Offshore drilling, thoughts?
 

As the gas crunch worsens, we see more and more cries to lift the ban on drilling off the American coast. I must admit it seems pretty attractive, and I've heard it claimed that there's more oil on our continental shelf than in the whole of Saudi Arabia. But surely there are drawbacks...

Discuss.

Environmentalism is a good excuse for not drilling it, whereas the true reason seems to be global, long-term economics. "Let's use everybody's else's oil up before we touch the rest of ours. Then, we'll be the ones sittin' pretty!"

I can wipe my own ass....we (as a nation) should also be as self-sufficient.

That sounds possible, but I am no expert on the subject, but off shore drilling will contaminte the area for sure and our Al Gore's would go ape shit on if the govt. allowed that.

Whatever you think, this is the reality: China is already there, and already drilling. If someone is going to drill right off our shores, it should be us. Not just for our own economic future, but consider who's going to do a better job--us or the chinese who can't even make toothpaste that won't kill you?

1) Hydrogen electrolysis for cars
2) Nuke for electricity
3) Grow hemp for a million different reasons
4) Destroy E85
5) Plan global reforestation
6) Educate the billion poorest people (the most rapidly populating sector) about renewable resources and birth control
7) Hire the folks from #6 to do #5

Sorry for not answering your question.

It's my understanding that the offshore oil stores are not that large. But even if they were, it's also my understanding that refining is the gating item. Plus, others are already doing it (chee wan).

The best thing about domestic oil, by far, is divorcing Haji.

But I don't know shit.

prolonging the inevitable is not a solution.

Prez W a few years ago: america is addicted to oil
Prez W recently: lets get high off our own supply

oil procurement and corn production (ethanol) are probably two of the most economy-confounding things going on in our nation today.

anyway, it is a mistake to think that giving the "OK" for drilling today would have any impact (economically or with respect to foreign policy) whatsoever in less than 5-10 years. Unfortunately the average driver hasn't been told that. They don't know that gas prices that influence voters are very far removed from actual presence or availability of oil.

drill away... the more you drill offshore the more I get paid :)

<=== Works in the subsea oil/gas equipment repair sector

Also note: we drill off the Chinese coast, as well. One example: Bohai Bay; I helped in that project.

1. Meh.. Sounds too fruity (honda) ish.. They've already put billions into research for this and we have what, two prototypes?
2. A-Fuckin-Men.
3. Can't really agree, but whatever.. I don't smoke -- Anything.
4. Sounds fun, think I'll join.
5. And destroy the tree huggers like Al Gore.
6. You mean China / Mexico? Yes. Agree 100% and would vote on that in a heartbeat.
7. You're a good thinkin' man, and I like it.

Not that much oil? I heard (now this is speculation purely..) its something like 10 billion barrels of oil a day. Tell me how thats not supposed to affect the bottom dollar I pay for fuel? 1 Barrel = 42 gallons. 2 Gallons of Crude Oil = 1 Gallon of refined Gasoline. Thats 420,000,000,000 gallons of oil a day recovered, 210,000,000,000 gallons of refined Gasoline for sale.. Less not forget about ANWAR where I've read theres HUNDREDS Of billions of barrels unrecoverable because we're not allowed to drill where we might upset the mating of some fucking moose which I'LL HAVE DIED BEFORE EVER... EVVVVVVVVVVVER SEEING!

Speaking of ANWAR, I also read another article the other day that one oil well would take up roughly less than 1/2 acre of space.. Something like 60,000 square feet for the ENTIRE SHITTIN Shebang! With technology we have for horizontal drilling now its not gonna make a damn bit of difference one way or another!

[/Rant]

All I can say is I've got 3 vehicles and I'm fucking tired of paying 60$ a tank PER FUCKING CAR.

Drill, drill, and drill some more. It isn't gonna fix our refining capacity. We need to build more refineries, and NOW. I think the feds should require our refining capacity to be doubled in 5yrs or start fining companies. Give out short term exemptions for "environmental impact studies" and such, to make it easier and faster to build. After we can out refine our demand, then start drilling more, and weening ourselves off the Mideast oil.

So you have to see something to legitimize it? I'll probably never see you before I die...

It's like last night at the drug store. we turned down a second plastic bag because the first was only half full and the guy was like "you can have it--it's free!" and we looked at him like he was a short bus rider. it shocks me how short sighted he was. where does the bag come from? where does it go when you throw it out? did he understand that it's made from the same oil his $4.17/gallon gas is? it's ok, it's free!

Smart man. I am waiting for the day we reach peak oil...

Considering how regulated the oil drilling industry is and how they take ever conceivable precaution to prevent disasters these fucking hippies should settle the hell down and let us drill.

I still dont understand why we listen to a minority of people if its majority rule.

I heard on the radio the other day that something like 70 floating rigs in the Gulf of Mexico got taken out by Katrina and the other one I can't name without any noticeable spillage or pollution. Even assuming the guy giving this info was thoroughly full of shit and exaggerating the number by 300 percent, that sounds like the real risk of an environmental catastrophe from an accident isn't that great.

If the majority is uneducated (which it is) I'll listen to the minority.
There is not that much oil to be drilled, I for one like moose, and global demand has gone up because China and India's oil consumption is going through the roof so the days of cheap gas are gone no matter what.
Y8s, you sound like a cool guy.

1) People have gotten it to work, but its not a full standalone system, it just runs parallel to gas and allows for less gas to be need per mile. Again the system and idea needs to be worked out better.
2)I prefer the idea of IDK installing solar panels on roofs of housing and buildings to help cut the cost.
3) Hemp is different then weed.. similar plant but the hemp, I hope the OP is talking about, doesn't produce THC but does have high soy and oils. Allowing for cheap products to be made and grows at an alarming rate. I want to say it was like a 3 month cycle from birth to full growth.
4) E85 is a joke
5) reforestation... never heard of it
6) sounds like a plan, that or how about stop letting people on warefare keep having kids.
7) Hey that sound like an kick a$$ idea.

they take precautions and still tankers end up spilling oil all over the coastline of alaska, california, washington... and what's more, they get off easy. the courts just basically gave exxon mobil a slap on the wrist this week by cutting the punitive damages they have to pay for the Valdez spill from $2.5bil to 500mil. Oh and I wonder how they are gonna budget for that.

why let the minority rule? I look at it this way:

the average IQ is 100 (a priori)
and that's not very bright.

I keep hearing that oil companies have record high profits. Is there any truth to this? I figured it's another one of those rumors. If it is true why is gas still so high?

Capitolism is rooted in greed, to put it in blunt terms. Thats why it makes so much fucking money, and works pretty nicely for big companies.

Oil companies want to make as much money as they can, do you really think they would lower prices if they could just keep raising them and making more money? They are running a business, and do anything they can to make a buck.

Walmarts profit are even higher, do you think walmart should lower their prices?

Gas is high because of wall street speculation, decreasing value of the dollar, and OPECs threat to curb production. IMHO, those are the MAIN reasons why its so high.

The profits of exxonmobil are not rumor. just do a news search on it.

incidentally, the whole "drill here drill now" thing may be moot very soon. Iraq has JUST agreed to open its oil fields to foreign oil companies. Since contracts will likely be signed in a few weeks and "production" will start shortly thereafter, you can expect this to have a near-immediate impact on gas prices.

I'd bet we drop 25-50 cents per gallon within the month.

Well said Sam, I agree 10000%. Dont forget the amount of money the Gov't takes in taxes from the Oil companies and does absolutely nothing to help produce the oil. As for Oil spills, I heard on the radio the other day that more oil spills into the Oceans naturally then man has ever spilled. So you cant really use that as an excuse anymore either.

The bottom line here weather you like it or not is drilling for oil here right now is the only short term answer to high prices. To be honest it dosent even have to be a short term answer. I heard we have enough oil in this country alone to last iirc something like 300 years. What do I know though all I can go by is what the media lets us hear and read.
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

Bad argument; out of context. There's a big difference between some oil leaking into the water at the bottom of the ocean and a tanker running aground and spilling its contents onto the shore.

Maybe, but when was the last time you or anyone you know or anyone on this forum from all points of this country went to the beach and couldnt swim because of oil?

Not to mention a tanker running aground has nothing to do with drilling here. Either way were gonna have oil shipped in. Maybe if it didnt have to travel so far the likely hood of a spill would be less.
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

was just about to make that point. would be interesting to see the data that says how many of the natural oil spills occur within 10 miles of a coastline.

The real question is whether or not current oil leases are recieiving any drilling activity, or if they're just locked up, further dragging production to spike prices, and using the off-shore option as a scape goat to distract, create a scape-goat, and genuinely gang-bang the middle class.

Good point Hustler. I keep hearing that the oil companies currently have something like 63 million acres where they are allowed to drill but they arent. Whats up with that?
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

who cares about the environment? God gave us this earth to skull-fuck.

Awe man, I used to like your posts. I fully endorse skull fucking, but this just makes you sound ignorant.

Question- where do we get the power from to do this? I assume you are referring to the liberation of hydrogen from water. Presently, the vast majority of domestic hydrogen is produced by refining natural gas or other hydrocarbon compounds.

Production of hydrogen by the electrolytic seperation of water is pretty energy-intensive process. The potential energy of the hydrogen that results from the process is considerably less than the electrical energy consumed to perform the seperation. Seems that it would be more economical to use that electricty directly to charge a battery.

Don't get me wrong- I think hydrogen has great potential for use as a source of power for automobiles. It's a bit trickier to handle than other, more common compressed gasses (LPG, CNG, etc) but it's not impossible. Also, it's multiuse- you can run it through fuel cells (trendy) or you can burn it in a concentional internal combustion engine (inexpensive, practical.) I just don't see how we're going to economically produce enough hydrogen to satisfy potential demand in the first place.

Exxonmobile made ~40 billion in profits last year I believe.

My last read suggested an alleged 94% efficiency. Admittedly, this seems suspiciously high - and is still less appreciable than would be the direct application of the electricity consumed - but it lends hope to the possibilities of the process nonetheless.

the other problem with hydrogen and ethenol is infrastructure. We'll be using oil for YEARS before either of those could support a national fleet of cars. I still think eletric is where it's at (other than conservation). We have the infrastructure now, and we could gradually switch to cleaner methods of supplying the power.

I've got graphs!!
From this article: http://www.memagazine.org/mepower03/...g/gauging.html

It's basically an analysis of "alternative fueling methods". Note that the places it says "diesel" or "conventional SI" do not necessarily mean using those fuels, only those engines.

Fig 1: Efficiency of fuel production
http://www.memagazine.org/mepower03/gauging/p20.gif

Summary: there is little energy expended to put natural gas in your tank.
there is a LOT of energy expended to create hydrogen by electrolysis.

Fig 2: car efficiency.
http://www.memagazine.org/mepower03/gauging/p22.gif

Summary: diesel hybrids rank highly as do electrics. natural gas/hydrogen in your car not so much.

Fig 3. overall "well to wheels" efficiency or the total efficiency to produce the gas AND run your car. basically the "long view" and not "I just plug it into the wall and voila".
http://www.memagazine.org/mepower03/gauging/p23.gif

Summary: Hybrids and natural gas / Fischer-Tropsch processed diesel are the clear winners. Hydrogen by electrolysis shows up dead last.

There isn't a distinction between, US oil at $50/bl and Saudi $140/bl, to the market it's just oil.

Ouch. My balls actually hurt right now. This clearly obliteratess my original suggestion so I'll shut up now.

... with battery-electric somewhere in the middle.

Excellent graphs, and good data. Just one thought:

If we (the North American and western European nations) would finally get over ourselves and resume investing in fission-based power generation, then those charts would be rendered meaningless. As a practical, mass-market form of power generation, nuclear energy is as close to free as you can get. I don't mean free from a monetary standpoint of course- nukes are expensive to build, expensive to run, and expensive to clean up after. But in terms of their environmental impact (resources consumed and atmospheric emissions produced) they're damn near magic.

In other words, who cares if the overall efficiency of a nuke-to-EV powerchain is 5%, if the energy was more or less impact-free to begin with.

Yeah, wind and solar are neat playthings, but they're just not practical for truly large-scale generation in most parts of the world. I have no problem with people planting windmills and solar collectors here and there throughout the southwestern US and selling "green" energy to liberals, but I can't really see either of those technologies being of much use in Ohio.

That is something like .33 per gallon. US Government taxed them around
.84 per gallon. Do the math on that...:mad:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y34..._gang_bang.jpg

I wondered because gas stations raising the cost is price gouging. When oil companies raise the cost it's just record profits.

Exactly. Its isnt just the "evil oil companies" fault that oil is so expensive. Look how much money the Gov't profits and for what?
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

My salary, in part.

to give corn farmers money duh.

Maybe not.. but for fucks sake just LOOK at their fucking profits.. In a time when the dollar is turning to complete shit and the world is about to completely end.....

you make a great point. The green power is a great back up but we can't run the whole USA off it. What we can do is running solar panels on roof tops of housing and building to cut down on the amount need to be massed produced. Places like the south would be able to run solar panels on almost ever building and be able to cut down massive the amount of outside produce power. This wouldn't work as well up north cause as soon as it snows, the panels would be cover. Unless one would to run heaters to melt the snow which would then be reducing the amount of energy the panels could produce.

In the end, we need to use green power source along side other power sources such as fusion to supply power.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.


Commie.

Funny thing about people, they'll say they are for wind/nuclear power because the renewable source, low carbon emissions, etc..., BUT not in their backyard. I've driven through parts of south, south NJ where there is a nuclear plant and every few miles there is a sign that says if you hear a loud horn to immediately tune to some AM station for an emergency broadcast about the nuclear plant. Awesome!

Also, on the offshore drilling, it comes down to the same thing....MONEY! Why do a bunch of the South American countries freely allow it? Because their oil companies are majority, if not entirely, owned/controlled by the government so the government sees a big chunk of that money. Whereas in the US, the profits would go to private companies (and to some extent their shareholders), and politicians would get no $ and lose votes from the environmentalists.

Oh, and the best part is, that even if they approve a bunch of new drilling areas, it'll take at least 5 years (if not more) to even make it to production.

you know what never occurs to people? not using so damn much in the first place.

set the A/C to 85F when you leave the house
turning lights off in office buildings when you leave
setting the "monitor shut off" on your computer when you're away for 20 minutes
turn lights off when you leave a room
shit like that.

it doesn't impose itself on you any more than having to press a button to change the channel on your TV.

While this is true, and also that we have not addressed adding more refining capacity, and that there are so many different regional blends (sometimes even gas on different sides of the same city are different), the fact is that a price of a bbl of crude is not priced by the laws of supply and demand. Instead, crude is priced by speculation. It's all bullshit. Great read:
http://www.financialsense.com/editor...2008/0502.html

Maybe I'm just jaded, but I really don't seem to suffer from NIMBY syndrome.

Example: I live about 25 miles from the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station and drive past it regularly. The Encina Power Station, a natural gas plant, is about three miles from where I live.

Neither of these two structures bother me in the least. In fact, I consider the Encina station to be beneficial, as the warm waters of the artificial lagoon which serves as its cooling system are the farming ground for a particularly delicious and unique breed of oyster, known locally as the Carlsbad Blonde.

Truthfully, I would welcome the construction of additional nuclear power stations in the area, as this would tend to solve our rolling blackout problems. The risk of death or injury from a nuclear power plant just seems trivial compared to the risks I face every day when I get in my car (or on the bike) and drive amidst a swarm of drugged out and uninsured SoCal motorsists.

For what it's worth, I do not use air conditioning (ever) and try to conserve power in other areas where practical.

We don't really have the right topographical conditions locally for a wind farm, although there is a tiny (and relatively unproductive) one off I-8 not far from here. We certainly could host a photovoltaic or heliostatic solar plant in the flat desert regions to the east, but the fact that nobody has constructed one speaks less of a conspiracy theory than of the relative impracticality (from an economic standpoint) of doing so, even in what is probably one of the most amiable locations in all of North America for such a project. Their only real function at this time is to satisfy legislative requirements for "xx% renewable energy", not to serve any commercially viable purpose.

Maybe they would eventually serve a more viable commercial purpose is they got anywhere near the government funding for research that corn ethenol and hydrogen are getting.

And Y8s, you're on the money again. The easiest impact everyone could make on the environment and their wallets is conservation. Fuck just turning out the lights. Everything (other than the fridge) is unplugged in my apartment when I'm not there. Plugged in electronics still use juice even when they're not on. Use a couple sturdy bags for groceries and stop throwing out plastic bags is another easy one.
The shit my coworkers throw out everyday that is actually recyclable is obcene, and I'm sure the same thing goes on everywhere.
Bottom line is people are lazy or stupid or a combination of both.

fixed, IMHO.

fixed is spending the $30 for a programmable thermostat so you can set it to whatever you want when you're gone and a half hour before you get home to where you like it.

oh and insulate the shit out of your house because that's even better.

btw, joe, it takes more heat energy to heat a house from 30 F to 70 F than to cool it from 100F to 80 F. not sure how that correlates in actual energy though. and since you live in "never colder than 50, never hotter than 100 dry" carlsbad, you dont need A/C. in humid places you want it for more than just cooling reasons. your house will mold!

I'm not sure how long you're gone from your place y8s, but surely you agree that maintaining a temperature uses less energy than constantly switching between 70* and 85*.. just like maintaining a constant 55 mph uses less energy than constantly slowing, accelerating to 55, slowing, accelerating to 55, etc.

We tried adjusting the thermostat while we were gone, and it didn't save us any on the electric bills. We put it at 75 when we were there, and had it at 85 when we were gone. The thermostat we have is "programmable" but no matter how many times we program it, it will just reset to a default of 68. So we just set it to 85 when we leave, and back down to 75 when we return. The thermostat is on the bottom floor, so it was well over 90 on the top floor, so you just stayed on the bottom till it got cooler, which was normally 9-10pm.

We saw basicly no change in the electric bill between leaving it at 75 all day and raising it when we were gone, and it has been hotter since we have been keeping it at 75 all day, but the bill hasn't gone up. Of course, our house is only 7 yrs old, and has really good insulation in the attic, and a new AC unit.

Yeah, when I lived in Ohio, I had to run the A/C from time to time to de-humidify the basement. Usually I kept the vents on the main floor closed, the basement door open, and ran it just enough to keep water from condensing down there. I tried using a standalone dehumidifier, but the poor little thing just wasn't up to the task- it ran more or less continuously, and the basement was still wet. I hate basements...

Since I moved to CA 3.5 years ago, I haven't used the heater at all, and the A/C has been turned on for exactly one occasion- when we had the big fires last year. Apart from that, the breakers for both the outdoor unit and the air handler are switched off.

I was actually a bit peeved when my electric bill rose above $30 recently.

LOL, shut up. The only time I've had a $30 power bill was the month before we moved in.

Of course, the water heater and range are both electric (no gas at this house unfortunately) so it's not too fair to compare.

Yeah, no gas here either, I'm afraid. It's in the neighborhood, but not plumbed down to our apartments.

my god man, do you not cook? i'd wager my range costs nearly $30/mo itself. especially in the winter when it's too cold to grill on the weekends.