Officials spread Katrina lies in support of offshore oil drilling

Lott was talking about offshore drilling. To make the claim that spills from onshore facilities have anything to do with that is a bit disingenuous. If you don't get his point, then say so. Rawstory is spinning . . . AGAIN.

and now they are simply lying to us (or to those stupid enough to listen without doubts). This election is crucial people, get out and vote!!

Trent Lott still deserves to be strung up by the ankles....

He's a lousy excuse for a human being, a waste of oxygen if you will.

Read the first paragraph again. Lott is talking about offshore drilling. The point he's making is that offshore drilling is safe. The point he's making is that even Katrina didn't cause spills OFFSHORE from rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. That's the simple point he was making. Rawstory and many of you are reading a whole host of other things into Lott's statement that have NO BEARING on this point.

"We didn't have one drop of oil [spilled] when we had the biggest hurricane in recent history, Hurricane Katrina,"

At a minimum Lott is being inaccurate and that's being very generous. There were many oil spills attributed to Katrina and Rita (as many as 44 separate spills and as much as 4 million gallons). Now if by "we" he means "off shore oil production" then that is a different story...or is it?

There were also 108 Offshore Platforms destroyed by Katrina and Rita. Another 53 were severely damaged. Are you telling me that in all that destruction, not "one drop of oil" was spilled offshore? Come on.

44 spills, 4 million gallons of oil, 108 oil and natural gas platforms destroyed. What was Lott's point again?

http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/4483142/c_4483166?f=TodayInFinance_Inside

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9365607/

There were also 108 Offshore Platforms destroyed by Katrina and Rita. Another 53 were severely damaged. Are you telling me that in all that destruction, not "one drop of oil" was spilled offshore? Come on.

That's EXACTLY what I'm telling you. That's the whole point that Lott, McCain, Jindal and others are making.

Nope. That is not what they said. None of them qualified their statements. None of them said, "Now we're talking about off shore platforms only in the Gulf of Mexico". They are purposefully making broader statements that are NOT true. Why do you think that is? I have a guess...it's because they don't respect us enough to tell the truth. You might buy their bull sh*t...but I don't.

WHAT?

Go back and watch the video again.

McCain's speech starts "As for offshore drilling . . . ".

He then goes on to specifically say "off the coast of New Orleans and Houston".

The second guy on the Glen Beck show is clearly talking about offshore drilling, hence rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.

He then says "we can build oil rigs that are not going to cause spills."

Kempthorne specifically mentions "oil and gas platforms".

The rest of those statements seem to be out of context a bit. You get some rapid fire clips there without even hearing the question or knowing the context. I would bet that the premise of all of those had something to do with offshore drilling and not onshore storage facilities. I could be wrong, but I'd have to see some proof that these statements were unqualified by specific discussions of offshore drilling activities.

Come on. I saw several of those clips in their entirety. This is just a republican talking point and it is purposefully vague. Why do you think that is? Who benefits from off shore oil drilling? The Oil Companies. Even McCain has been forced to admit that it will take 5 to 10 years for it to have any impact on the price of gas (and because we have a global oil market it would be negligible even then). It's just like the gas tax holiday, a political gimmick that has no benefit for "working class people".

To say that not deregulating off shore oil production in this country will "CRIPPLE our economy and put the livelihoods and finances of working class people who depend on this source of energy in danger" is as CRAZY as imagining that 108 oil rigs can be completely destroyed without spilling "one drop of oil".

I've heard your predictions before about how the American people are going to respond to these political gimmicks...and with all due respect, you've been off the mark. I'm going to bet that most of them are smart enough to see though this BS.

The American People will benefit from offshore drilling. And it is an absolute fantasy that it will take 5 to 10 years to bring those sources online. Further, oil is a fungible resource and the oil market responds to additional supply as well as to additional reserves going into production. It doesn't matter if oil from any one particular source is on the market.

Show us your evidence. I can imagine screwing the brains out of Jessica Alba . . . doesn't make it fact my friend. Stick to what you can prove. If you have a source that says that oil spilled from rigs in the Gulf in the wake of Katrina or Rita, then I'll listen. Until then . . . your imaginings don't interest me.

Further, I noticed you had no comment on the dimension of the threat you're speaking of. Compared to the oil seeping from the bottom of the Gulf, the amount of oil spilled from onshore storage was miniscule.

So . . . WHY NOT drill for oil? Why not at least attempt to do something to help people with gas prices?

I provided citation that showed 44 spills, 4 million gallons of oil and 108 destroyed off shore rigs. If you want to swallow their talking point (hook, line and sinker) before applying your own common sense, then there isn't much I can do for you. You clearly have a rich fantasy life, one where you screw Jessica Alba and everything the republicans tell you is true. Sadly for you, it's all in your head.

You talk about evidence, why don't you show me some evidence that off shore drilling is going to bring down the price of gas. EVERYBODY agrees that it will take a matter of years, most say around ten before supply could be effected. Most agree that even then it would be negligible. McCain himself admitted that any benefit would be largely psychological. We can't drill our way out of this problem. It's just like your gas tax holiday...pure political bull sh*t. These are the same jokers who misled us into a war...why should we believe them now?

By the way, I know for an ABSOLUTE FACT that it does not take anything like 5 to 10 years to bring offshore oil resources online. I know for an ABSOLUTE FACT that even the most complicated and expensive projects can take as little as 2 years to begin producing and that there are numerous projects that would take even less time.

Caruso is misinformed. Being from Louisiana and being related to petroleum engineers, rig fabricators, project engineers and rig hands, I can tell you that the real world experience is much different.

http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/brutus/

See link just above for one project that I am familiar with (two family members worked on this one) which went into production in a little over 2 years. This was a rather large and difficult project. Smaller and simpler projects can take even less time.

Anybody who says it would take 5 to 10 years to find resources in closed areas is a fool or a liar. In fact, many of these resources (especially natural gas) are already mapped and ready to be exploited. The same goes for oil shale and sands. Many of those resources are mapped and well known. These are PROVEN reserves we are talking about, not speculative at all.

Further . . . if the time horizons you are talking about are obstacles to, or arguments against production (a concept which makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE) . . . then why are China, Russia and Brazil proceeding with such projects? Why is everyone else in the world doing everything in their power to find and exploit these resources WHEREVER they are? Why are we the only country that refuses to do so?

Your link was to a project that began almost TEN years ago. Maybe things were different then, but a lot has changed in the world since 1999, and with all due respect to you and your family, this is the head of the head of the Energy Information Administration we are talking about. If I'm going to make a bet on who is "misinformed", I'm going to have to pick you. Even if you are from Louisiana.

But let’s see what another expert thinks. Al Gore was asked about this very issue yesterday on Meet the Press. Here’s what he had to say:

VICE PRES. GORE: Well, we, we already have offshore drilling in the areas where it does make sense, and there are already leased lots and lots of other offshore sites that could be drilled in. There's a shortage of drill rigs and engineers, and they're, they're, they're going full out now. But the areas that are protected now are protected for a reason. The coastal economy has been hurt in the past by oil spills, and I think states like California should have the right to protect the, the areas that they know are in danger. But the larger point is this, Tom. It...

MR. BROKAW: But if Florida approves it, do you think that they should be allowed to drill?

VICE PRES. GORE: I think that the areas that have environmental values and economic values connected to the environment at stake should be protected. And the larger reason why is even if they went in that direction, everybody acknowledges, it would have zero impact on gasoline prices or oil prices. It's a drop in the bucket that would pose high risk of very important values. It wouldn't even start until 10 or 15 years from now and would likely to be--likely be sold to China anyway. And going back over and over and over again to the old ways of the past just puts off the reckoning with the, the opportunity that we need to seize now to shift over to renewable sources of energy.

So again, there’s what you say and then there’s what the head of the EIA and former Vice President Gore say. I know who I’m going to believe.

As to your argument that China, Russia and Brazil are doing it, so we should to. That is ridiculous. Do you really think we should decide our energy policy that way? Do you really think we should strive to emulate China and Russia, especially in the area of energy production and the impact on the environment? I don’t.

McCain is a moneygrabbing oil mongering good old boy Bushite! We need new sustainable non-polluting energies... CLEAN ENERGIES... Why keep digging up a death trap!