Offshore Oil Drilling and the Oil Rig Disaster in the Gulf

[RiversideGator]

New Orleans is lucky their tourism industry does not revolve around beaches and water.


http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/07/ap_collision_closes_mississipp.html

So, are the conditions in the Gulf Of Mexico for oil tankers the same as they are in the narrow Mississippi River?

[Eazy E]

John McCain planned to counterprogram Barack Obama's big speech in Berlin today by traveling to an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico to talk about offshore oil drilling. But that trip has been canceled -- supposedly, because of bad weather. But there may have been another, better reason for the cancellation.

Politico's Ben Smith notes that, in fact, the weather in New Orleans is partly cloudy and calm. In contrast to that weather, as my friend Steve Benen pointed out, you can currently smell diesel fuel in that city's historic French Quarter. That's because of a collision between a barge and a tanker that led to the spillage of thousands of gallons of oil. Not exactly the kind of image you want as you're making a speech about how environmentally safe more offshore drilling would be.

[Eazy E]

Now boys, here is an excellent explanation of the relationship between prices now and supply in the future.  This is written by an economist from Harvard.  Let me know if you need a simpler explanation than this:

We Can Lower Oil Prices Now
By MARTIN FELDSTEIN
July 1, 2008; Page A17

RG, I think that is a good article, and, though I don’t really support the push for drilling, I think this argument is persuasive-- to a point . I say to a point because by that rational, a show that we are reducing consumptionâ€"by driving less, driving better vehicles, taking actions that save oil that have nothing to do with cars, like reducing, reusing and recyclingâ€"would have the same effect, no?

[GideonGlib]

All of these arguments seem to revolve around this idea that high gas prices are bad across the board. Personally I am amazed how the same car companies who just a few years ago were saying that there was no way electric and other fuel form cars could be on the road in 10-15-20 years are now racing to put them out and vowing 1-2 and 3 year time frames. The current prices are doing an excellent job in encouraging people to car pool, use public transportation, bike more, drive less. In turn we as a nation are churning out less green house gasses, consuming less fuel, and living a lot more green. So many people here say they want a better mass transits system, they say they want developers to build more walkable communities, they say they want urban areas to come back to life and no one seems to want some liberal pro-active government to be too pro-active in regulating those things. Well, gas prices are causing private industry to change, and while it may hurt in the short term, the long term effects of high prices are more sustainable and better for all of us.

So no, we do not need to ruin our coast with off shore drilling, we need to make sure we bring to the first coast every sort of green energy company we can convince to set up shop here.

[Eazy E]

All of these arguments seem to revolve around this idea that high gas prices are bad across the board. Personally I am amazed how the same car companies who just a few years ago were saying that there was no way electric and other fuel form cars could be on the road in 10-15-20 years are now racing to put them out and vowing 1-2 and 3 year time frames. The current prices are doing an excellent job in encouraging people to car pool, use public transportation, bike more, drive less. In turn we as a nation are churning out less green house gasses, consuming less fuel, and living a lot more green. So many people here say they want a better mass transits system, they say they want developers to build more walkable communities, they say they want urban areas to come back to life and no one seems to want some liberal pro-active government to be too pro-active in regulating those things. Well, gas prices are causing private industry to change, and while it may hurt in the short term, the long term effects of high prices are more sustainable and better for all of us.

So no, we do not need to ruin our coast with off shore drilling, we need to make sure we bring to the first coast every sort of green energy company we can convince to set up shop here.

'Who Killed the Electric Car' is an eye-opening documentary on the stupidity of the American car companies.

[Eazy E]

First of all, after the relentless destruction unleashed on our economy with the slick moves to bring us 'cheap oil' (see IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN) I think there is an unofficial moratorium on bright new republican ideas to bring the price of oil down.

The last oil decrease program (affectionately referred to as the $3trillion highway to price tripling) was so wildly unsuccessful that one would think there would be nothing but embarrased silence whenever the subject of how best to deal with oil prices came up from River and his friends.

And, honestly, no one thinks that Cheney holding a closed-door meeting, which he fought beyond tooth and nail to keep secret, with CEOs of oil companies to forumalte our national energy policy had nothing at all to do with this? 
I mean, i don't go in for the truly loony conspiracies propounded by right and left, but c'mon-- the guy sets national policy with the people who are now reaping unheard-of benefits from that policy?

[Eazy E]

All of these arguments seem to revolve around this idea that high gas prices are bad across the board. Personally I am amazed how the same car companies who just a few years ago were saying that there was no way electric and other fuel form cars could be on the road in 10-15-20 years are now racing to put them out and vowing 1-2 and 3 year time frames. The current prices are doing an excellent job in encouraging people to car pool, use public transportation, bike more, drive less. In turn we as a nation are churning out less green house gasses, consuming less fuel, and living a lot more green. So many people here say they want a better mass transits system, they say they want developers to build more walkable communities, they say they want urban areas to come back to life and no one seems to want some liberal pro-active government to be too pro-active in regulating those things. Well, gas prices are causing private industry to change, and while it may hurt in the short term, the long term effects of high prices are more sustainable and better for all of us.

So no, we do not need to ruin our coast with off shore drilling, we need to make sure we bring to the first coast every sort of green energy company we can convince to set up shop here.

Speaking of, anyone heard of Blackle (blackle.com)? It's just like Google (minus searches for news and images, etc), but has a black screen that (supposedly) saves a lot of energy because white backgrounds require more power.  I have been using it for a while now, and it's pretty cool.

[Midway ®]

RG, all of your responses are trash so far.

You are either being deliberately obtuse or just congenitally dense.

In any event, since it would appear you are living under a rock, here is Picken's plan from his website.

I don't necessarily endorse anything he proposes, but, he does talk about declining oil production, peak oil, the folly of trying to drill our way out of this problem, etc. As usual, everything he says contradicts your views, and I'm afraid that I'm going to have to go with him as an expert in the field of oil, because he just has more experience than you.

Let me be very plain here so you can understand without any ambiguity.... You, as usual are 100% incorrect. You as usual have endorsed the simplistic viewpoint proposed by the trinity of radio nitwittery. You as usual display a lack of even the most rudimentary understanding of the basic issues involved here.  Education was wasted on you, because you don't have the good sense to just be quiet when you obviously know nothing about a subject.


http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

America is addicted to foreign oil.

It's an addiction that threatens our economy, our environment and our national security. It touches every part of our daily lives and ties our hands as a nation and a people.

The addiction has worsened for decades and now it's reached a point of crisis.
In 1970, we imported 24% of our oil.
Today it's nearly 70% and growing.

As imports grow and world prices rise, the amount of money we send to foreign nations every year is soaring. At current oil prices, we will send $700 billion dollars out of the country this year alone â€" that's four times the annual cost of the Iraq war.
Loading...

Projected over the next 10 years the cost will be $10 trillion â€" it will be the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.

America uses a lot of oil. Every day 85 million barrels of oil are produced around the world. And 21 million of those are used here in the United States.

That's 25% of the world's oil demand. Used by just 4% of the world's population.

Can't we just produce more oil?

World oil production peaked in 2005. Despite growing demand and an unprecedented increase in prices, oil production has fallen over the last three years. Oil is getting more expensive to produce, harder to find and there just isn't enough of it to keep up with demand.

The simple truth is that cheap and easy oil is gone.

What's the good news?
The United States is the Saudi Arabia of wind power.

Studies from around the world show that the Great Plains states are home to the greatest wind energy potential in the world â€" by far.

The Department of Energy reports that 20% of America's electricity can come from wind. North Dakota alone has the potential to provide power for more than a quarter of the country.

Today's wind turbines stand up to 410 feet tall, with blades that stretch 148 feet in length. The blades collect the wind's kinetic energy. In one year, a 3-megawatt wind turbine produces as much energy as 12,000 barrels of imported oil.

Wind power currently accounts for 48 billion kWh of electricity a year in the United States â€" enough to serve more than 4.5 million households. That is still only about 1% of current demand, but the potential of wind is much greater.

A 2005 Stanford University study found that there is enough wind power worldwide to satisfy global demand 7 times over â€" even if only 20% of wind power could be captured.

Building wind facilities in the corridor that stretches from the Texas panhandle to North Dakota could produce 20% of the electricity for the United States at a cost of $1 trillion. It would take another $200 billion to build the capacity to transmit that energy to cities and towns.

That's a lot of money, but it's a one-time cost. And compared to the $700 billion we spend on foreign oil every year, it's a bargain.
An economic revival for rural America.

Developing wind power is an investment in rural America.

To witness the economic promise of wind energy, look no further than Sweetwater, Texas.

Sweetwater was typical of many small towns in middle-America. With a shortage of good jobs, the youth of Sweetwater were leaving in search of greater opportunities. And the town's population dropped from 12,000 to under 10,000.

When a large wind power facility was built outside of town, Sweetwater experienced a revival. New economic opportunity brought the town back to life and the population has grown back up to 12,000.

In the Texas panhandle, just north of Sweetwater, is the town of Pampa, where T. Boone Pickens' Mesa Power is currently building the largest wind farm in the world.

At 4,000 megawatts â€" the equivalent combined output of four large coal-fire plants â€" the production of the completed Pampa facility will double the wind energy output of the United States.

In addition to creating new construction and maintenance jobs, thousands of Americans will be employed to manufacture the turbines and blades. These are high skill jobs that pay on a scale comparable to aerospace jobs.

Plus, wind turbines don't interfere with farming and grazing, so they don't threaten food production or existing local economies.
A cheap new replacement for foreign oil.

The Honda Civic GX Natural Gas Vehicle is the cleanest internal-combustion vehicle in the world according to the EPA.

Natural gas and bio-fuels are the only domestic energy sources used for transportation.
Cleaner

Natural gas is the cleanest transportation fuel available today.

According to the California Energy Commission, critical greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas are 23% lower than diesel and 30% lower than gasoline.

Natural gas vehicles (NGV) are already available and combine top performance with low emissions. The natural gas Honda Civic GX is rated as the cleanest production vehicle in the world.

According to NGVAmerica, there are more than 7 million NGVs in use worldwide, but only 150,000 of those are in the United States.

The EPA estimates that vehicles on the road account for 60% of carbon monoxide pollution and around one-third of hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions in the United States. As federal and state emissions laws become more stringent, many requirements will be unattainable with conventionally fueled vehicles.

Since natural gas is significantly cleaner than petroleum, NGVs are increasing in popularity. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach recently announced that 16,800 old diesel trucks will be replaced, and half of the new vehicles will run on alternatives such as natural gas.
Cheaper

Natural gas is significantly less expensive than gasoline or diesel. In places like Utah and Oklahoma, prices are less than $1 a gallon. To see fueling stations and costs in your area, check out cngprices.com.
Domestic

Natural gas is our country's second largest energy resource and a vital component of our energy supply. 98% of the natural gas used in the United States is from North America. But 70% of our oil is purchased from foreign nations.

Natural gas is one of the cleanest, safest and most useful forms of energy â€" residentially, commercially and industrially. The natural gas industry has existed in the United States for over 100 years and continues to grow.

Domestic natural gas reserves are twice that of petroleum. And new discoveries of natural gas and ongoing development of renewable biogas are continually adding to existing reserves.

While it is a cheap, effective and versatile fuel, less than 1% of natural gas is currently used for transportation.

For more go to his website.

He disagrees with you on almost every point so don't come back being Mr. Circumspect. For every statement he makes, I can reprint one of your malformed posts displaying diametrical opposition. Go back to school and pass those science courses this time.

[BridgeTroll]

I watched Pickens being interviewed on one of last Sunday mornings news interviews... He did say all the things list at his website including below...

The Pickens Plan is a bridge to the future â€" a blueprint to reduce foreign oil dependence by harnessing domestic energy alternatives, and buy us time to develop even greater new technologies.

But I also saw him and heard him say that the U.S. should drill everywhere we have oil... including ANWR... to REDUCE OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.  He and I are well aware that we cannot replace our total imports with domestic production but clearly the more we produce the less we import... thereby...REDUCING OUR DEPENDENCE ON FORIEGN OIL...

The phrase "drilling our way out of this" really has no bearing on the actual argument.

[RiversideGator]

RG, all of your responses are trash so far.

You are either being deliberately obtuse or just congenitally dense.

In any event, since it would appear you are living under a rock, here is Picken's plan from his website.

I don't necessarily endorse anything he proposes, but, he does talk about declining oil production, peak oil, the folly of trying to drill our way out of this problem, etc. As usual, everything he says contradicts your views, and I'm afraid that I'm going to have to go with him as an expert in the field of oil, because he just has more experience than you.

Let me be very plain here so you can understand without any ambiguity.... You, as usual are 100% incorrect. You as usual have endorsed the simplistic viewpoint proposed by the trinity of radio nitwittery. You as usual display a lack of even the most rudimentary understanding of the basic issues involved here.  Education was wasted on you, because you don't have the good sense to just be quiet when you obviously know nothing about a subject.

He disagrees with you on almost every point so don't come back being Mr. Circumspect. For every statement he makes, I can reprint one of your malformed posts displaying diametrical opposition. Go back to school and pass those science courses this time.

I see you are still substituting personal attacks for facts and logic, midway.  I could insult you also but I really dont care to get into this with someone like you who is obviously just a bitter failure.  In any case, it accomplishes nothing to be rude and obnoxious since, if it did, you would be a billionaire already. 

Now, you posted the excerpt from Pickens' site which is similar to what I have read before.  However again you did not post any statement from Pickens which said that allowing additional oil drilling now would lower prices now.  Now go back and reread what I asked of you and then try again.  In fact, let me help you.  This is what I posted in this very thread:

Please post a specific quote from Pickens stating that drilling now will not bring down oil prices.  I seriously doubt you will find one.  What Pickens is stating is that we need a long term solution that eliminates the need for oil.  I support this also.  Until this happens, we are stuck with oil.

[RiversideGator]

Remember also that Pickens has significant investments in natural gas so he may have an axe to grind here no matter what he said about drilling.

Oh, and wait till we swift boat Obama.   

[Midway ®]

Remember also that Pickens has significant investments in natural gas so he may have an axe to grind here no matter what he said about drilling.

Oh, and wait till we swift boat Obama.   

Of course he does.

So your position is that you know more about the oil business than Pickens?

And that you don't have an axe to grind?

More foolishness.

The point is, that, in one article Pickens smashes everything you have said in 600 posts.

So what if he has an axe to grind? So does everyone and everything you quote, so what?

A fact is a fact, the truth is really very simple, to quote some genius.

Too bad you can't edit and delete my posts in this thread, Chairman Mao, but that's what happens when you wander out of your lair.

And BTW, stop being such a crybaby.

[JeffreyS]

I would also support wind farms off the First Coast.
If we do have drilling occur I think we should demand more than your average benefit of having more business in the state. I think in order to pump off our coast any company that does should have to discount the gas sold in this state.

[Midway ®]

I would also support wind farms off the First Coast.
If we do have drilling occur I think we should demand more than your average benefit of having more business in the state. I think in order to pump off our coast any company that does should have to discount the gas sold in this state.

Just keep in mind that when that oil comes out of the ground, is enters the world marketplace, and is priced accordingly.

The primary growth areas in the world oil marketplace are in developing and very populous nations, China and India for example. So, in a best case fantasy scenario, the additional supply would lower the price, which would simply further drive demand for oil products in these developing nations, which would tend to raise prices again in response to the laws of supply and demand.

Therefore, we would be imperiling our coastline for the benefit of these developing nations appetite for a "carcentric and energy intensive" lifestyle, propelled by cheap oil. That does not sound like a good deal for Floridians to me.

[Midway ®]

RG, all of your responses are trash so far.

You are either being deliberately obtuse or just congenitally dense.

In any event, since it would appear you are living under a rock, here is Picken's plan from his website.

I don't necessarily endorse anything he proposes, but, he does talk about declining oil production, peak oil, the folly of trying to drill our way out of this problem, etc. As usual, everything he says contradicts your views, and I'm afraid that I'm going to have to go with him as an expert in the field of oil, because he just has more experience than you.

Let me be very plain here so you can understand without any ambiguity.... You, as usual are 100% incorrect. You as usual have endorsed the simplistic viewpoint proposed by the trinity of radio nitwittery. You as usual display a lack of even the most rudimentary understanding of the basic issues involved here.  Education was wasted on you, because you don't have the good sense to just be quiet when you obviously know nothing about a subject.

He disagrees with you on almost every point so don't come back being Mr. Circumspect. For every statement he makes, I can reprint one of your malformed posts displaying diametrical opposition. Go back to school and pass those science courses this time.

I see you are still substituting personal attacks for facts and logic, midway.  I could insult you also but I really dont care to get into this with someone like you who is obviously just a bitter failure.  In any case, it accomplishes nothing to be rude and obnoxious since, if it did, you would be a billionaire already. 

Now, you posted the excerpt from Pickens' site which is similar to what I have read before.  However again you did not post any statement from Pickens which said that allowing additional oil drilling now would lower prices now.  Now go back and reread what I asked of you and then try again.  In fact, let me help you.  This is what I posted in this very thread:

Please post a specific quote from Pickens stating that drilling now will not bring down oil prices.  I seriously doubt you will find one.  What Pickens is stating is that we need a long term solution that eliminates the need for oil.  I support this also.  Until this happens, we are stuck with oil.

Tell you what: you go do it and get back to me. You have more "down time" than me.  I'm too busy feeding America.

And RG, thanks for that book selection, it was delicious, aged to perfection, and a good source of fiber. As an explanation of 21^st century economic theory though, not so much.