Crist backs McCain on Florida drilling

[vicupstate]

Re the Exxon Valdez, you are talking one major incident in America in the last 25 years or more.  Big deal.  I also think I read somewhere that the area in question is totally clean now anyway.  I fail to see the problem here.

This is what Wikipedia says:

According to several studies funded by the state of Alaska, the spill had both short- and long term economic effects. These included the loss of recreational sports fisheries, reduced tourism, and an estimate of what economists call "existence value," which is the value to the public of a pristine Prince William Sound.[27][28][29]

WikiScanner discovered changes made from within Exxon Mobil altering this article's descriptions of the oil spill and down playing its severity. [1]

I guess you got your information form Exxon.

[Lunican]

Here is some info regarding ANWR from the Annual Energy Outlook:

Crude oil imports are projected to decline by about one
barrel for every barrel of ANWR oil production. Opening ANWR results in
the lowest oil import dependency levels during the 2022 through 2026
time frame, when oil import dependency falls to the minimum values of 46
and 49 percent for the high and low oil resource cases, respectively.
During that timeframe, the mean resource case and AEO2008 reference case
project an average oil import dependency of 48 and 51 percent,
respectively. Because ANWR oil production is declining after 2028, U.S.
oil dependency rises to 51 percent in 2030 in the mean resource case,
compared to 54 percent in the AEO2008 reference case. The high and low
resource cases project a 2030 oil import dependency of 48 percent and 52
percent, respectively.

Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be
only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be
offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States.
The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction
impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of
$0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case,
$0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per
barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference
case.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf

[vicupstate]

A strawman my ass.  One crew member on the Valdez was drunk, another was sleep deprived.  Are those things that can only happen in Alaska?  Could the same thing not happen anywhere? 

Imagine the economic losses if a Valdez incident happened off the coast of say, Myrtle Beach. It would be felt for years to come and would be tens of billions.

Uh, yeah, it's a straw man. Since when is Myrtle Beach even remotely close to major shipping lanes? Are there any icebergs or major reefs around the SC coast? Last time I checked there were none. And companies are a little more stringent about the caliber of crewmembers they have, since they would want to avoid another incident like that.

If the rig is off the coast of MB, a ship line will have to be established to it. Do you thing the oil is going to be transported by helicopter or something? 

Ever heard of the Bermuda Triangle dude?  Lot of ships go down and not because of icebergs.   

Don't you work in hospital admin?  Ask your HR folks if problem workers all have flashing signs above their heads saying 'I'm a drunk/Goof off/ etc. over there heads.  Give me a break.   

Question for you... How long did it take to build the SC Aquarium in Charleston, which was on a brownfield?   Oh, about 10 years.  How long has it taken to build the 'new' Duval Courthouse ?  Oh, about 5 years and still counting until GROUNDBREAKING !!   

To expect today's prices to drop for something that might happen in 5-10 years is ridiculous.  Comparing a construction timeline to weather patterns is a strawman.

You obviously have more to learn about how trading prices fluctuate and are affected by particular phenomena. River pretty much summed that up, so I won't go into detail about that.

Neither you nor Gator have anything but conjecture to back this up.

To answer your question about the SC Aquarium, standards are going to be much higher to clean out a segment of land that will either be residential or location for fish and mammals. So what's your point? Besides, you are wrong about the period of time it took to clean up the site; it took less than 10 years...from the referendum for the aquarium to its opening, it was less than 10. They didn't do any site cleanup prior to the referendum.

Do you really think it will be easier to get drill for oil in the ocean than to build on a brownsfield?   

Contamination on the site delayed construction for years, and the cost doubled between the time the state made it's appropriation and the time it opened, that was 10 years, give or take. 

I am 80% sure there was never a referendum on the Acquarium.  I sure as hell don't remember one.   

[RiversideGator]

You are wrong about the short-term relief. Increasing the supply, even making the claims that the increase is underway, will make competitors lower their price of oil. This tired, old argument that it will take 10 years for us to get this oil is blatantly false and inaccurate. This prediction will be about as accurate as the predictions for a bad hurricane season last year.

Here is an interesting excerpt from the US government's Annual Energy Outlook Analysis.

The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higherâ€"2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

Wait, let's dissect your argument.  We now have an oil shortfall of some kind causing prices to rise.  So, we shouldnt attempt to pump more because it wont come online for years.  But, wont we have an oil shortage then too?  The point is, even if the oil wont come online for 7-10 years, it is still worth pursuing. 

The truth is you dont want us to use oil at all.  It isnt about logistics or pricing.  Let's just be honest about your positions at least.

[Lunican]

Actually that wasn't my argument at all. Charleston Native said that a 10 year timeline is "blatantly false and inaccurate".

This U.S. gov report says that it WILL take that long. Now I'm left wondering where CN gets his information.

[RiversideGator]

Re the Exxon Valdez, you are talking one major incident in America in the last 25 years or more.  Big deal.  I also think I read somewhere that the area in question is totally clean now anyway.  I fail to see the problem here.

This is what Wikipedia says:

According to several studies funded by the state of Alaska, the spill had both short- and long term economic effects. These included the loss of recreational sports fisheries, reduced tourism, and an estimate of what economists call "existence value," which is the value to the public of a pristine Prince William Sound.[27][28][29]

WikiScanner discovered changes made from within Exxon Mobil altering this article's descriptions of the oil spill and down playing its severity. [1]

I guess you got your information form Exxon.

What exactly does this prove?  Just because someone from Exxon allegedly altered the wikipedia entry doesnt prove that the entry change was incorrect.  An environmental extremist could have just as easily altered the entry to make it look worse than it was.

[RiversideGator]

Actually that wasn't my argument at all. Charleston Native said that a 10 year timeline is "blatantly false and inaccurate".

This U.S. gov report says that it WILL take that long. Now I'm left wondering where CN gets his information.

Pardon me if I wont take the Department of Energy's forecast at face value.  Industry experts dispute their findings.  Why would the oil industry want to go to the expense of drilling if there werent significant deposits out there?  Sorry, doesnt make sense.

Also, even if it takes 12 years to come online, it should be done.  If Clinton had not vetoed ANWR 10 years ago, it would be producing right now.  Time has the habit of passing quickly.

[RiversideGator]

Here is some better information about the long term effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill:

What scientists have found is that, despite the gloomy outlook in 1989, the intertidal habitats of Prince William Sound have proved to be surprisingly resilient. Many shorelines that were heavily oiled and then intensively cleaned now appear much as they did before the spill. Most gravel beaches where the oiled sediments were excavated and pushed into the surf zone for cleansing have returned to their normal shape and distribution on the shore. Beaches that had been stripped of plants and animals by the toxic effects of oil and by the intense cleanup efforts show extensive recolonization and are similar in appearance to areas that were unoiled.

Although the Sound has proved to be surprisingly resilient, impacts from the spill remain:

Deeply penetrated oil continues to visibly leach from a few beaches, as on Smith Island.

In some areas, intertidal animals, such as mussels, are still contaminated by oil, affecting not only the mussels but any animals (including people) that eat them.

Some rocky sites that were stripped of heavy plant cover by high-pressure, hot-water cleaning remain mostly bare rock.

Rich clam beds that suffered high mortalities from oil and extensive beach cleaning have not recolonized to their previous levels.

While these are isolated examples, they provide a basis for gaging the overall recovery of oiled areas. Prince William Sound has made a remarkable recovery from a severe injury, but it remains an ecosystem in transition...


At the sites being studied by scientists, surface oil had all but disappeared by 1992, three years after the spill. The apparent increase in surface oiling in 1991 (two years after the spill) was likely to have been caused by heavy equipment digging up buried oil (called "berm relocation"), which was used as a remedial technique that year.

However, oily traces of the spill can still be found on some beaches. The remaining oil generally lies below the surface of the beaches in places that are very sheltered from the actions of wind and waves (which help to break down and remove stranded oil), and on beaches where oil initially penetrated very deeply and was not removed. At these beaches, there are signs of weathered oil on the surface and deposits of fresher oil buried beneath. Sometimes this oil makes its way to the surface and can be seen as a sheen on the water as the tide comes in. Interestingly, despite the fresh appearance of oil at these sites, chemical analysis and biological observations indicate that the oil is actually of such low toxicity that many intertidal organisms can tolerate its presence, even though it can accumulate in their tissues.
Residual oil on a cobble beach on Smith Island, Prince William Sound, Alaska in 1997.

Residual oil on a cobble beach on Smith Island, Prince William Sound, Alaska in 1997. Here, large volumes of oil have penetrated so deeply into this beach that substantial quantities continue to leach out. Oil sheens were observed at this site in undisturbed tide pool water. (Photo credit: OR&R, NOAA)

One of the scientists' goals is to determine whether this residual oil is causing environmental harm to organisms living there, since one of the most difficult questions to answer during any oil spill is, "How clean is clean?" That is, when does cleanup begin to cause more harm than simply leaving the oil in place to degrade naturally?

In addition, reports both in the news and in scientific journals have stated that not all of the oil found in Prince William Sound can be traced back to the Exxon Valdez. This is not surprising. Many potential alternate sources of hydrocarbons exist in the marine environment, even in a region that is relatively unpolluted. As examples:

Some of the hydrocarbons are natural, coming from undersea oil seeps or forest fires.

Others are definitely of human origin, such as the rupturing of oil storage tanks during the Alaskan earthquake of 1964, the pumping of ship ballast tanks, and fuel leakage from commercial ships and recreational boats traveling through the area.

Chemists who  "fingerprinted" hydrocarbon residues in both beach sediments and in animal tissues found that not all of the oil came from the Exxon Valdez. More recently, the highest concentrations of oil in mussel tissues have come from small boat harbors and diesel fuel. However, scientists hypothesize that most of the oil contamination found in Prince William Sound does trace back to the Exxon Valdez.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/stories/oilymess/oily02_impacts.html

Doesnt sound too bad to me.  Obviously, having an oil spill is devastating for a few years locally but it is not the end of the world.  Keep in mind also that we now have FAR better ways of preventing such accidents such as double hulled tankers, GPS navigation, etc, etc.

[Lunican]

Pardon me if I wont take the Department of Energy's forecast at face value.

Do you have more accurate sources that show that the oil can be brought to the market faster than 10 years?

Oh, and that was a pretty bleak report on Prince William Sound. Are you sure you posted the right article?

[Charleston native]

If the rig is off the coast of MB, a ship line will have to be established to it. Do you thing the oil is going to be transported by helicopter or something? 

Ever heard of the Bermuda Triangle dude?  Lot of ships go down and not because of icebergs.

You must have not read the article I posted about Louisiana's oil shipping. It's done by pipeline, which could be built from the rig to whatever oil refining facility could be built. Georgetown would be an excellent location for it, and the city needs the jobs. And pardon me if I find it pretty foolish to prevent oil drilling based on superstition and legend. Many ships and aircraft still go through the Bermuda Triangle without incident. Besides, if the legend is true, the ship and all the oil in it would disappear. 

Don't you work in hospital admin?  Ask your HR folks if problem workers all have flashing signs above their heads saying 'I'm a drunk/Goof off/ etc. over there heads.  Give me a break.

Uh vic, if a hospital employee comes in drunk or tired, it's pretty recognizeable, and he/she is sent home. He/she is not allowed to continue working, as per the Exxon incident. That's called practicing good, solid management. That was a beautiful straw man.

Neither you nor Gator have anything but conjecture to back this up.

Wrong, and Gator has explained why. For facts that deal with the particular industry, are we going to depend on government research or industry research?

I am 80% sure there was never a referendum on the Acquarium.  I sure as hell don't remember one.

Then you're 80% wrong.  I was still living in my hometown when the referendum for the coliseum and the aquarium were put on the ballot for funding. I did some research, and it's hard to find an article on it, but the following link from Chas County Capital Projects confirms it had been a referendum since the aquarium and coliseum are considered "referendum debt": http://www.charlestoncounty.org/departments/budget/FY04BudgetFiles/SectionGroupFiles/CapitalSection.pdf

[RiversideGator]

Pardon me if I wont take the Department of Energy's forecast at face value.

Do you have more accurate sources that show that the oil can be brought to the market faster than 10 years?

According to this article, it would take between 6 and 9 years to get the oil to market depending on where it is:

How New Discoveries of Oil and Natural Gas Affect Prices and Supplies
   
Crude oil, natural gas and other petroleum products are global commodities. As such, their prices are determined by worldwide supply-and-demand factors.  The prices consumers pay are the result of the interaction of thousands of buyers and sellers in both the physical commodity and futures markets. These buyers and sellers bring their own knowledge and expectations about demand for and supply of crude oil, natural gas and petroleum products. They also take into consideration factors that may affect these products in the future such as production and supply, the state of the economy, the global political and trade situation, and war or the threat of war.

As a result, though new discoveries of oil and natural gas are crucially important to supply, the price effect of any discovery or even a combination of discoveries on prices may be limited â€" or exaggerated â€" by other conditions in the U.S. and world economy when news of the discovery occurs, or when production of oil or natural gas first takes place.  . Still, new wells are constantly needed because each producing well and producing field follows an inevitable pattern of declining rates of production. For a more detailed discussion of depletion and decline rates, click here. And, because every barrel of oil produced domestically is one less barrel that must be purchased from foreign sources, additional U.S. supplies help to moderate crude oil prices over the long term because demand for crude oil from non-U.S. sources is lower than it would be without added domestic production.

It is important to understand that long lead times are often required for new discoveries, during which the companies pursuing such projects will spend as much as hundreds of millions of dollars in risk capital.  The significant oil and natural gas discoveries being announced today often result from investments begun by energy companies as far back as ten years ago.

How long it takes new discoveries to contribute to supply depends on a number of factors. If the new discovery is in an established producing area, the infrastructure to move the oil or gas to where it is needed likely already exists. In these cases, the time between discovery and getting production to market can be quite short. But if the discovery is in a new area, there will be a delay while infrastructure is put in place to make the oil or gas available. For natural gas discoveries, a pipeline may have to be built. If a new discovery is offshore, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico deep-water area, from 100 to over 200 miles offshore, it can take as much as several years to do the engineering design work and have a new offshore production facility built, moved to the location and installed. In Alaska, lead times are also very long. Drilling and construction activity (if a new field is discovered) can occur only during certain months of the year. The Prudhoe Bay oil field was discovered in 1968, but it didn’t begin providing oil to the lower-48 economy until 1977. Now that the Trans-Alaska Pipeline exists to transport oil from the North Slope, lead times have decreased somewhat, but they can still be long. The discovery well for Alaska’s Alpine field was drilled in 1994 and the field began production during 2000.

The long lead times that exist for many new discoveries means the U.S. cannot wait until there is an immediate need for more energy â€" we have to have the foresight to plan ahead and assure that energy supplies will be there when we need them.

http://www.api.org/policy/exploration/new-discoveries.cfm

But, even if it took 10 years to get to market it would still be worth it.  We will need the oil 10 years from now too.  If someone told you, I have a million dollars for you but you have to wait 10 years for it, you wouldnt say "no thanks".  You'd hunker down and wait those 10 years.  Let's get real.  Your ulterior motive is to make oil so expensive that people dont use it and alternative methods of energy are discovered.  At least admit your bias.

Oh, and that was a pretty bleak report on Prince William Sound. Are you sure you posted the right article?

Perhaps you should reread the first paragraph which summarizes the current state of affairs:

What scientists have found is that, despite the gloomy outlook in 1989, the intertidal habitats of Prince William Sound have proved to be surprisingly resilient. Many shorelines that were heavily oiled and then intensively cleaned now appear much as they did before the spill. Most gravel beaches where the oiled sediments were excavated and pushed into the surf zone for cleansing have returned to their normal shape and distribution on the shore. Beaches that had been stripped of plants and animals by the toxic effects of oil and by the intense cleanup efforts show extensive recolonization and are similar in appearance to areas that were unoiled.

[Lunican]

No, the first paragraph is not a summary of the article. It is an introduction that is followed by "Although the Sound has proved to be surprisingly resilient, impacts from the spill remain."

The rest of the article goes on to explain that despite the appearance that everything is back to normal, it in fact is not. You didn't read that far did you?

[RiversideGator]

I read every word.  I posted it too.  You do know that there were many pages on the original link, dont you?  I posted some of the relevant portions of the piece.  And, the bottom line is what I posted above: that there are some lingering effects but for the most part nature has proved surprisingly resilient in healing itself and there are not many visible damages remaining in Prince William Sound.  Sorry you cannot or will not accept this because it conflicts with your anti-oil ideology, but it is the truth.

[BridgeTroll]

I cannot believe someone actually used the Bermuda Triangle in their argument...   And now we are supposed to take the rest of their argument seriously??

[Doctor_K]

On top of the argument in favor of drill here-drill now, there's yet another aspect that might've been implied but not explicitly stated:

"Strategy"

Yes, even with starting the drills tomorrow it will take the better part of a decade to bring the oil to market, or so the saying goes.  No, this will not wean us off of oil.  More than likely, it won't wean us off of *foreign* oil either (I love that catch-phrase to no end!).  All in all, it's a short-term solution.  However, where's the problem with attacking something to solve the short-term AS WELL AS continued research in all these different alternative energy sources for the long-term?  What says we can't or shouldn't do both?

Getting that oil out of the ground in 10 years, while researching the perfection of harnessing wind, solar, (and more nuclear, to boot) and other alternatives should be a no brainer.  Why shoot ourselves in the foot while we're still running the marathon?

On top of that, think of the job creation involved.  Ok, so I don't have a clue about the actual number of hires for the set-up, drilling, transporting, refining (how 'bout no new refineries in the last 30 years?  how dumb is that?), storage, etc, but *some* job creation is better than *no* job creation.  Especially since the almighty, all-important unemployment rate ticked up another half percentage point.