Offshore drilling Vs Conservation

I feel the same. They are already here. They buy our debt and sell us Sh!t just to buy more of our debt. They come over here with diplomatic immunity, kill some one or commit a crime and go home. It doesn't work that way for us over there. What about some women that disappear that end up held against their will. Pretty easy to do when you have money and a plane standing by and no one to question you.

I am saying we need to reduce our dependency not just because it's running out. It's called innovation. We have steadily advanced since they landed here and before that.

It's time for change but it isn't going to happen under one or two administrations.

I know about slant and horizontal drilling. Solar, wind, hydro, geo. But it goes back to paralysis through analysis.

If we don't maintain some semblance of normalcy, the whole system will crash.

But we do need a comprehensive energy and possible life style plan. Change and foster new home construction through incentives.

 

I must have missed the post with the argument that was based on the assumption that oil is only source of energy. I agree that we must persue all types and sources of safe renewable energy. And ween ourselves off of the non-renewable, poluting fossil fuels. And It is interesting that you seem to have no problem with nuclear polution but seem to have a problem with off shore drilling. You are the one making the assumption that in this evil country, America, that the brilliant einstiens will come up with the technology to utilize these miricle, safe, renewable, affordable, energy sources, before we run out of fossil fuel, or it gets to the point that unsafe decisions get made for less safe fuels such as nuclear. I'm not as confident as you are about our technology being there in time to save the world. But if we can put off WWIII for an extra generation or two, maybe, just maybe, we just may have a chance and avoid WWIII in the procees. If you read my post I tried desperately yo point out that I was neither for nor against at this point. My question was do we sit here and watch while others exploit the resources, others that could care less about our EPA regulations, laws, safety whatever. Oh! I'm sorry! I forgot. It's only the evil, greedy, windfall profit making, I'm sure I missed some slurs, US oil comanies that's the problem. It just never ceases to amaze me why so many people from around the world what to come to this God forsaken country and what to apply for citizenship. You would think there would be more people abandoning this capitalistic country full of energy pigs.

 

Agreed 100%. In fact, on one hand I don't like the high fuel prices, but on the other hand it may help in the long run by making alternative solutions more feasible and competitive. Like capitalisim or not that's the way it works. The US spends about $11 billion a year in support for biofuels and it looks like it could be a bigger scam and rip off than the big bad oil companies could envision. And just when you think technology has provided a safe renewable source of energy, you may want to watch this before you put one in your backyard.

Now before I get accused of mocking wind power, I realize this is an exception, and other than being noisy and slicing up a few birds now and then, I'm a for it. In someone else's backyard of course.

 

OK, hers the deal A) this might have been a test to see what the threshold for failure is B) The last time I talked with the electricians that set them up, say they have built in safety features that shuts them down after a certain wind velocity. They aren't designed to turn that fast.

This should be treated like other potentially hazardous forms of energy production and high voltage transmission, be it nuclear, coal and steam etc. should be away from population and out where the cows have the best view. This way if they runaway the damage can be controlled to a degree.

The only thing ND doesn't have is nuclear.

They need to get off the pot for storage of rods and hot equipment.

 

That's where I get fired up. A lot of the oil company apologists make it seem as if only the whacky pinko-commie-islamic environmentalists stand in the way of virtually unlimited offshore and continental reserves, and buck a gallon gas

I personally have no problem with oil companies drilling for oil in coastal areas, the Interior, or the Arctic. I also have no problem with pie-in-the-sky tar sands extraction.

I just have one simple caveat: not one red f****** cent of taxpayer money be used to fund this exploration and extraction

At least here in Canada, coastal oil development - primarily the Hibernia field near the Grand Banks of Newfoundlad - has been historically a pricey taxpayer boondoggle. When oil was priced approx $20 a barrel in the 1990's, a Crown Corporation - evil godless socialism at its finest! - no oil company wanted to touch these proven reserves.

The Crown Corp - the Hibernia Management and Development Corp - was set up to pump billions of taxpayer dollars into the GBS platform and wells. Given the depth of the ocean there, and the depth of the oil deposit, each well was priced in the $120-400 million range

SO you'd think, ok, maybe with oil priced below the break-even of an estimated $30-$60 a barrel, it was fine to run a secretive crown corp that is immune from audit and investigation. Now that oil is above $100 a barrel, in theory there should be enormous profits and the generous Canadian taxpayer should be reimbursed. Right?

WRONG!!

Even with oil priced north of $100, ExxonMobil refuses to open the books on their Hibernia operations. They also expect funding to continue from HMDC. If offshore oil is so easy and s*** hot, why aren't oil companies lining up to set up platforms and drill like crazy? Why hide behind a crown corp??

Don't even get me started on tar sands, another taxpayer boondoggle. The taxpayer has pumped billions into this as well, and they can't even figure out a way to get the naphthanic acid out of the tailings. Correction, they can't figure out a method that wouldn't add $30-50 a barrel to the price of that syncrude

My pet peeve is that I don't like bullshit. I absolutely refuse to support any form of welfare, especially corporate welfare. A handful of people stand to have net worth of hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars, on the backs of millions. The ultimate Ponzi Scheme

 

There you go mate, setting yourself up for a life time of rage fueled misery. Better to just take the blue pill....

We actually had an interesting article in the Denver Post about oil shale and its impact on Colorado. It was a balanced article that was probably slightly leaning towards the anti-production side of things. Just read an article on GCC that put the EROI at between 1.2 - 1.6. That is shockingly poor. Of course, the neo cons never mention that sort of thing when they bring up oil shales on talk radio.

 

It should be noted that the Denver Post while opposed to oil shale development is whole-heartedly in support of offshore oil drilling. Kind of the nasty side of NIMBY- Only In Your Back Yard. That being said, the fact is they started trying to figure out how to make oil shale work in 1917 during the First World War, and they don't expect to make a decision whether it will ever work until 2020.

Just wondering about this one. From what I've read close to half of Denver's gasoline comes from Canada's tar sands (Suncor's Commerce City refinery).

 

I know that AZ gets a lot of crude from the tar sands. Wouldn't surprise me given the geographics. I think that the tar sands operations produce something over 1 mbbl/day. They're trying to ramp it up to 3 mbbl/day by 2015. It's unclear how much further they can go give water constraints. NG may also constrain the production at those production rates.

 

Clearly the direction the country has to go is less oil--not less foreign oil dependence. Most of our oil does not come from the Middle East, anyways. The world needs other energy alternatives to reduce global warming. And the alternatives should include safe nuclear--as it is used in Europe. Nuclear must be in the mix, along with wind, solar, etc.

I am not satisfied with either candidate's response to this issue. McCain wants more off-shore drilling, which is a red herring. The oil companies aren't even using their current off-shore leases. He is also promoting nuclear--but I wouldn't trust safe nuclear to the Republicans--they don't believe in government regulation. That's why we are in the subprime mess and why the Democrats can't legislate curbs on oil price speculation. The Republicans are stopping it in the Congress. Nuclear would be safer with the Democrats. Funny how that's counter to the public's perception.

As for Obama, he is in bed with the ethanol lobby, and has gotten money from them through Daschle, who is now an ethanol lobbyst. Yeah, the liberals are just as crooked as the conservatives. He is also avoiding the oil speculation issue, since his buddy Durbin, the other Illinois senator, says speculation curbs will hurt the Chicago stock market.

Neither candidate is coming clean on oil prices and energy, in my view. And the whole energy issue is being handled badly by the media. The result is a largely misinformed public. I am very happy I will not be around in 50 years, thank you.

 

How can we control oil speculation when oil is a global commodity?

Agreed on the biofuels. The way that it's currently being handled is a mistake. Hopefully, a disruptive technology like algae will make crop based biofuels obsolete. Won't happen tomorrow, but in 10 years it's a possibility.

 

Apparently you forgot all about the argument regarding nuclear power. :huh:
Why is nuclear power good for France, yet people like you say it wouldn't be good for us in the USA?

I just don't get why you try to base so many arguments on spreading false assumptions that oil is the only source of energy 'the other side' is talking about.

'The other side' is saying "DO IT ALL!!!"

It's people like you who are saying, 'don't drill for more oil, don't build more nuclear, etc . . ."

And speaking of you forgetting, Alric . . . did you forget to answer? . . . or would answering be too much of an embarrassment?

Are you now a true believer and champion of fuel cell vehicles as shown in your chart?

What's the problem?
Can't back up your words?

 

Not O.K. That's not the deal. I did not slip some FUD video into the conversation. I only went looking for it on You-tube, after I saw it on the news this week in much more detail. And, thought that it would be a good example of how, even the safest of things, need to be given their proper respect, when it comes to safety. The turbine is part, sorry, was part of a functioning bank of wind turbines. There was a storm. Luckily someone noticed the problem in time to evacuate the 1/4 mile radius area before the catastrophic failure, that left debris strewn over the evacuated area. Luckily no one was hurt. The results could have been different if not for the advanced warning. Yes! you are absolutely correct. They have built-in fail-safe technology to prevent this kind of failure. It failed.

 

All I am saying is Sh!t happens.

 

As for Obama and Daschle and ethanol, they are from Illinois and South Dakota, and both states have a few farmers to keep happy. And regarding oil speculation and the Chicago commodities market, well, in the long run it will not be hurt by inteilligent regulation. The radical swings in commodity prices will actually reduce the commissions of the brokers over time as people become more wary of speculating on commodities.

And in any event, as President of the US, Obama is likely to take a different tack on ethanol and oil speculators and a lot of other things than he has as a Senator Obama from Illinois. The senator from Illinois and the senator from South Dakota (even when in retirement) are supposed to be for ethanol and for speculation in commodities. It's kind of like the "duh" response I have every time a senator from Washington blasts the European Union's latest actions against Microsoft.

 

Rove hasn't penned his response yet.

... Brad

 

That's what it's all about isn't it? The "other side". Not us as a community or country. It's always the evil, conspiring, caniving, only ever interested in themselves, "other side". It doesn't matter what their positions are. If it's the other side it always has to be wrong. Be sure to only point out the "benefits" of your side and never, never admit to any "possibile problems" with your solutions. Nothing in this world is perfect, on either side. And If your think I'm putting down your side, then you probably think the Rorschach Test is pornographic.

 

No doubt. I try not to get too fired up over this topic.

Until I happen to catch some outright neocon bulls*** about how "cheap" and "easy" it is to extract tar sands, or coastal oil. I say fine then, take away those enormous tax incentives, Crown Corporations, and let the oil companies pay for it out of pocket

If that were to happen, Ft McMurray Alberta would become a ghost town overnight

They also never mention that an entire natural gas production field - primarily the Mackenzie Gas Project in northern Alberta - will have to be diverted to run the operations. Under NAFTA, it appears Canadians will be royally screwed, as it will come to a choice to either heat Canadian homes in winter, or produce synthetic crude to satisfy primarily American demand. Legally, Canada has to supply oil to the US

It steams me that considering how harsh the Canadian winters can be, elderly Canadians will have to choose between eating and freezing. Obama hinted - then hastily retracted - a vague notion to break up NAFTA and FTA. I say go for it, Canadians will stand the winners once NAFTA is voided