Deepwater Horizon rig blowout? GOP wants you to forget

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by LizKat, May 2, 2019.

  1. LizKat macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #1
    The Trump administration has posted to the Federal Register its erasure of rules regarding offshore drilling that were put in after BP's Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and well blowout that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, an event that killed 11 workers and spilled 200 million gallons of oil into the gulf waters.


    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/02/offshore-drilling-rules-1404098


    Huh. Guess not enough administration staffers had read Fire on the Horizon, the Untold Story of the Gulf Oil Disaster in time to talk Trump or his Interior Department's chief flunky out of this bonehead maneuver. Well maybe they'll make time to read the sequel, after "something happens"... again.

    Meanwhile, for those wannabe offshore drillers who may have forgotten some details of the aftermath of the 2010 incident, they added up to criminal pleas and over 40 billion bucks' worth of fines and settlements.


    But never mind, the four-year period of special supervision of BP's ethics and safety standards by the EPA has long since ended, so... moving right along, next step was to get those pesky rules back out of the way. Mission accomplished, even if "a large majority" of the 118k public comments criticized the changes.

     
  2. bambooshots macrumors 65816

    bambooshots

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
  3. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
  4. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #4
    What does that have to do with anything
     
  5. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Location:
    betwixt
    #5
    Voltron. Duh.
     
  6. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #6
    Uh, yeah.

    Bureaucracy is what makes your water safe to drink. The bridges you drive over not fall down. The planes you fly not crash. Bureaucracy is what makes your kids pyjamas not burst into flames. The meat you buy at the supermarket comes from healthy animals.

    And not having the Gulf of Mexico (or the coast of Carolina) awash with toxic black sludge is a pretty important goal.

    I know its oh-so cool in Conservative American circles to talk about Government bureaucrats as if they were Satan's minions, intent on turn Americuh into a Stalinist gulag.

    But the fact of the matter is that bureaucrats are a huge part of what makes this country great.
     
  7. bambooshots macrumors 65816

    bambooshots

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    #7
    Today's bureaucracy has gotten too bloated, too inefficient, and too expensive. This is especially true at the Federal ] level. I'm all for trimming back bureaucracy.

    You know how I know you’re a bureaucrat?
     
  8. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    sitting on a beach watching a DC simulation ...
    #8
  9. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #9
    Flint, MI called and they said the oil spill had nada to do with their water issues.... I wonder if the bureaucracy made their water safe... I forgot to ask when they were on the phone...
     
  10. LizKat thread starter macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #10
    Not sure how the thread title is misleading. The GOP cannot possibly want people to remember the loss of life, cost to the oil and gas drilling or support companies involved, and losses of local businesses during the oil spill and cleanup, plus the environmental damage that did result from the 2010 incident. At least the Republicans cannot want us to remember any of that while reading that provisions in the well-control rule that industry has found "onerous" --costly-- are now being rolled back.

    One wonders if we're not looking at saving $20 million over ten years, a common industry estimate, at the expense of yet another $40 billion disaster. But, the Department of Interior emphasizes a claim that 80% of the rule changes installed after the Deepwater Horizon incident have been retained. Some change were deletions, others were added. So that 80% is a pig in a poke unless one reads through the old and new rules line by line.

    Only way to read the Well Control Rule change and truly be happy is to forget that the 2010 Macondo (aka BP, Deepwater Horizon) blowout, explosion and ongoing underwater spill during the nearly three-month effort to cap the well had ever even occurred... or else one would have to be a seriously short term thinker and a current or prospective offshore driller, or shareholder in the oil and gas or related support industries.

    To some extent effort is being made to keep the industry celebrations low key, i.e. it's already been decided to push back planned increases in offshore drilling until after the 2020 elections. Many of the affected states have objected, and a federal judge opined that in Alaska the Trump plan was illegal, so that is still in the courts, but anyway the GOP hope is probably to keep that topic off the main menu of election issues.

    I cited one book about the incident in my earlier post. A co-author of that book was the rig captain. That book goes into a lot of detail on events in the run-up to the blowout, and relies on input from quite a few surviving crew members.

    The movie you cited, I have heard about but have not seen. Its screenplay was based on a very long piece of journalism about the blowout and the final hours of the crew on the rig. I have included below a link to that piece plus one for a Neiman interview of David Barstow who wrote that piece, which was reported by him and by David Rohde and Stephanie Saul.


    There was at one time an effort to crowdfund another film that was to focus on the crew members and serve as documentary of their lives together and the loss to families of the 11 crew who died. The initial funding effort failed to meet its goal and it's unclear whether a film or book will eventually be produced using alternate funds.

    Below is more information about the incident, its aftermath, analysis and then the reporting about the 2019 well control rule changes.

    A Norwegian and American risk management study group's 2011 report (pdf format) had gathered data on the offshore rig's equipment failures and analysis of how safety training appears to have worked or could use adjustment. The paper includes quotes from interviewed crew members to document the EER (Escape, Evacuation and Rescue) processes that took place after the Deepwater Horizon explosion and their experience in using the lifeboats or having to leap into the water, surface of which was contaminated by assorted chemicals and petroleum components.


    Here are more citations including (first and second items) the official press release from the Department of the Interior announcing the rule change,the BSEE presentation of the finalized rule changes, a government provided "reading room" for the initial FOIA requests on the rig explosion and spill, plus some news reporting on the 2019 rule changes.

    Some of the quotes within the news pieces are from environmental resource nonprofits, and those as you may expect had generally commented unfavorably on the changes during the public review period. Some comments in the reporting were neutral or "wait and see" and those from industry were generally favorable.

    https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/b...lowout-preventer-and-well-control-regulations

    The above is the press release.


    https://www.bsee.gov/guidance-and-r...regulatory-reform/bsee-well-control-rule-2019

    The above is the BSEE (the issuing agency of Dept of Interior) presentation of the 2019 revised well control rule language and associated documents, plus identification of subject matter experts relied upon during the review of the original rule and the proposed deletions and additions;


    https://deepwater.boem.gov/

    The above is a "reading room" prepared by the US Government to reference documents related to the Deepwater Horizon incident in its immediate aftermath and accounting for a number of FOIA requests, along with links to two further reading rooms related to later material from the ensuing investigations legal matters, rule changes installed after the 2010 incident.


    Below are some news reports or statements issued by nonprofits regarding the 2019 rule change.

    https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/201...offshore-drilling-safety-rules/7641556855295/


    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...trump-administration-safety-rules/3657752002/

    The above USA Today piece is fairly even handed in that one of the officials who served on the Obama commission investigating the 2010 blowout is quoted as regarding the new rules as likely leaving us better off than before the 2010 incident, even if possibly less safe than under the rule changes put in after that incident.


    https://www.nrdc.org/media/2019/190502

    The National Resources Defense Council opposed the 2019 rule changes although it's possible some of its remarks and proposed alterations were taken into account in the language of the final rule revision. In some reports of their reaction to the rule change, their quotes tended to prefaced by "If the final rule included..." etc., acknowledging that there would likely be some adjustment of language after the pubic review period had ended.

    https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...eases-landmark-offshore-drilling-safety-rules

    The piece in The Hill has comments on not only the well control rule changes published this month but on two other sets of rule changes (related to post-drilling offshore production and to rig inspection) which were published last year:

    Prior to the 2019 rule change, plans for expansion of offshore drilling permits (Alaska, California, Oregon, Washington, and offshore from the Atlantic states as well as in the Gulf of Mexico) were announced in 2018 by Trump's former Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke.

    Opposition was expressed by both Republican and Democratic governors of many of the affected states. The implementation was then moved farther into the future, and Trump did announce prior to the Florida governor's election that offshore Florida would be dropped from the expanded permitting process. The governors of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina have also opposed the Atlantic expansion.



    A note for those who may not realize it: David Bernhardt, the current Secretary of the Interior, was an oil and gas lobbyist, and prior to that served as solicitor general of the Department of Interior in the Bush 43 administration. Wiki link. So Bernhardt was ideally suited for the job at hand when Trump set about having regulations eased for the oil and gas industry. He had already served as legal counsel to the department he now runs, was an easy confirmation prospect in the Senate and would know which drilling, production and safety rules his former oil and gas industry clients would have tended to find particularly onerous.
     
  11. pshufd macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #11
    Is deepwater economically viable? Deepwater exploration was for a time of dwindling oil supplies. The current environment is of a global surplus of production capacity. Some countries have voluntarily cut back on production so as to not tank the price. Do we need deepwater at all today?
     
  12. LizKat thread starter macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #12
    Good question. The resource is known to be finite and I had figured that with its problematic aspects --burning it, and using it for other than crucially important plastics, with even the noncritical ones eventually ending up as pollutants, "recycliing" notwithstanding-- the oil and gas companies would long since have slid focus sooner to renewables, and dumped bigger bucks into research on more eco-friendly substitutes for petroleum-based plastics.

    The sheer risk just to ground, water and air every year in our ongoing extraction, transportation, refining and subsequent use of oil and gas --and the chemicals and pollutants used or spun off from those processes-- would suggest to even the average shareholder that the upside cannot possibly cover the potential downside, particularly whatever results from accidents. That leaves aside the risk to human beings, their communities and local economies.

    I mean $40 to $60 billion dollars in overall loss from the 2010 blowout, explosion and spill is a number no one can sneeze at even once. The peers of BP --and peers of the Macondo well's support companies, and all the coastal states who are potential sisters in the plight of Lousiana-- all those who were just horrified onlookers last time must have been thanking lucky stars they didn't have a fingerprint on Deepwater Horizon. But lucky stars, while perhaps not entirely random (hence things like Well Control Rules, duh) are not a sure thing either.

    Every day's a winner when nothing goes wrong, eh? That's how Wall Street looks at this stuff. So far.
     
  13. pshufd macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #13
    I've seen charts of what people are driving and people want bigger and heavier vehicles that consume more fuel than in years past. It seems nuts to me but that's the behavior that people demonstrate - regardless of what they actually say. And this is true in most other countries too.

    The oil companies are simply meeting those demands.

    Oil and natural gas are just incredibly convenient. Sure, things go wrong, but things go wrong in a lot of things and places.
     
  14. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    sitting on a beach watching a DC simulation ...
    #14
    At this point, I can see the current administration wanting to scale /roll back some of the rules put in place after this happened. Their current stance is to relax some of the current rules in order to stimulate the economy. I do not see how this equates to the GOP wanting you to forget the incident.

    Personally I remember that event quite well. I know very little about the changes that were enacted as a result of it occurring.
     
  15. LizKat thread starter macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #15
    Still with objection to the thread title, eh?

    I'm tempted to edit it to "Remember the GOP next time an offshore oil well blows out"
     
  16. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    sitting on a beach watching a DC simulation ...
    #16
    Not an objection. Just an opinion that it says something different from the thread.
     
  17. LizKat thread starter macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #17
    Lots of things are incredibly convenient. "Lying around in our own dirt" as Lily Allen once put it in a song about a fun weekend, is incredibly convenient... in the short run, even if unsustainable in the longer run.

    As adults we're supposedly capable of taking the long view and acting in best interests of the next generation. As far as use of oil and gas goes at this point though, not enough of us are doing that. The handwriting is on the wall. We eject too much CO2 into the atmosphere and there's a point past which natural balances can't possibly right the problem. We're getting there at a clip even pessimistic scientists didn't envision ten years ago.

    I am almost ready to read Dahr Jamail's book The End of Ice - it's not a tome of stats on how many more years before earth's too hot to live on.

    More a primer on how it's time to reconnect with our primal dependence on the planet's bounty of water and air, and work harder to help sustain it. For a lot of us it's so easy to just order a 24-pack of bottled water if we don't like the stuff comes out of the tap, or we read that shale drilling wastewater may have leached into the ground water reservoir. So far it's easy, anyway. For some of us. What about when a few billion people in India can no longer rely on rivers fed by seven glaciers?

    Or else it's time to come to terms with and mourn the inevitable extinctions our children will bear witness to, in our willingness to model behavior leading to extinction of our own species not that far down their road.

    The choice as adults is ours right now, even as we may continue to figure hey I know it's crazy to burn gas any more but [shrug] I gotta get to work somehow, so... I choose to get there in a gas guzzling SUV...

    Maybe having another massive well blowout sometime is part of the solution and I should be thanking the GOP for rule changes that may make that more rather than less likely but in any case will save oilcos money in the meanwhile? I dunno. I can't quite get to that point when I think about all this. Not yet anyway.
     
  18. pshufd macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #18
    Good luck beating your head against a wall.
     
  19. LizKat thread starter macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #19
    I don't regard it as that, and I do make an effort to help my congress critters put more priority on the subject... and probably a bunch of people like me are why individual states have sent representatives abroad to make it clear that Trump may be a climate science denier and has hired flunkies for his Energy and Interior cabinets accordingly, but not everyone of influence on the matter in the USA shares his views.

    Well I fixed an amusing typo in my last post anyway, while I pondered over what part of my post you thought most represented tackling a stone wall.

    Still mulling over whether to alter the title of the thread to something less ... "misleading"... is how one member put it.

    Alternate titles:

    GOP says 80% of Obama era Well Control Rule isn't all that onerous

    GOP says 20% of Obama era Well Control Rule is burnt toast now, baby

    Straight talk on offshore oil drilling: Well Control Rules just got weakened

     
  20. pshufd macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #20


    The politics don't matter.

    You're fighting hundreds of millions of purchase decisions by individuals. Many who agree with your perspective. Just not when it applies to their personal lives.

    And that's beating your head against a wall.
     
  21. LizKat thread starter macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #21
    You have a point in that according to data gathered by Pew Research for a 2017 article,

    Three-quarters of Americans are concerned about the environment, but fewer say they make an effort to live out that concern all the time. Among U.S. adults, 75% say they are particularly concerned about helping the environment as they go about their daily lives, according to a 2016 Pew Research Center survey. But only one-in-five Americans say they make an effort to live in ways that help protect the environment “all the time.”

    Those ages 65 and older are three times as likely as those ages 18 to 29 to say they make this effort all the time (36% vs. 12%).
    Looks like either the silent gen and the boomers fell down educating our own offspring... or else we just lie more often than our kids do, which is certainly possible. God knows we've made enough mistakes to be tempted to lie about at least some of them.

    Still there are those who do change their mind about old purchase (or use) patterns, and who don't look back after tacking in a new direction. Otherwise we would not even have the ongoing shifts we can see in people deciding to "go solar" with their home power supply, never mind stuff like pressuring the governor's office to ban single-use plastic bags and so forth.

    Just as every vote does make a difference... and so does every phone call to inform a legislator that his election is not the end of his responsibilities but the beginning.... every action of an individual to switch up some previously autopiloted way of behaving does make a difference.

    Legislators work for us, not for K street. Once I got that through my head I didn't have a problem making time for the occasional phone call to some elected official to air an idea for improving some process they have some responsibility to oversee and possibly re-legislate.

    After all, how did we get to where we were in the 70s when these things happened:

    Congress passed the Clean Water Act
    Congress passed the Endangered Species Act
    Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency
    Carter signed the Superfund Act
    Surely not by sitting around watching the Cuyahoga river catch fire and people die from toxic chemicals under their very homes at the landfill by the Love Canal?

    No. People picked up the phone and protested and carried their demands to politicians campaigning for re-election, that is what happened. But see first they had to feel like their lives were in danger. Maybe most of us posting on social media aren't tuned into stuff like not having safe drinking water, or living someplace where somebody got a variance on environmental laws to run a thin petroleum products pipeline through wetlands or buried above the frostline in cold climates...

    The big question has always come down to whether Americans who favored clean air and water would remain willing to keep putting our tax dollars where our voting sentiments were, after our initial enthusiasm for visibly improved results of environmental protection laws.

    The answers have been mixed and discouraging if we go by policies of elected presidents thereafter. Our environmental policy has little choice but to tag along since any president does get to set the policy trend, even if appropriations for those policies are not forthcoming. Anything that doesn't require legislation is fair game for executive orders.

    Reagan, not unlike Trump, put people in to head up slots in the EPA and the Superfund who were industry advocates, not stewards of the spirit that gave us those laws and agencies.

    Bill Clinton ran a middle of road operation, easing up on some restrictions (western grazing fees, Everglades cleanup) but enforcing others and ditching Bush-Quayle's Council on Competitiveness that had stymied environmental agency regulations, restoring those functions to the agencies but leaving a lingering scent of lobbyists driving the bus...

    Bush 43 ended up taking a number of middle-road environmental positions although his Veep didn't see things that way and did all to try roll "onerous" rules back through quiet language changes in drafts of bills or sometimes just taking inconvenient laws to court. A study of the latter rulings by the Vermont Law School's Clinic on Environmental Law and Policy showed a clear trend towards weakening restrictions that industry disliked.

    Obama by his appointments of science-minded cabinet members, including putting Stephen Chu in at Energy, was serious about renewable energy developments and about environmental protections, although funding of some of his national parks-related initiatives has remained an issue and there are still backlogs of needed repairs and renovations. Renewable energy investment via the DOE's Innovative Technology Loan program took quite a hit after the bankruptcy of Solyndra: it took the focus off the upside of federal investment in innovative technology itself during early years when private investment still lags.

    As with any investment one must be prepared for some wins and some losses. Making Solyndra into something else including a campaign issue was something I filed under shoddy politics from the oil and gas industry, even if more thought ahead of the particular loan might have been a good idea. The problem to me was perhaps less the backlash aimed at the president and more dismay over the pitch against the whole idea of government making outright investment in a beneficial technology. Oil is a finite resource and renewables are.. well... renewable and it's high time we all and the oilcos shifted gears. But the position of the oilcos was clear in the politicization of the Solyndra bankruptcy. They took advantage of the times also, in the sense that the public was likely to regard the DOE loan as "just another bailout to begin with" after the economic crash and start of recovery.
    Trump has preferred to roll back environmental regs where possible to about where Reagan's administration stood --lip service at best to clean air and water-- and somewhat less protective of our heritage of national parks and wildlife refuges, tinkering with usage restrictions, increasing permits and leases for mining, shrinking the size of some national monument areas, attempting to persuade Congress to put up public lands for sale to highest bidder for use as the buyer would see fit.​

    Congress over the years has continued to weaken laws originally intended to make companies responsible for chipping into the Superfund so that future violations would not be at taxpayer expense. This has happened on our watch since the 1980s whether we were paying attention or not... but it does speak to the importance of keeping track of what pols are up to after we vote for them: executive branch leaders and legislators on both sides of the fence have been importuned by industry to weaken regulations that stand in the way of their making a buck even at the potential expense of the health of both the American people and the planet.

    This latest move on the part of the Trump admin to continue rolling back offshore drilling rules imposed after the Deepwater Horizon blowout is no exception.
     
  22. pshufd macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #22
    And again, you write a bunch of stuff but it doesn't change the fact that people keep buying these big vehicles to transport themselves around. Convince people to change their lifestyles as if their lives depend on it. Very tall order.

    I chat with our fitness center manager regularly on trying to get greater engagement of the building population. She runs all kinds of programs and has talked about improving equipment. I said that the same group of people participate in programs and workout regularly and take care of their nutrition and show up for the seminars. It wouldn't matter whether the equipment were fantastic or whether it was awful - the same group of people would still workout regularly. She told me that the research supports what I said. It's very hard to get people to change what they are very reluctant to change. Even if they want to or see the benefit. And in this case, their lives do depend on it.

    The motivation has to come from within, not externally. And it has to be convenient. Getting someone to stop drinking soda is hard enough. Getting them to workout an hour a day - even tougher.

    Our elected leaders are a reflection of ourselves in a rough way. So when you criticize a politician, remember that you are criticizing a lot of people. Criticizing people is generally a poor approach to get your point across and to change behavior.
     
  23. LizKat thread starter macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #23
    I agree. As I said, one has to feel the danger first. Most of us don't feel that... yet. The question is whether there's still time to change if we've passed some point of no return.

    Some say our technological ingenuity will buy us that time... in the nick of time. I hope they're right and don't think that's out of the question even if hard to imagine. Imagination is boundless but it helps to have some background suitable to the situation, which I don't really have. I have hope... so that hope and a dime still buy me a phone call to a Congress critter, and I still do drop that dime.

    Yep, been there, seen that, done that, said that. You're right. She's right.

    Motivation internal, yes. I dunno about convenience actually playing a role when push comes to shove after that motivation somehow shows up. Sometimes stripping away the denial actually works and once it's gone people do a real 180 on stuff they used to reject or complain about. You never know what's going to be the point of cave-in on something like exercise. It's not that nagging actually works. Sometimes it's just people get sick of feeling how they feel and they do remember something a doctor or friend or some stranger in an elevator had said. They finally try it and all of a sudden they're in front of you waiting for some machine at the gym, and nobody is sure why it works like that.

    An idea is a good one only when we have it personally? Or else when some exterior penalty is so severe that it jump starts that interior motivation. Fat fines for parking tickets, points on the license for speeding, stuff like that. Still there will always be scofflaws, and when it comes to stuff like trying to mandate exercising or not drinking 40oz sugary sodas etc., the reek of "nanny state" is too obnoxious to a lot of us. Even if we might agree on the particulars, we totally rebel as to principle: it has to be voluntary.

    So far with cars, it appears that cheap gas makes people think everyone should drive an SUV that looks like a tank and drinks like a drunk. How to make electric cars dirt cheap and good for a 500 mile ride before running outta juice? Not sure the planet has time to wait for that, so cheap gas remains a problem and the very idea of jacking up the cost via higher taxation in the USA gets shot down instantly. Anyway it's regressive and hits the rural poor the worst.

    Sure but what I also remember is that when a lot of people criticize a politician, or a lot of politicians, stuff happens in a representative democracy. Maybe the particulars have to be reinforced or even re-launched once in awhile, but the people do still really consent to the government they've elected, and are sometimes quick to make that clear after the critters are sworn in and start to disappoint us. We may usually just think it's not worth getting out of our chairs to do that most of the time. But again, it comes down to whether we think our own lives are endangered.

     
  24. pshufd macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #24
    If you are worried about something enough, you can get change. My town voted for adding water filtration to the town water supply and our water rates are going to double. A company contaminated a few of our wells badly enough so that they had to be shut down and the contaminant level, while below EPA limits, is higher than we'd like it to be. We may sue the company down the road for recompense.

    I personally don't get the SUV thing but we're minimalists.
     
  25. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    sitting on a beach watching a DC simulation ...
    #25
    Great discussion between yourself and @pshufd ;)

    As for technology, if the current warnings on this are accurate, technology is likely our only answer. We are one country, not the whole world. Most countries will keep right on chugging it out ...
     

Share This Page

32 May 2, 2019