are predicting the future! Science is about observable data..the climate record…that is where AGW is clearly extremely probable.
You’ll have to debunk my summary of AGW above…no more random arguments about computer models.
Here is the summary:
Yes there is…since the Industrial Revolution atmospheric CO2 has been steadily rising, adding to the greenhouse effect. People can figure out how much of the CO2 is from our emissions because the Carbon atom in CO2 that comes from burning plant material (oil and gas and coal) is different from that of other sources. The greenhouse effect is a well known process that insulates the lower atmosphere. The lower atmosphere has been warming more and more rapidly since a short time after the industrial revolution, while the upper atmosphere has been cooling. This, along with the fact that the sun has been in a ‘slumber’ so to speak, negates the possibility of that sun being the cause.
I would like to assert that the science of medicine is demonstrably stagnant. They still haven’t cured the common cold for crying out loud! Being that I am not a doctor, nurse, or otherwise intimately involved in the medical field, I somehow feel fully qualified to make this assertion.
Seriously, how can a layman make such accusations against any profession? It’s a classic case of “you don’t even know what you don’t know”
BTJ: During almost 20 years of active involvement in this debate, I’ve never heard anyone say that the models are “inaccurate and flawed” – only that they are irrelvant because they are based on arbitrary inputs. Moreover, not even the most ardent modelers (Weaver for example) claim that they “predict” the future. They only indicate what might happen if the limited and arbitrary inputs are truly representative of the incredibly complex random system known as climate.
“…you really haven’t put any effort into to gaining any knowledge about the issue…”
What gives you the right to say that? Actually, I’ve followed the issue very closely, although I must admit that the last IPCC report that I read in detail was TARS. Moreover, as an earth scientist I have a few clues about natural processes, and I am certainly as qualified to reach evidence-based conclusions on climate as physicists Mann and Hansen who have the conceit to self-identify as “climatologists”.
Scanning your many posts on this thread, I get the impression that, as an expert on everything, you are an very intelligent individual (a Mensan perhaps?) who picks up bits and pieces of information and welds them together to make what you think are cogent comments about matters of which you know very little.
“I would like to assert that the science of medicine is demonstrably stagnant. They still haven’t cured the common cold for crying out loud!”
But they’ve made face transplants, organ transplants, they can make new blood vessels, etc. The stagnation of medicine is in medicine itself. There will be no cure for cancer sought because that would put drug companies out of business…their business is to find new drugs to sell, not to find cures.
“Moreover, not even the most ardent modelers (Weaver for example) claim that they “predict” the future. They only indicate what might happen if the limited and arbitrary inputs are truly representative of the incredibly complex random system known as climate.”
You are creating a straw-man argument. I didn’t say they CAN predict the future…I said they attempt to predict (forecast) the future (within some scope of uncertainty).
“What gives you the right to say that?”
The right? What leads me to believe that is your language and your inaccurate statements.
“Actually, I’ve followed the issue very closely, although I must admit that the last IPCC report that I read in detail was TARS.”
The IPCC is not just a scientific body…it is a scientific, political, social, and economic body attempting to draw general conclusions for the general public. It is not a very easy source to extract an understanding of the science in specifically.
“The IPCC is not just a scientific body, it is a scientific, political, social, and economic body attempting to draw general conclusions for the general public. It is not a very easy source to extract an understanding of the science in specifically.”
Now you’re inferring that I derive all of my information from the IPCC “revelations”. On the other hand, if I had told you, right off the top, that I hold a great deal of your holy scriptures in contempt, you would have tried to make something of that. Typical warmist bulldust – more interested in cute debate than in rational examination of the issue. Referring back to my post of 19:11, I’m now more than ever convinced that you’re a hyper-intelligent gadfly, with little specific knowledge about anything, who likes to display his non-existent erudition. I’ve got your number. Get thee to a barroom, where you’ll make a bigger impression than at SDA.
“Now you’re inferring that I derive all of my information from the IPCC “revelations”.”
Well, sure I inferred that. Is it not a rational conclusion from the following?
“Actually, I’ve followed the issue very closely, although I must admit that the last IPCC report that I read in detail was TARS.”
You follow the issue closely, yet the only reference to any form of research you make is to the IPCC report from 9 years ago. Perhaps I mistakenly made the assumption that you intended to demonstrate the scope of your research, and that by limiting it to a mention of the 3rd IPCC report you had implied that your scope was also limited.
“more interested in cute debate than in rational examination of the issue.”
I’m all for a RATIONAL examination of the issue…not a chaotic pissing match with no structure, no scope, and no focus. Let’s stick with the science alone…no political stuff.
“Get thee to a barroom, where you’ll make a bigger impression than at SDA.”
Is that supposed to be some sort of macho challenge…or are you just implying that I’m a clueless, loud mouthed chach who would get beat up in a bar? Why would I take a debate about AGW to a bar? I assure you I’m not what it seems you think I am…