PickensPlan

Drilling is NOT a solution!!!!!

Why people cannot understand drilling today we will only see the first barrel of oil coming out of the ground in more than 5 years? You need to get all the infrastructure built before start drilling. Jeez....

Drilling will not lower that price of gas tomorrow. If it does it just to show the oil price is all speculation. Drilling will only make oil companies rich. The ANWAR oil reserve is equivalent to what US uses in about 6 months. When that is gone what you're going to do?

Short term solution is conservation. Use less oil. Use less gas. We need to stop this addiction!

Views: 30

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kenneth Koch on August 18, 2008 at 5:39pm
It's starting to look like hydrogen fuel cell powered viechels are going to happen within the next decade. The cheapest way to make the hydrogen will be to manufature it at the refuelling site.
Permalink Reply by Hank Kelly on August 17, 2008 at 7:20pm
OK Drill ye tarriers drill....Rather than a long diatribe I'm only going to ask jus simple question at a time. According to our own government Mineral Management Service 79% of offshore oil reserves are in areas that are and have been open to drilling for decades with no restriction. There is no part of the ocean that is immune to environmental damage, but these relatively oil-rich areas are not in places that are hyper sensitive to being impacted by drilling.

Now the drilling proponents act like ANWR and the restricted areas of the continental shelf are the reasons why we are suffering pain at the pump. Environmentalists are unpatriotic obstructionists. That's not true, it's a bum rap. Have at it! Why hasn't drilling where it has been allowed already taken place? and shouldn't these areas be exploited first?
Permalink Reply by Steve Morriss on August 17, 2008 at 9:28pm
I don't think there are any representatives of the oil companies commenting here to answer your question first hand.
My guess would be that the law of conservation of energy applies. It is easier, more profitable, carries less risk, and requires less capital investment to buy someone else's oil than drill here...to say nothing of the endless law suits. In a word, the reason it isn't being done is "lawyers".
Permalink Reply by JD Messinger on August 17, 2008 at 11:07pm
I just sent a reply to this. See the one I sent to Hank.
Permalink Reply by JD Messinger on August 17, 2008 at 11:07pm
Hank,

Lets play a game, a serious game. A game of math and survival.

Think of it this way, you have enough carpenters to build 30 -40 houses a year.

In the next ten years (maybe 15) the world needs either 500 houses that hold 250k people each, or 12,500 houses that hold 10k each. Your the President Hank, make a decision.

What is your decision?

It is simply a balance of resources and budgets, risk versus reward. The world needs 500 new fields, pumping 250,000 barrels a day in 10-15 years. So agree all the experts and all parties and all nations. This fact is not disputed by anyone reputable that I know. There are only so many crews, rigs and engineers. It is not cost effective, or smart, to spend your time, energy and money on something that might only produce 10,000 barrels a day. People will start to die if we start doing this.

Remember, you can only build 30 -40 a year. And even that is not enough if we build th 250k houses. Once you start, you're going to finish.

Whats your choice Hank? A real choice, not an emotional or illogical one please. Ask for more facts or data if you need it to make the decision Mr. President. Maybe it is clear now why President Bush invaded Iraq.
Permalink Reply by Hank Kelly on August 17, 2008 at 11:45pm
JD,
I'm not sure if I'm following you correctly here. Are you saying Bush invaded Iraq as a survival measure to protect our oil futures? That the 10 billion we spend monthly is a bargain compared to our inept efforts to secure energy otherwise?
(I'll refrain from considering the thousands of lives lost since this might skew my judgement toward the emotional).

I beleive I will defer to your suggestion. I would need more facts and data before being able to presume to make a decision of this magnitude. And I mean facts. Unless gleaned from irrefutable sources all intelligence must be weighed without regard to which decision or who's agenda it would support.
Permalink Reply by Brad Jensen on August 18, 2008 at 7:24pm
They are drilling where they can, but capital will go where there is the least risk and the most reward - just like you and I try to find the best job we can and the highest pay.

The government surveys are all 30 years old - with 30 year old technology. You guys probably don't remember when computers still used cardboard cards with holes punched in them , but I do.

When I was in college in the early 1970's I read that there were only 7 years of proven oil and gas reserves left.

Obviously they found more. If the oil companies explore those areas that are now off limits, they are going to find a lot more oil than are in the 30 year old government estimates. Comparing 30 year old estimates to present estimates is like comparing my old Ford Fairmont stationwagon to a Lincoln Navigator.

And the basic point is, there is no reason not to drill there. Did you notice that thousands of offshore oil installations got through the last couple of hurricanes with no major spills?

And even before that, in the areas that they have explored, have you been reading about major oil spills?

So if fear of spills are not a rational reason, what is? Rich Hollywood stars who don't want to see the tops of the drilling rigs from their clifftop mansions?

I am for alternative energy. I think that alternative energy should be synthetic fuels for moral reasons as well as economic ones.

But in the meantime, we need to get to work, take grandma to the doctor and get her groceries, take the grandkids to soccer practice, and get on with life.

Do you know who owns the oil companies? In the USA, it is your mom and grandmother. Oil company profits pay as stock dividends to grandma, and she uses them to buy groceries, pay the rent, and pay medical bills.

In many other countries, the government owns the companies, which is part of the reason the price of oil is so high.

OPEC is an illegal price-fixing cartel. We don't need to sue them, we need to hurt them economically. They best thing I can think of is to synthesize oil and sell it for $10 a barrel.

I understand that this will sound like a crackpot idea to some of you, but it really is doable.
Permalink Reply by Hank Kelly on August 18, 2008 at 9:40pm
Brad,
There were 113 spills in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Significant spills. One oil rig was found 17 miles away from its original location. These events were grossly under-reported while the myth that there was no damage perpetuates. In fairness, some of the newer installations were equipped with emergency automatic shutdown devices that did perform very well.

In countries where oil is nationalized the price at the pump is as follows: 40 cents per gallon Bagdad, 17 cents per gallon Caracas.

I don't think you are a crackpot. I find your other comments well reasoned and I would support these views emphatically.
Permalink Reply by Brad Jensen on August 19, 2008 at 1:06am
Sorry, the articles I have read said there was damage ot lots of rigs, but no significant spills, since they have automatic shutoffs all the way down tot he seafloor. If you have some actual documentation on a contrary assertion I appreciate a link.


The reason gas is so cheap in those countries is because the price is subsidized by the government. There have been some articles about the high price of gas nearly bankrupting the Iranian government, but they don't dare raise the price. Even though they produce oil, they have no refineries so they have to buy it oustide the country and import it.
Permalink Reply by Hank Kelly on August 19, 2008 at 10:29am
OK Brad you got it, Here's just a few links:

The first is a pdf government doc, they can be tedious so you may just want to go to page 8.

This is Coast Guard reports for LA areas only I beleive.
http://www.uscg.mil/npfc/docs/PDFs/osltf_report_hurricanes.pdf

Here's another by LSU
http://www.lsu.edu/departments/laseagrant/hurricane/archive/ports.htm

Wanna see for yourself? Check this satellite picture
http://skytruth.mediatools.org/node/19981

Now, there's lotsa info out there. I've tried to steer clear of political sites but I am including the one below, not for the opinions stated, but because it is rife with a lot of other links that you might find interesting. I used to have an unbiased great report bookmarked, but I can't locate it right at the moment.

http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/06/19/mccain-katrina-spills/

My biggest issue isn't oil drilling, it's the media. We are routinely disinformed by the politics of both sides. It's hard to make a fair unbiased choice when we can't rely on the veracity of journalism.
Permalink Reply by Ken Goss on August 18, 2008 at 7:32am
Folks,

I have been reading through this chain of discussions. I havn't had time to read all of them, but so far, I have not found any comment on one item that I think is critical to recognize.

When there is a major shift in technology in any society, it takes a number of years to accomplish that shift. For example, in agriculture, it took about 30 to 50 years to shift completly over from 100% horse drawn implements to 100% engine driven tractors. In transportation, it also took several decades to shift over from 100% horse and buggy to 100% automobiles. The same story repeats for wind driven wooden sailing ships to engine driven steel ships, and other technology shifts.

The moral of the story is that there will be a transition period of several decades for us to shift from fossil fuels to non fossil fuels. We can not force ourselves to go cold turkey on fossil fuels without wrecking our economy and society. Yes, we must start working urgently on alternate fuels, but we must also keep exploring and drilling for oil to maintain our economy with the old technology while we develop the new technology. Drilling may not be an ultimate solution, but I believe it is still a necessary bridge to help us to somewhat comfortably arrive at a solution.

Ken Goss
Permalink Reply by Carl Burnham on August 18, 2008 at 8:50am
There is a push to have a more current survey done of ANWR that takes advantage of current technology. I predict that it will find the potential for oil there much greater than anticipated. We can also drill now much more efficiently (with very little environmental impact). Putting up windmills is not going to magically solve our energy problems, and it will take much longer to get a return on investment in them with the infrastructure needed to get equivalent results as existing sources of energy).

In developing alternatives such as wind, solar, and others, the chief opponent is going to be environmentalists with their legal wranglings. Take a look at this informative article -
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121901822110148233.html?mod=djemEdi...

In order to be energy independent, we have to give up something, to use our own natural resources and upgrade our infrastructure (both for existing energy sources and new ones such as wind). That includes putting windmills and lines up that may spoil the view for some. So be it. We can't have it both ways. Energy has to come from somewhere.
Independence involves sacrifice, being self reliant. That is one of the reasons we became a country in the first place. We have become so overly micro-managed by our government bureaucrats that want to tax us to death we forget this fact sometimes.

RSS

© 2013   Created by PickensPlan.   Powered by

Badges  |  Community Guidelines  | Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service