 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->General: General Discussion |
Page:
1... 3 4 5 6  Previous Next
|
|
How Much Will Offshore Drilling Help? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: April 8, 2007 |  Posts: 1,057 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quote:
"Trouble with you, trouble with me, you've got two good eyes but still don't see."
J. Garcia, Grateful Dead, Casey Jones
Quote:
Hal Wrote:
The nuclear industry is probably the most regulated industry that has ever existed. There are unbelievable "checks & balances" to ensure safety.
I see this as a good thing, error on the side of safety. Quote:
Hal Wrote:
I am not ignoring the problems...I am saying that today's technology minimizes (not eliminates) those problems. That is something the environmentalists ignore in order to scare people into thinking the oil companies are going to destroy the planet. Technology is a solution to a previous problem & begat's it's own new problems...which begat new technology/solutions which begat... Quote:
Hal Wrote:
That is something the environmentalists ignore in order to scare people into thinking the oil companies are going to destroy the planet. Which environmentalist are we talking about? Could you please provide the name of "ONE" environmentalist, who is ignoring facts in order to scare people into thinking oil companies are going to destroy the planet? For the sake of argument, drill wherever you like, but understand the stream of oil will be insignificant & not have lasting effect on energy prices! Think of the oil daily usage (amount quantity) represented by the ocean: Ocean = daily oil supply measured in gallons. Oil Supply from ANWR = One bucket If we add the one bucket to the ocean, ocean level does not rise, the added bucket is trivial, insignificant, does not matter. Yet we have plenty of hype & are led to believe this will bridge the gap. The hype or hyperbole is so great that democrats are changing position, regarding drilling. POST #1 was/is intended to show the insignificance of the proposed new drilling! High oil prices have done, what Gore, Kennedy, Pelosi, & Huffington, advocated for, and could not accomplish, conservation. High gas prices has, changed an industry "auto" & thinking. Fuel efficient cars are the rage, conservation is on the minds of people. Don't get me wrong here Hal, I'm just like everyone else, I do not like paying high prices for oil either. The point is drilling in ANWR is not the panacea you & others believe it is. In your rant regarding nuclear, you failed to comment on coal. A small look at coal: Much of Americas coal is high in sulfur, which is very problematic for the environment. Let's not argue this point Hal, allow me this bone! Hence the electric industry preference for 'gas' fired plants. Technology exists (on the shelf) for immediate installation of stack scrubbers. With installation of stack scrubbers, high sulfur coal, could be burned in boilers, without environmentalist objections. Why aren't stack scrubbers standard, or installed? COST electric industry views this as too expensive. FYI - stack scrubbers are less expensive, than a new nuke. Take Care Rico | | | If I felt any better I'd be sick!
Envy is mental theft. If you covet another mans possessions, then you should be willing to take on his responsibilities, heartaches, and troubles, along with his money. D. Koontz |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rico: Quote:
Quote:
Hal Wrote:
The nuclear industry is probably the most regulated industry that has ever existed. There are unbelievable "checks & balances" to ensure safety.
I see this as a good thing, error on the side of safety. Great. We agree on something!  Quoting Rico: Quote:
Quote:
Hal Wrote:
I am not ignoring the problems...I am saying that today's technology minimizes (not eliminates) those problems. That is something the environmentalists ignore in order to scare people into thinking the oil companies are going to destroy the planet.
Technology is a solution to a previous problem & begat's it's own new problems...which begat new technology/solutions which begat... What kind of an argument is this? Quoting Rico: Quote:
Quote:
Hal Wrote:
That is something the environmentalists ignore in order to scare people into thinking the oil companies are going to destroy the planet.
Which environmentalist are we talking about? Could you please provide the name of "ONE" environmentalist, who is ignoring facts in order to scare people into thinking oil companies are going to destroy the planet? Nancy Pelosi, a mouthpiece for the environmentalist movement, has specifically stated that she opposes ANY new offshore drilling because she needs to "save the planet". Quoting Rico: Quote:
For the sake of argument, drill wherever you like, but understand the stream of oil will be insignificant & not have lasting effect on energy prices! Think of the oil daily usage (amount quantity) represented by the ocean:
Ocean = daily oil supply measured in gallons.
Oil Supply from ANWR = One bucket
If we add the one bucket to the ocean, ocean level does not rise, the added bucket is trivial, insignificant, does not matter. Yet we have plenty of hype & are led to believe this will bridge the gap. The hype or hyperbole is so great that democrats are changing position, regarding drilling.
POST #1 was/is intended to show the insignificance of the proposed new drilling! This is a BS analogy. A "bucket" is not equal to 2% of the ocean EVEN if I accept the graph in the OP, which I don't. That 2% plus offshore drilling, plus nuclear power plus coal plus wind plus solar plus ethanol plus electric cars plus inflated tires plus tune-ups plus conservation...plus....plus....plus..... and all of a sudden, you can attain the goal of energy independence from foreign oil! Every 2% helps! That's the point. I support using every single method at our disposal to reach that goal. I believe it is fool-hardy to remove ANY options from the table until we reach that goal. Then and only then can we start reducing fossil fuel consumption....when we have a real working and viable alternative in practice....not just a bunch of great ideas. Quoting Rico: Quote:
High oil prices have done, what Gore, Kennedy, Pelosi, & Huffington, advocated for, and could not accomplish, conservation. High gas prices has, changed an industry "auto" & thinking. Fuel efficient cars are the rage, conservation is on the minds of people. Don't get me wrong here Hal, I'm just like everyone else, I do not like paying high prices for oil either. The point is drilling in ANWR is not the panacea you & others believe it is. High oil prices have also driven the country to the brink of recession. Is that your solution for energy conservation? Quoting Rico: Quote:
In your rant regarding nuclear, you failed to comment on coal. A small look at coal:
Much of Americas coal is high in sulfur, which is very problematic for the environment. Let's not argue this point Hal, allow me this bone! Hence the electric industry preference for 'gas' fired plants. Technology exists (on the shelf) for immediate installation of stack scrubbers. With installation of stack scrubbers, high sulfur coal, could be burned in boilers, without environmentalist objections. Why aren't stack scrubbers standard, or installed? COST electric industry views this as too expensive. FYI - stack scrubbers are less expensive, than a new nuke. You really need to move into the 20th century. You are playing old tapes. Coal can be burned very cleanly today and we have an enormous domestic supply. If tighter standards need to be legislated to clean up coal burning furnaces, then let the Congress do it. Stack scrubbers may be less expensive than a new nuke, but a new nuke will far outlast any coal furnace and without digging big holes in the ground! Bottom line....do it all! | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: April 8, 2007 | | Posts: 1,057 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hi Hal,
You seem to have an agenda against, environmentalist, & take an 'automatic' opposing stance. The concerns for the environment are real, and as responsible care takers, of the planet should be taken seriously by all.
Take Care
Rico | | | If I felt any better I'd be sick!
Envy is mental theft. If you covet another mans possessions, then you should be willing to take on his responsibilities, heartaches, and troubles, along with his money. D. Koontz |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rico: Quote:
Hi Hal,
You seem to have an agenda against, environmentalist, & take an 'automatic' opposing stance. The concerns for the environment are real, and as responsible care takers, of the planet should be taken seriously by all.
Take Care
Rico The only 'agenda' I have is to get this country to energy independence. I believe that this can be achieved while at the same time providing adequate protections for the environment. Many in the environmentalist movement would rather see the the economy wither and die than to harm a single spotted owl. It is this group that I have issues with. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rico: Quote:
Hi Hal,
You seem to have an agenda against, environmentalist, & take an 'automatic' opposing stance. The concerns for the environment are real, and as responsible care takers, of the planet should be taken seriously by all.
Take Care
Rico And you should be in very good spirits today. Oil is up $25 a barrel. Personally, I see this as a bad thing for people struggling to pay their mortgages and put food on the table, but Nancy and company are happy because they believe it's necessary to curb our appetite. So exactly who cares more about the little people. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: April 8, 2007 | | Posts: 1,057 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hi Hal, Quote:
Rico Wrote:
With installation of stack scrubbers, high sulfur coal, could be burned in boilers, without environmentalist objections. In Response Quote:
Hal Wrote:
You really need to move into the 20th century. You are playing old tapes. Coal can be burned very cleanly today and we have an enormous domestic supply. Seems like I said, coal an be burned cleanly, you parrot my comment then make it personal. Take Care Rico | | | If I felt any better I'd be sick!
Envy is mental theft. If you covet another mans possessions, then you should be willing to take on his responsibilities, heartaches, and troubles, along with his money. D. Koontz |
| | Registered: March 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | | Last edited: by dee1959jay |
| | Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | edit | | | | Last edited: by dee1959jay |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rico: Quote:
In your rant regarding nuclear, you failed to comment on coal. A small look at coal:
Much of Americas coal is high in sulfur, which is very problematic for the environment. Let's not argue this point Hal, allow me this bone! Hence the electric industry preference for 'gas' fired plants. Technology exists (on the shelf) for immediate installation of stack scrubbers. With installation of stack scrubbers, high sulfur coal, could be burned in boilers, without environmentalist objections. Why aren't stack scrubbers standard, or installed? COST electric industry views this as too expensive. FYI - stack scrubbers are less expensive, than a new nuke. You really need to do some 'current' research. The 'Clean Air Interstate Rule' and the 'Clean Air Mercury Rule', both passed in 2005, mandate a reduction in sulfur and mercury emissions by coal burning plants. Those plants, that did not install scrubbers, switched to low sulfer coal. That trend is now changing. Due to the cost of transporting cleaner burning coal, a lot of plants are switching back to local sources and installing scrubbers. See hereand hereand here. I will admit that, for a lot of these companies, it took a bit of 'arm twisting' to get them to change...but they are changing. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Posts: 262 |
| | Posted: | | | | Rico, Some good comments between you and Hal. The one major point I disagree with you about is your assumption (driven by a graph from a biased source) that the amount of oil ANWR drilling would generate would be limited to what the graph shows. That's an assumption as to the amount -- not a fact. The amount could be significantly larger (or perhaps smaller though the graph's bias would suggest it is more likely to be higher). Furthermore I would argue in favor of drilling in ANWR and anywhere else we are likely to generate significant returns. If we drill in multiple locations and exploit oil shale we could generate a substantially greater amount of oil from domestic sources - far more than the limited amount suggested by the graph and far more than a "bucket in the ocean". I don't hold any illusions that even an aggressive drilling approach will completely eliminate our need for imported oil but I do believe we can make major progress. The remainder of the gap between domestic production and our needs could be closed by greater use of the nuclear, hydro-electric, and other renewable sources. The more energy on the worldwide market the lower prices will be and more economic growth will occur. We need to move forward with more drilling now to address our short term needs. I completely agree with Hal's attacks on the rabid enviromental nuts -- protecting the environment is one thing but selling out the poor and lower middle class as part of some self-righteous crusade to "save the planet" is something else. They are simply far too zealous in promoting their agenda while many of them (particularly their wealthy Hollyweird supporters) go about their daily business in SUVs and private jets! Let's do some drilling -- in keeping with the theme of this site maybe we can all watch "There Will Be Blood" to get us in the mood. I know Daniel Day Lewis' character wouldn't tolerate those eco-nuts screwing up his drilling!  Brian |
| | Registered: April 8, 2007 | | Posts: 1,057 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hi Guys, Unicus69 - Excellent!!!! I still stand by statement that, stack scrubbers allow for clean burning of high sulfur coal. You cannot argue the chemistry behind the cleaning. What prevents generators from installing is still $'s. Judge Brian - Keep in mind the biased source of the graph, claims the numbers come from US Govt. So until it can be proven that, the graph is a 'distortion' to promote there bias. I will tend to believe them, for now! As to significantly higher/lower amount of oil present, I tend to disagree. Oil companies have an accurate, idea of what can & will be extracted. Oil companies (mine included Chevron) will not commit, billions unless there very certain, of a substantial pay off. I don't necessarily 'disagree' with new drilling, I'm merely pointing out that the amount of good will me minimal, for the effort. Also Obama, Pelosi have changed there position, and are now more open to new drilling, as times change, positions change. Oil shale, like Alberta oil sand, can only come on line, as long as oil prices remain high. As oil becomes more scarce, oil prices will rise, which will make the fruit on the upper branches feasible. Brian you mention, nuclear, hydro- electric, and other renewable sources, you fail to mention conservation. Conservation should be factored into the energy equation! Look at it like this as we deplete a finite commodity, price goes up, conservation becomes a larger factor. Quote:
I completely agree with Hal's attacks on the rabid enviromental nuts OK! Two points: You as a former (I believe) prosecutor, would have a field day, prosecuting a defendant who is not represented by an attorney, slam dunk. The defendent, not having studied law will surely miss, many things. Allow me a little leeway, before you object. Give the defendent, an attorney & your job becomes somewhat more difficult. The defense & prosecutor become, balanced for fair judgment. Have mercy on this poor awkward analogy, please. Have we actually listened & talked to & to an actual rabid environmentalists? Not influential sympathizers, hollyweird types? Grandstanding, chaining oneself to a tree, may look like Rabid whacko; generally these tactics, are for attention. It's not much of a stretch.<Illustrate a process> At one point, clear cutting a forest, was common >less & less forest > wacko tree huggers seek attention/notice > Int. Paper concerned regarding image > Int. Paper plants 3 trees for each one felled > result sustainable forest. This is just to illustrate the usefulness, of polar opposites. I drink your mikshake! Take Care Amigos | | | If I felt any better I'd be sick!
Envy is mental theft. If you covet another mans possessions, then you should be willing to take on his responsibilities, heartaches, and troubles, along with his money. D. Koontz |
| | Registered: April 8, 2007 | | Posts: 1,057 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hi Guys,
While were on the subject allow me to tell you what Los Angeles County effort, to be green:
Co-generation, which came about during another energy crunch, president Jimmy Carter gave us this. This is how it works for the county at large facility prison, hospital etc:
Large facility services (A/C, heat, domestic hot water, steam, electricity) are provided by a plant, which utilizes a gas turbine engine, one facility uses Rollys Royce jet engine. The turbine runs 24/7 the hot end (like an airplanes engine exhaust, where you see the flames) is attached to a waste heat boiler, the heat is captured, or transferred to water, which becomes steam or high temp water. The steam or high temp water is used to provide, steam for cooking, domestic hot water bathing water, A/C & comforting heating, for the facility. The jet engine is spinning turbines at great speed, this is coupled to a reduction gear, which turns a generator. The electricity produced on site is enough, to meet the facility electrical demand, & sell excess electricity back to the grid. Jimmy Carter made the large utilities purchase, at a premium, the electricity produced by the independent producer. LA County sells back, millions of dollars worth of electricity. The utility also wins, peaker plants/boilers do not have to run, hence the utility saves fuel & reduced payroll, from the offset.
Take Care
Rico | | | If I felt any better I'd be sick!
Envy is mental theft. If you covet another mans possessions, then you should be willing to take on his responsibilities, heartaches, and troubles, along with his money. D. Koontz |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting bbursiek: Quote:
Some good comments between you and Hal. The one major point I disagree with you about is your assumption (driven by a graph from a biased source) that the amount of oil ANWR drilling would generate would be limited to what the graph shows. That's an assumption as to the amount -- not a fact. The amount could be significantly larger (or perhaps smaller though the graph's bias would suggest it is more likely to be higher). Quoting Rico: Quote:
Judge Brian - Keep in mind the biased source of the graph, claims the numbers come from US Govt. So until it can be proven that, the graph is a 'distortion' to promote there bias. I will tend to believe them, for now! You guys are talking about two different things here. The graph in the OP details oil from offshore drilling, not ANWR. According to the Energy Information Administration, ANWR oil production will peak at 780,000 barrels per day in 2027. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar | | | | Last edited: by TheMadMartian |
| | Registered: April 8, 2007 | | Posts: 1,057 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hi Unicus,
Gold star for all your excellent work here. While the graph is indeed about offshore, I guess somewhere ANWR was introduced into the conversation, & just grew legs. I still will standby my comments even though, two different oil sources were are being discussed. Nice work!
Take Care
Rico | | | If I felt any better I'd be sick!
Envy is mental theft. If you covet another mans possessions, then you should be willing to take on his responsibilities, heartaches, and troubles, along with his money. D. Koontz |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Well, I do understand your point. According to the EIA, the US uses 20,680,000 barrels of oil per day. Even if peak production were reached tomorrow, 780,000 barrels per day hardly makes a dent.
If we include new offshore drilling, using the numbers from the chart, it would be close to 1,000,000 barrels per day. That's what, about 5% of our daily usage? I can see why people are saying it is not the answer. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: April 8, 2007 | | Posts: 1,057 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hi Guys,
Thanks Unicus!!!! Although we will eventually drill & add new supply regardless, slowly it will become apparent, its not the solution, some anticipated.
Take Care
Amigo | | | If I felt any better I'd be sick!
Envy is mental theft. If you covet another mans possessions, then you should be willing to take on his responsibilities, heartaches, and troubles, along with his money. D. Koontz |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->General: General Discussion |
Page:
1... 3 4 5 6 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |