Drill under the Great Lakes? yes/no

[Hamilton Reef]

Russ Harding: Drill under the Great Lakes
Perhaps it takes $4 a gallon gasoline to restore rationality to U.S. energy policy. President Bush has called on Congress to lift the ban on off-shore drilling for oil and gas. Recent national polling indicates that consumers struggling with higher costs for food and energy have shifted their opinion - a majority now supports the development of offshore oil and gas reserves. This change in public opinion presents an opportunity to reconsider directional drilling under the Great Lakes, which was prohibited by state law in 2002 and by federal law in 2005.
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080629/OPINION02/806290565/1087/OPINION02

ALSO:

Lake effect of drilling plan unclear
In going along with President Bush and reversing his opposition to offshore drilling, John McCain has raised a few eyebrows in the Great Lakes region.
So far, this story hasn’t ignited the Great Lakes-centric fury one would have expected among proponents and opponents of expanded drilling here.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080629/COLUMNIST42/535337266/-1/COLUMNIST

[Hamilton Reef]

First email reply:

Ah yes. Here we go. And do we remember the study relied on by wiser legislators who nixed great lake drilling in 2002 and 2005? The study by Fred Gerow, Sun Space Energy Systems indicating extraction of reserves under the great lakes would provide Michigan with a solid whopping 18 days of energy......

[Sala]

We can't drill our way out of this problem, no matter how many ecosystems we destroy

[Chuck1]

We are not talking salt water here. we are talking one of the largest freshwater ecosystems on the planet. Nothing to toy with IMO.

[frenchriver1]

Yep, take our resources so yuppies can pay for fancy bottled water to look stylish, and then throw the bottles away to trash the environment...

[Jackster1]

Yep, take our resources so yuppies can pay for fancy bottled water to look stylish, and then throw the bottles away to trash the environment...

That's almost on topic! :dizzy:

[BarryPatch]

Yep, take our resources so yuppies can pay for fancy bottled water to look stylish, and then throw the bottles away to trash the environment...

What does that little rant have to do with oil and gas extraction?

[dtg]

I'm all for drilling, however, the Great lakes is the largest supply of fresh water in the world and we can't risk contaminating it. There are many other places to drill, that probably contain more oil. I say drilling in the Great Lakes is a last resort, tap into the land first.

We need to do something for the short term, like drilling and building more refineries and while we are doing that, we need to be working on long term economically viable solutions....like nixing the idea of turning food supply into fuel and finding better, cleaner, more efficient alternatives.

[dtg]

What does that little rant have to do with oil and gas extraction?

Give Frenchie some credit.....at least he didn't bring up King George.:lol:

[john warren]

ahhh, im sure its better to have upstanding earth protectors the likes of sadam take care of these things,,, well,,, except for the part where he blows up and sets fire to wells and opens lines draining oil into the gulf...
no country on earth can explore ,drill ,transport ,and process oil as cleanly as we can. or do you believe all the polution the middle eastern countries cause stays in place and never effects our part of the planet?We can't drill our way out of this problem, no matter how many ecosystems we destroy

[john warren]

directional drilling is done from well inshore, with environmental protections in place to prevent any contamination of the lakes. We are not talking salt water here. we are talking one of the largest freshwater ecosystems on the planet. Nothing to toy with IMO.

[wildcoy73]

When do we stop? watching cnn last week I heard the report say it is time for all this drilling, and that the polor bear would just have to suffer. Oil was more important than than our wildlife and the outdoors.
I must be off for i believe that We as a group have done more harm to this planet than good. Maybe it is time we step back and really look at what we are doing to our home planet that we share with others. Are we willing to kill everthing off just for us? Everthing we do today has a long term effect. More drilling will change the landscape and hurt many creatures that also calls this planet home. When do we have the right to take away thier life? If we can not control ourselves, we will be just a memory.
first thing we need to do is change for the better, and put the planets health as the first thing, if that = to no gas for us than that will have to be. we can not keep deystroying this planet.

No

[Crowhunter]

directional drilling is done from well inshore, with environmental protections in place to prevent any contamination of the lakes. LETS DRILL:)

[itchn2fish]

directional drilling is done from well inshore, with environmental protections in place to prevent any contamination of the lakes. LETS DRILL:)
This is my opinion also.

[Sala]

ahhh, im sure its better to have upstanding earth protectors the likes of sadam take care of these things,,, well,,, except for the part where he blows up and sets fire to wells and opens lines draining oil into the gulf...
no country on earth can explore ,drill ,transport ,and process oil as cleanly as we can. or do you believe all the polution the middle eastern countries cause stays in place and never effects our part of the planet?

Saddam????? Are you joking????? I am not sure if you got the memo from the RNC yet...they released some new talking points. You don't need to just keep repeating "Saddam, 911, Saddam, 911" Over and over again.

Again, even the optimistic estimates indicate that domestic drilling will yield only minor reductions in global energy costs.

[wyle_e_coyote]

Remember when they wanted to build all those dangerous nuclear power plants on the great lakes? Glad they never did, that would have for sure desroyed the ecosystem or contaminated the lakes!

:lol: :rolleyes: :lol:

[farmlegend]

Absolutely and unequivically
YES.

Drill in Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, Lake Huron, Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, and, by gosh, the Saint Mary's, Saint Clair, and Detroit Rivers as well.

There simply is no compelling reason NOT to. It has been convincingly demonstrated that offshore rigs can be designed and built to withstand vicious hurricanes without environmental harm. Ditto that for onshore directional rigs. Heck, offshore rigs even provide useful offshore structure for fish. As well as plenty of very good paying jobs(oh, that's right, why would Michigan need such a thing? :yikes:).

To not exploit these valuable resources is an act of elitism of the highest order. By buttressing high energy costs, whether in the name of radical environmentalism or of conserving less fossil fuels, we are only inflicting continued pain and hardship on low-income Americans that are suffering the greatest from high energy costs. While the annointed dish this suffering out to our brothers and sisters, they can pump out their chests and proudly remind themselves that they've done something good for what they reverently refer to as "the planet".

Drill more. Pay less.

[Chuck1]

No way, Not in fresh water. I don't care how expensive gas gets. Freshwater still trumps fuel every time regardless.

[farmlegend]

There is no more need for freshwater to trump fuel than there is for fuel to trump freshwater. The resource can be extracted without endangering the water.

To fail to use this valuable resource which is so rich in energy and so economical relative to other energy sources seems to me to be an act of prideful ingratitude to the Creator that so generously bequeathed these resources to us for our dominion and use.

[MERGANZER]

Drill here, Drill Alaska, Drill South DAkota and on and on and on!!!! Oh, and stop exporting oil like we do too. Drill now!

Ganzer

[Chuck1]

What about directional drilling from land? Then they could eliminate the only real chance for trouble altogether.

[Bwana]

Absolutely and unequivically
YES.

Drill in Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, Lake Huron, Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, and, by gosh, the Saint Mary's, Saint Clair, and Detroit Rivers as well.

There simply is no compelling reason NOT to. It has been convincingly demonstrated that offshore rigs can be designed and built to withstand vicious hurricanes without environmental harm. Ditto that for onshore directional rigs. Heck, offshore rigs even provide useful offshore structure for fish. As well as plenty of very good paying jobs(oh, that's right, why would Michigan need such a thing? :yikes:).


To not exploit these valuable resources is an act of elitism of the highest order. By buttressing high energy costs, whether in the name of radical environmentalism or of conserving less fossil fuels, we are only inflicting continued pain and hardship on low-income Americans that are suffering the greatest from high energy costs. While the annointed dish this suffering out to our brothers and sisters, they can pump out their chests and proudly remind themselves that they've done something good for what they reverently refer to as "the planet".

Drill more. Pay less.

:yeahthat:

[Sala]

Again, unfortunately domestic drilling will have only a negligible effect on oil prices, in 10 years. Unfortunately, we can't drill our way out of this problem, regardless of how many ecosystems we ruin

[farmlegend]

Again, unfortunately domestic drilling will have only a negligible effect on oil prices, in 10 years. Unfortunately, we can't drill our way out of this problem, regardless of how many ecosystems we ruin


I see you've read the dailykos talking points. The fact is, according to those that know best, oil could begin to flow in appreciable quantities from newly-opened sources in less than one year(you may not have seen that on CNBC last night). More powerfully, the impact of the United States of America getting back into the game will more than likely have an immediate affect on the futures market, and those that place bets with real money know that no one is better at extracting more oil/gas more effectively than the experts in the US of A.

What you define as a "problem" I have no idea, but there is little doubt amongst those that understand the economics of the energy markets that we can drill ourselves to lower prices, and fairly quickly. What we do know is that dragging our feet on the development of these resources inflicts needless suffering.

[Bwana]

Again, unfortunately domestic drilling will have only a negligible effect on oil prices, in 10 years.

Ten years blah....blah....blah..... Had Bill Clinton not been short-sighted in the nineties and started tapping domestic sources that Oil would be online today and would be exerting a downward pressure on prices. Now, ten years later, the Democrats are making the same lame excuses about not tapping domestic sources.


Unfortunately, we can't drill our way out of this problem, regardless of how many ecosystems we ruin

Drilling is part of a solution. When drilling is combined with demand reduction inititives and the development of substitutes, the problem will be alleviated.

[Sala]

Unfortunately, domestic drilling would have only a negligible impact on oil prices and even that small impact would not be felt for years:

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/offshore-drilling-comes-empty

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/


http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1815884,00.html

The speculation of what would happen to the futures market is specious at best. But if unsubstantiated predictions convinces you then lets not forget that oil is a global commodity. Venezuala, OPEC, Russia could all scale back their production to prevent any significant drop in oil prices.

The high fuel prices are not going to be reduced by drilling.

[RichP]

Drill under the Great Lakes? yes/no

if there's believed to be enough under the great lakes to make it worthwhile and safe to the environment, and it will bring jobs to the state then yes please...

[farmlegend]

The speculation of what would happen to the futures market is specious at best. But if unsubstantiated predictions convinces you then lets not forget that oil is a global commodity. Venezuala, OPEC, Russia could all scale back their production to prevent any significant drop in oil prices.

The high fuel prices are not going to be reduced by drilling.

If I were you, I'd look up the definition of the word "specious" before using it again.

Couldn't find your age in your profile, and I'll assume you are too young to remember the 1980's and 1990's. For a refresher, the high crude prices that prevailed in the 1970's had the effect of stimulating tremendous exploration and development activity(North Sea, Prudhoe Bay, etc.); when these supplies came on stream, they literally crushed the OPEC cartel, their pricing power became zilch, the world was awash in crude oil, and we had a twenty year long commodity bust. Weak prices resulted in a great slowdown in exploration and production activity (remember, crude oil is not like soybeans, there is a lengthier lag period for production to react to pricing changes), which led ultimately to a the resurgence of OPEC pricing power that we see today. And make no mistake, those OPEC members are now addicted to their revenue streams, and would be under great pressure to maintain them, regardless of whether that means kicking up production and thereby further weakening pricing or not. Some members will without a doubt be unable to afford NOT to increase production, further collapsing the cartel, just as it occurred in the 80's.

Bottom line, we could hammer this cartel just like last time.

Oh, and before you go there, opening the Gulf, the shale in the rockies, and ANWR would likely produce crude volume far in excess of the 3 million barrels per day estimates that the left is now trumpeting. Look it up, but you'll have to look past CNN to do so.

[Sala]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna.html) - Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=specious&ia=luna) - Share This (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/specious#sharethis)
spe·cious http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png Audio Help (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/audio.html) /ˈspihttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngʃəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[spee-shuhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1.apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible: specious arguments.

[fishenrg]

I see you've read the dailykos talking points. The fact is, according to those that know best, oil could begin to flow in appreciable quantities from newly-opened sources in less than one year(you may not have seen that on CNBC last night).


According to whom? Please try to back up claims of this sort with some kind of reference, this seems quite short.

More powerfully, the impact of the United States of America getting back into the game will more than likely have an immediate affect on the futures market

Back in the game? We're already the third largest producer.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html


What you define as a "problem" I have no idea, but there is little doubt amongst those that understand the economics of the energy markets that we can drill ourselves to lower prices, and fairly quickly. What we do know is that dragging our feet on the development of these resources inflicts needless suffering.


I really don't think we can. I'm not arguing against drilling, I just think that saying "drill, drill, drill" alone is unrealistic and short-sighted. From what I understand, there are three main issues that gas is so expensive in the U.S.

1. Rising worldwide demand and stagnant production.
2. Falling U.S. dollar.
3. Lack of refining capacity.

Drilling will only address one of those issues, and only part way. Conserving is a less expensive way of decreasing demand, rather than trying to expand supply. We could also have all the oil in the world, but if we don't have enough refinery capacity it won't do a lick of good.

I highly agree with Bwana on this one:


Drilling is part of a solution. When drilling is combined with demand reduction inititives and the development of substitutes, the problem will be alleviated.

[Jackster1]

Hold on. Let me see what side of the aisle I favor and allow them to tell me which I prefer. :coolgleam

Oh shoot, it sucks weighing the pro's and con's AS I SEE THEM of drilling in our life sustaining drinking water and then extending the effort to vote the way I choose!
Life could be so easy if I just quietly nod my head in numb agreement to what my party, if I had one anymore, tells me to believe.

Follow the money. The kids running the energy companies must LOVE having a pile of mind-numbed robots doing their beckoning. I'm sure the rewards will be 'doled' out when the politicians working for them leave office after changing policy to benefit their biggest donors.
How about this? Taking some of the oil out of Iraq that so many brave American soldiers died for and that every tax paying American bank-rolled to rebuild to the tune of $2,000,000,000.00 every two weeks?
If we went into Iraq just to force our beliefs down their throats than shame on us. It's kinda like, 'Here... take this democracy or we'll kill you level and rebuild your country at our expense with zero gains to us'. :rolleyes:

Let's get a little something out of that Hell-Hole Iraq for all of the lives and monies as well as good rep we pissed away from invading it. That country is already a dirty, sandy beach, why not benefit from our occupation there and leave our fresh water alone for your kids and their kids? (I know the answer but thought I would present it anyhow... it's because modern day rightists can't see past the next quarter and don't give a care about the next generation or two, their too busy getting it now while the getting is good!)

[fishenrg]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna.html) - Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=specious&ia=luna) - Share This (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/specious#sharethis)
spe·cious http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngAudio Help (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/audio.html)/ˈspihttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngʃəs/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[spee-shuhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngs]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation–adjective 1.apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible: specious arguments.

Sounds about right to me too. Drilling really only addresses a small part of the reason prices are high. This situation is not like the 1970s. I don't see rationing anywhere. Supply is ample to meet demand. Conservation was a big part of getting out of the 70's energy shortage too. When prices fell, we, as usual, stopped caring about it.

[Jackster1]

Much like those 'too high-paying' manufacturing jobs that went offshore and left your neighbors in the lurch, could it possibly be the oil companies want to drill just to get at cheap supply and drive their profits and CEO pay up even further?

C'mon now... be honest if at all possible. :evilsmile

[Nick Adams]

Drilling is part of a solution. When drilling is combined with demand reduction inititives and the development of substitutes, the problem will be alleviated.

Continued high fuel prices are the most effective way to drive more drilling, demand reduction and development of substitutes. Bringing the price down will only remove the incentive to make those things happen.

-na

[SteveS]

directional drilling is done from well inshore, with environmental protections in place to prevent any contamination of the lakes. LETS DRILL:)

I agree, too. My dad is a big lefty and he thinks it is a good idea. He is also a retired professor of mining engineering and geology, so I figure this is something he understands far better then I do.

[Ranger Ray]

Yes.

[PencilPlugger]

Only if it's coupled with investments in alternative energy sources, research grants and incentives for energy efficiencies.

[PencilPlugger]

Ten years blah....blah....blah..... Had Bill Clinton not been short-sighted in the nineties and started tapping domestic sources that Oil would be online today and would be exerting a downward pressure on prices. Now, ten years later, the Democrats are making the same lame excuses about not tapping domestic sources. Reagan should have done that 10 years prior so that Clinton wouldn't have had to. ;)

[the rapids]

To fail to use this valuable resource which is so rich in energy and so economical relative to other energy sources seems to me to be an act of prideful ingratitude to the Creator that so generously bequeathed these resources to us for our dominion and use.

that is a great example of why religious radicals should have no part in deciding how to manage the resources in this universe. to believe that this universe was made by some singular being is your own deal. however, to say that being gave humans dominion to exploit earth's resources is a problem to myself and all the others who want to keep this planet, or at least this state, somewhat inhabitable beyond the next hundred years or so. we cannot allow another threat to become a disaster in our already environmentally crippled state.

however, in the real world i do only get 12 mpg's right now, and i wont be alive or looking down from heaven to see this country in ruins after we finish raping it, so i offer a selfish YES to drilling under the great lakes so gas can go down a penny or two. of course, if the god farmlegend believes in is real then he will appreciate our work. because after all, this is our dominion to destroy.

YES to killing our planet/ more drilling, its all we are good at.

[Ranger Ray]

So taking oil out of the earth is raping it? Growing food is taking all the nutrients out of the ground, we must be raping it also. What should we do kill ourselves and save the earth?

[duckhunter382]

I say NO, this is just another example of our natural resources being sold. I know that people can say that drilling is safe in the great lakes, however look at how the safe practice of ballast discharge has helped out and just imagine how one oil spill would affect our lakes. I am sorry but its not worth it. If this oil crisis kills our economy, then people will just have to get stubborn and survive. Drilling in the great lakes is not the answer. Also Alaska is one of the few wilderness left in this world and we are considering selling it for what? a few gallons of oil. heck with the problems we already have facing us, vhs,asian carp,etc we dont need oil issues also. just my opinion.

[the rapids]

So taking oil out of the earth is raping it?

when the process of oil extraction causes situations such as habitat fragmentation, ground and surface pollution, development of public lands, impairing/destroying ecosystems, etc. yes that is when taking oil out of the earth is raping the earth. we already do enough of those things without any more oil drilling.

[wildcoy73]

Since you believe we are all so bad and are ruining the planet, take yourself out. That's one person less to consume oil, plastics, food, energy etc. Do the world a favor and give it a break. If you're holier than thou then prove it!
Could give you a few choice words, but that will solve nothing. I also see from your post you don't go to church and have not let the lord into your life, and for that i am sorry. I do not own this planet, i am just a passenger on it and what i try to do is leave it better than I have found it. Yes I must use oil at this time. But am I better than you? nope I am just a human. As you can tell my computer is on.
So please in the future do not question me with my god, and i will not you.

[john warren]

my point wasn't about sadam,,,, it was about who do we trust the environment too? people of the ilk that would polute out of spite? or people who will use every technology available to protect the environment. so know im not joking. we can drill and produce cleaner then the current oil producing nations are willing to do. and that,,, dispite your insinuation has nothing to do with republican or democrat. Saddam????? Are you joking????? I am not sure if you got the memo from the RNC yet...they released some new talking points. You don't need to just keep repeating "Saddam, 911, Saddam, 911" Over and over again.

Again, even the optimistic estimates indicate that domestic drilling will yield only minor reductions in global energy costs.

[MiketheElder]

I agree, too. My dad is a big lefty and he thinks it is a good idea. He is also a retired professor of mining engineering and geology, so I figure this is something he understands far better then I do.

I agree with your dad. How deep is this oil under the great lakes? Directional drilling from a few miles inland won't bring the oil anywhere neare the lakes. Make a little diagram on paper and see for yourself.

[G-Vac]

To not exploit these valuable resources is an act of elitism of the highest order. By buttressing high energy costs, whether in the name of radical environmentalism or of conserving less fossil fuels, we are only inflicting continued pain and hardship on low-income Americans that are suffering the greatest from high energy costs. While the annointed dish this suffering out to our brothers and sisters, they can pump out their chests and proudly remind themselves that they've done something good for what they reverently refer to as "the planet".

Drill more. Pay less.

When Farmlegend starts showing concern for low income Americans you KNOW it's time to put on the hip boots! :dizzy: I think he'd have them executed, but he'd miss the cheap labor.

[yoopertoo]

Again, unfortunately domestic drilling will have only a negligible effect on oil prices, in 10 years.
Incremental additions to the world oil markets are always a good thing.

In addition, extracting great lakes oil will:
1) Provide MI tax revenue, hmmm ... you think we need that :lol:
2) Provide MI jobs, hmmm ... you think we need that :lol:

[yoopertoo]

According to whom? Please try to back up claims of this sort with some kind of reference, this seems quite short.

Why don't you provide evidence for your 10 year number?



Back in the game? We're already the third largest producer.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html

According to that list we are the third largest producer and not in the top 14 in exports. So much for those goofy arguments about "our" oil disappearing to exports. :lol:

[yoopertoo]

...to say that being gave humans dominion to exploit earth's resources ...

Every other species exploits its environment to the max of its ability. So you must think humans are special in some way.

Your lifestyle requires that we exploit our resources, and we can do it with out destroying our environment.

[yoopertoo]

when the process of oil extraction causes situations such as habitat fragmentation, ground and surface pollution, development of public lands, impairing/destroying ecosystems, etc. yes that is when taking oil out of the earth is raping the earth. we already do enough of those things without any more oil drilling.

Perfect example of why we can not trust the radical green movement to make public policy. You, me and everyone on this board consumes resources. It is hypocritical to think that we should not be able to do so. The question is how do we do it in a fashion that protects our environment. It can be done.


habitat fragmentation

This is not the case in ANWR, off shore or in the great lakes.


ground and surface pollution

This can and should be regulated vigorously.


development of public lands

Huh? We are not talking about condos. We are talking about resource extraction.


impairing/destroying ecosystems

If done properly and with government regulation this can be avoided.

[BarryPatch]

I also see from your post you don't go to church and have not let the lord into your life, and for that i am sorry. I do not own this planet, i am just a passenger on it and what i try to do is leave it better than I have found it. Yes I must use oil at this time. .


Just curious...how much oil is used to go to church. Maybe we should all walk....like Jesus did.:)

[duckhunter382]

Every other species exploits its environment to the max of its ability. So you must think humans are special in some way.

Your lifestyle requires that we exploit our resources, and we can do it with out destroying our environment.
we are not the same as animals. We were made in Gods image and have dominion over all other species, I look at that as being special. Also think of it this way, we are the caretakers of this planet we have dominion so we need to do what is best and be responsible. I do believe that drilling is going to happen but I will fight it kicking and screaming. I think humans will destroy the earth and then God will restore it, but i dont want to be the one that destroyed it.

[wildcoy73]

Just curious...how much oil is used to go to church. Maybe we should all walk....like Jesus did.:)
Now we are talking. I do a good bit of walking to save on fuel or ride a bike. It not hard to see that we have a problem in the us. go to the beach during the summer. that part of your body below you neck and above the jewls is not a tent, it should not overlap your short and wiggle like a bowl of jelly. We just have to admit it we are lazy. so go for a walk turn off the gagets and save a little oil

[fishenrg]

Why don't you provide evidence for your 10 year number?

If you would take the time to read, you would see that I never quoted a ten year number. I don't think my request was unreasonable.


According to that list we are the third largest producer and not in the top 14 in exports. So much for those goofy arguments about "our" oil disappearing to exports.


Again, if you would take the time to read you would see that I made no argument "goofy" or otherwise about our oil disappearing to exports.

[Gina Fox]

Very interesting arguements. Our Earth has been here billions of years in all that time it has been bombarded by ALL SORTS of natural phenomenon, far worse than anything man can throw at it, perhaps even a nuke...(BUT I don't want to test that theory)

As man has evolved he has learned and realized that he can both exploit and protect Earth for his own benefit and existence.
We scratched and clawed our way to the top of the food chain because of our intelligence. (sometimes NOT so evident in these forums) with that being said, IMHO we can and SHOULD do whatever is necessary to continue our existence. It has nothing to do with 'lifestyle'.

For those of you who want to get back to horse and buggy, go for it. You can move into an Amish community.
I wonder how many would survive a month??? There were thousands of people, many on this site, complaining about loss of power during those storms a couple weeks ago. 4 or 5 days was an ETERNITY.

We humans are an intelligent animal and we can and will figure out how to use the Earths resources in an intelligent and responsible way, we DO have the means.

Other species that have inhabited this Earth have exploited themselves out of existence WITHOUT forethought...this is called extinction.

Survival of the fittest.

I crack up that most of you are hunters on this web site and can understand perfectly use of resources and the bounty of Mother Nature in the animal kingdom, in other words, the use and management of them.

But you do not want to practice or understand the cultivation of energy sources??

Using the Earths energy resources no different than cultivating farmland, or breathing the air, we are using the Earth to survive...we should 'manage' those resouces in the most responsible way possible, while continueing to develop technology that will eventually replace the non renewable resouces.

[michigandeerslayer]

Absolutely and unequivically
YES.

Drill in Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, Lake Huron, Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, and, by gosh, the Saint Mary's, Saint Clair, and Detroit Rivers as well.

There simply is no compelling reason NOT to. It has been convincingly demonstrated that offshore rigs can be designed and built to withstand vicious hurricanes without environmental harm. Ditto that for onshore directional rigs. Heck, offshore rigs even provide useful offshore structure for fish. As well as plenty of very good paying jobs(oh, that's right, why would Michigan need such a thing? :yikes:).

To not exploit these valuable resources is an act of elitism of the highest order. By buttressing high energy costs, whether in the name of radical environmentalism or of conserving less fossil fuels, we are only inflicting continued pain and hardship on low-income Americans that are suffering the greatest from high energy costs. While the annointed dish this suffering out to our brothers and sisters, they can pump out their chests and proudly remind themselves that they've done something good for what they reverently refer to as "the planet".

Drill more. Pay less.


It is going to snow today in michigan, because i agree with farmlegend 110%

[yoopertoo]

If you would take the time to read, you would see that I never quoted a ten year number.
I apologize. In this case, I had thought you were one of those using the often quoted 10 year number.


Again, if you would take the time to read you would see that I made no argument "goofy" or otherwise about our oil disappearing to exports.
I was not saying you made this argument. I was merely using your link to make a general point about the argument by others that our domestic production will "disappear" into exports, which is a goofy argument given the data.

[yoopertoo]

we are not the same as animals. We were made in Gods image and have dominion over all other species, I look at that as being special.
I agree.

A couple points though:
1) I do not believe that exploiting the resources of this earth is unnatural or morally wrong.

2) We are being duped by the radical green movement into believing that the earth and its ecosystems are fragile pieces of glass that will fall apart with the slightest perturbation.

I'm a very ardent conservationist. I'm NOT a preservationist. We must protect our environment not because it is sacred or because it is a spiritual thing to do. We need to do it because it is the practical thing to do, and in so doing we can also gain all the aesthetic joy that we all get from a healthy environment.

[fishenrg]

I apologize. In this case, I had thought you were one of those using the often quoted 10 year number.

Roger that, and accepted.

1) I do not believe that exploiting the resources of this earth is unnatural or morally wrong.

2) We are being duped by the radical green movement into believing that the earth and its ecosystems are fragile pieces of glass that will fall apart with the slightest perturbation.

I'm a very ardent conservationist. I'm NOT a preservationist. We must protect our environment not because it is sacred or because it is a spiritual thing to do. We need to do it because it is the practical thing to do, and in so doing we can also gain all the aesthetic joy that we all get from a healthy environment.

I agree with you here, mostly. Not all of the green movement is radical though. But that's really a quibble. I think the important thing is to use oil (we just have to right now) but at the same times get serious about moving beyond it. I couldn't agree more with the last paragraph. Common ground between us...I knew it existed somewhere. :) Happy 4th.

[eyecatcher]

I agree we should take advantage of all, of resources. We should drill in thise areas that show promise and we need to expand the research of all other energy sources. I believe that more US oil production will help make us less dependent on others. Along with this we need to build new refiniers, that can only happen when we tell congress to get the hell out of the way.
We need to make them streamline the permit process. The other side of this coin is having oil companies that want to increase there production.

I was at a meeting in early 1980 were it was announced that the Shell oil had just made a find in Kalkaska MI. Shel representatives said that there was enough natural gas to last 500 years based on 1980s rate of consumption, To the best of my knowledge that field is still capped.
So why are we now short of natural gas? why are those wells still capped?
If we have all that natural gas why are the rates going up?
We can drill all we want, but to what end if they just cap the wells?

[wildcoy73]

Just curious...how much oil is used to go to church. Maybe we should all walk....like Jesus did.:)
For myself very little is used. The lord has given my family legs and feet. we do use them to the best of our use. Plus to believe and worship the lord does not = going to church. one can worship right in the house. when I hunt or fish the bible is in my daypack.
to another post that we should use the things given to us. Yes we are allowed to do this, but we are to moderate how that is used. No other creature on this earth has done so much damage to the earth as the human race. We (including myself) can not control ourselves. we must have.

[pescadero]

So you must think humans are special in some way.


Absolutely - and as Uncle Ben said in Spiderman... "With great power comes great responsibility"

--
lp

[pescadero]

I was at a meeting in early 1980 were it was announced that the Shell oil had just made a find in Kalkaska MI. Shel representatives said that there was enough natural gas to last 500 years based on 1980s rate of consumption, To the best of my knowledge that field is still capped.
So why are we now short of natural gas? why are those wells still capped?

Because Shell has decided to cap them due to economic reasons. Same reason they aren't even considering drilling in the majority of the offshore leases they already have. The price of oil/natural gas isn't high enough yet to justify it.


--
lp

[Blaketrout]

The price of oil/natural gas isn't high enough yet to justify it.

Or the oil and gas is worth more in the ground than it is if they pump it. If Shell holds huge amounts of leases and capped wells it only improves the price of their stock.

[pescadero]

This is not the case in ANWR, off shore or in the great lakes.

It's not the case in offshore or Great Lakes drilling - it actually is the case in ANWR, just like it has been with the North Slope oil fields and the Alaska pipeline.


This can and should be regulated vigorously.

Yet history shows it never is...


If done properly and with government regulation this can be avoided.

Then why don't we seem to be able to do it in any of our current oil fields? See BP pipeline non-maintenance, subsequent leaks, and coverup for example... or the spills in the Gulf due to Katrina and other hurricanes...

--
lp

[Nu_2_MI]

I find it interesting that people assume that oil drilled in the U.S. would actually go to increase the amount of fuel available in the U.S. and therefore reduce costs here. In a free market system the drillers could sell the oil to whomever pays the highest. It was stated earlier there are millions of acres of resources already available yet the oil companies don't drill......why? Perhaps they don't have the best interests of the American consumer in mind....they are only thinking of their bottom line. They start putting a significant increase in oil reserves and prices go down. That would mean they would put out the capital to drill and receive lower price per barrel. Where is their incentive?

[MERGANZER]

Drill Drill Drill!!!!!! The pipeline has not hurt animal populations at all in Alaska infact it has resulted in caribou increases. DRILL DRILL DRILL! The area is so small in ANWR if people actually researched it you would be surprised. DRILL in ANWR DRILL in the Dakotas DRILL the great lakes!!!!!! We can do it without being a negative on the environment and we have been doing this for a long time.

Ganzer

[Ranger Ray]

I find it interesting that people assume that oil drilled in the U.S. would actually go to increase the amount of fuel available in the U.S. and therefore reduce costs here. In a free market system the drillers could sell the oil to whomever pays the highest. It was stated earlier there are millions of acres of resources already available yet the oil companies don't drill......why? Perhaps they don't have the best interests of the American consumer in mind....they are only thinking of their bottom line. They start putting a significant increase in oil reserves and prices go down. That would mean they would put out the capital to drill and receive lower price per barrel. Where is their incentive?
In the tax revenue generated by the company and its employees, not to mention other fees and permit revenue.

[farmlegend]

I find it interesting that people assume that oil drilled in the U.S. would actually go to increase the amount of fuel available in the U.S. and therefore reduce costs here.

I can see it's time to break out the crayons. Whether domestic production remains here or not is irrelevant. To say that we'll ship that crude to Japan or wherever is irrelevant, and misses that salient point. Increases in domestic production increase world oil supply. Since the current relationship between production and consumption is relatively tight, shifts in either component can have a pronounced effect on worldwide prices. Naysayers are lining up to insist that OPEC members will simply reduce their output accordingly, in order to maintain their pricing power; however, it ain't that simple. Not all of them are in a position to do so. Their massive revenue streams quickly become addicting to nation/states. As we discovered in the 80's, some cartel members will be under great pressure internally to break with the cartel and produce more crude in order to maintain revenue levels(this time, look for Russia, Venezuela, and Iran to be the first to succumb), which creates powerful downward pressure on prices.

There simply is no good reason NOT to aggressively pursue crude production here in the United States.

[November Sunrise]

I can see it's time to break out the crayons.

:lol::lol:!!! I love that line.

One of the most damning indictments of our public education system is the level of economic ignorance that the majority its graduates possess. Even the simple baby stuff is unfamiliar to the majority. One only has to peruse a MS.com gas thread in the Sound Off forum to gain insight into the lack of economic understanding that the majority possess.

[pescadero]

Increases in domestic production increase world oil supply.

Maybe.

It's quite possible it could just lead to closure of less efficient well sites elsewhere, or reductions in production to keep prices high by OPEC. There is no guarantee that it will lead to an increase in world oil supply.

--
lp

[kingfisher 11]

:lol::lol:!!! I love that line.

One of the most damning indictments of our public education system is the level of economic ignorance that the majority its graduates possess. Even the simple baby stuff is unfamiliar to the majority. One only has to peruse a MS.com gas thread in the Sound Off forum to gain insight into the lack of economic understanding that the majority possess.

I agree
It also proves you can get a college education from one of the top colleges in the country and still not have much street smarts. Our country lacks plain common sense. We have a few members here who have touted the education, good command of the english lanugage and garammer. Yet you take them outside of the box and they would struggle to survive.

[farmlegend]

Maybe. It's quite possible it could just lead to closure of less efficient well sites elsewhere, or reductions in production to keep prices high by OPEC. There is no guarantee that it will lead to an increase in world oil supply.

There it is, folks, that's the best they got -- there's no GUARANTEE that increasing domestic production will increase world oil supply. Of course, in the same vein, there's no guarantee the sun will come up tomorrow, either.

What what we do know is the consequence of doing nothing. And again, there is no good reason NOT to encourage domestic crude production.

[kingfisher 11]

What we do now is the consequence of doing nothing. And again, there is no good reason NOT to encourage domestic crude production.

This is what has been driving the steep up hill prices. We have shown the suppliers we have no plans to help ourself. We are the biggest oil user in the world, yet we won't increase the supply. As a business man I would say that is the perfect case if I have a product to sell. A product you must have but won't do anything to decrease the need for my product. You can't blame oil companies for trying to get rich. Congress is a bunch of stupid dolts. I will promise you if we lifted all bans and just showed the willingness to do something, things would change very quickly. The ones that claim it will take 7 years to make a difference are part of the problem.

[Bwana]

Maybe.

There is no guarantee that it will lead to an increase in world oil supply.



What is guaranteed in business?

If a guaranty was necessary entrepreneurs wouldn't start companies because there isn't a guaranty of success. Inventors wouldn't invent products because there isn't a guaranty of success. Businessmen wouldn't be able to sell on terms because there's no guaranty of payment and Engineers wouldn't have jobs because there isn't a guaranty that a new product will be successful. Bottomline, there are no guarantys. Business requires one to take risks and its a shame our nations interests are being held hostage by people who are unwilling to take the necessary risks.

[Bwana]

I can see it's time to break out the crayons.

:lol::lol::lol:

[Ranger Ray]

No crayons! Well at least not until after the kool-aide break. ;)

http://terryfrank.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/kool-aidman.jpg (http://terryfrank.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/kool-aidman.jpg)

[Nu_2_MI]

I can see it's time to break out the crayons. Whether domestic production remains here or not is irrelevant. To say that we'll ship that crude to Japan or wherever is irrelevant, and misses that salient point. Increases in domestic production increase world oil supply. Since the current relationship between production and consumption is relatively tight, shifts in either component can have a pronounced effect on worldwide prices. Naysayers are lining up to insist that OPEC members will simply reduce their output accordingly, in order to maintain their pricing power; however, it ain't that simple. Not all of them are in a position to do so. Their massive revenue streams quickly become addicting to nation/states. As we discovered in the 80's, some cartel members will be under great pressure internally to break with the cartel and produce more crude in order to maintain revenue levels(this time, look for Russia, Venezuela, and Iran to be the first to succumb), which creates powerful downward pressure on prices.

There simply is no good reason NOT to aggressively pursue crude production here in the United States.


Well looks I'll need the 64 count box for ya Farm. It's amazing how a simple discussion turns into trying to discredit an individual by throwing out doubts about one's education. Why not just state your point. Personal jabs only cheapens your point.

You seem to make one huge assumption in your analysis of the world market. It is true that adding oil to the world market will increase supply, but you fail to consider demand. Do you honestly feel our oil harvesting will outpace world demand? By the time we get the first drop out of a new well it will have increased dramatically. Ours will only be a drop in the bucket and not likely to create any difference.

As stated earlier what have to say of the millions of acres of offshore drilling opportunities not being utilized by oil companies. If they arent going to take it, why give them more? These acres are in known oil holding areas....it's there...yet we speak of oil shale and other things which are far more expensive to harvest. Use those already ok'd acres....put a rig up and go for it....drill. But they aren't...are they. They have a reason......it will drive down their prices....they have no motivation. Again...why would an oil exec put out more capital to develop this when they are making record profits every quarter?

Your point to supply and demand is valid were demand to remain stagnant. I sincerely believe we can drill more...I'm ok with that, but I fear it takes us away from the real cure to this issue, and that is developing new technologies and fuel sources. As far as I'm concerned this a national security issue as well. If we were to develop the new technologies and fuel sources, we could be the energy providers to the world , and everyone would have to bend over and kiss our behinds.

Listen...in all actuality, drilling is ok by me......gives more people jobs......but I don't think it's going to fix our issue. I don't think its a cure all. I just don't want this to take away from what should be our real goal, and that's energy independence. Oil drilled here and sent abroad won't help us and our oil reserves will never quench our appetite.

Maybe I'm an optimist, but I believe in American ingenuity. I believe in our scientific minds being able to put us on the path to energy supremacy. At one point we had a President that said I want to put a man on the moon and the nation got behind it even after many failures. I feel this to be far more important, not just economic but security as well. I just don't want us to take our eyes off the real goal.

[pescadero]

There it is, folks, that's the best they got -- there's no GUARANTEE that increasing domestic production will increase world oil supply. Of course, in the same vein, there's no guarantee the sun will come up tomorrow, either.

How often does OPEC jack around production rates to effect prices? All the time. Why WOULDN'T OPEC (and other suppliers) jack around production rates to increase/maintain profits?


What what we do know is the consequence of doing nothing.

With respect to more domestic drilling - the consequences of doing nothing are basically identical to the consequences of doing the drilling.

And again, there is no good reason NOT to encourage domestic crude production.

Really? Environmental damage isn't a good reason? The slowing of a move away from oil isn't a good reason?

Increased domestic drilling is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

--
lp

[Nick Adams]

What is guaranteed in business?

Federal bailouts of large lending institutions?

-na

[Bwana]

Federal bailouts of large lending institutions?

-na

Ok. Besides that. :lol:

[Nick Adams]

Ok. Besides that. :lol:

Minimum price for a bushel of corn. ;-)

-na

[RoadKillCafe]

What is guaranteed in business?



The state government soaking you with taxes until you give up and move out of state or close?

[yoopertoo]

It's not the case in offshore or Great Lakes drilling - it actually is the case in ANWR,

Actually it is not the case in ANWR. The platforms are a minuscule portion of the total land area involved.


Yet history shows it never is...

Wrong.


Then why don't we seem to be able to do it in any of our current oil fields? See BP pipeline non-maintenance, subsequent leaks, and coverup for example... or the spills in the Gulf due to Katrina and other hurricanes...

The question is not whether there will be accidents or even maleficence. When people are involved there always are. Just as there is corruption in medicare and medicaid, but I would no more decide to NEVER drill then I would decide to drop all of medicare and medicaid.

[yoopertoo]

It's quite possible it could just lead to closure of less efficient well sites elsewhere,

This is only if you assume demand diminishes and prices fall, which would be great if it happened.


or reductions in production to keep prices high by OPEC.

Shifting wealth FROM the ME is a good thing.


There is no guarantee that it will lead to an increase in world oil supply.

The likelihood of it not is very low, but even if it didn't who cares. The result will be a wealth shift to the US. This in and of itself is a great thing - that is if you care about the American economy.

[farmlegend]

How often does OPEC jack around production rates to effect prices? All the time. Why WOULDN'T OPEC (and other suppliers) jack around production rates to increase/maintain profits?
1. Regularly
2. They will try. But ultimately, the cartel will crack, just like it cracked in the 80's; you've seen one OPEC member, you've seen one; they have different sets of circumstances, different levels of addiction to the revenue streams provided by their crude. Just like striking workers who eventually say "screw this" and join the striker replacements across the picket line. Enhanced production will accelerate the crackup.


With respect to more domestic drilling - the consequences of doing nothing are basically identical to the consequences of doing the drilling.
I think I'm going to place a buy order on Binney & Smith this morning. Oops, I forgot, Hallmark bought 'em out in 1984. LINK (http://www.crayola.com)

Really? Environmental damage isn't a good reason? The slowing of a move away from oil isn't a good reason?
Even hurricane Katrina couldn't so much as pop a zit on the gulf coast's energy infrastructure. And I trust Mr. Market to move us away from oil much more effectively and equitably than any command and control scheme.


Increased domestic drilling is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
I'd say failure to increase domestic drilling is akin to buying a ticket on the Titanic. So there!

[pescadero]

Actually it is not the case in ANWR. The platforms are a minuscule portion of the total land area involved.

...but the roads, pipelines, etc. DO fragment habitat. One need only look at the effects of Jonah Gas Field in Wyoming's Green River on pronghorn and mule deer to see a similar problem.


The question is not whether there will be accidents or even maleficence. When people are involved there always are. Just as there is corruption in medicare and medicaid, but I would no more decide to NEVER drill then I would decide to drop all of medicare and medicaid.

No, the question is: Do the costs outweigh the benefits?

If we could recover 10 billion barrels of oil by drilling in Yellowstone would you be for it?

How about 10 million barrels of oil by drilling in Yellowstone?

How about 500,000 barrels by drilling in Yellowstone?

Where does the benefit of protecting non-developed/natural areas exceed the benefit of more oil for you?

Me, I'd gladly pay a few percent more per gallon to protect Yellowstone.

--
lp

[pescadero]

This is only if you assume demand diminishes and prices fall, which would be great if it happened.

Demand exceeding supply is WONDERFUL for countries with large oil reserve. It means lower revenue, but greater profit.


Shifting wealth FROM the ME is a good thing.

It's debatable that would even happen.


The likelihood of it not is very low, but even if it didn't who cares. The result will be a wealth shift to the US. This in and of itself is a great thing - that is if you care about the American economy.

Demand has exceeded supply for four straight years, and is increasing. The best thing possible for the American economy is to as quickly as humanly possible move away from our reliance on oil.

--
lp

[pescadero]

1. Regularly
2. They will try. But ultimately, the cartel will crack, just like it cracked in the 80's; you've seen one OPEC member, you've seen one; they have different sets of circumstances, different levels of addiction to the revenue streams provided by their crude. Just like striking workers who eventually say "screw this" and join the striker replacements across the picket line. Enhanced production will accelerate the crackup.

Heh... do you believe in Santa Claus too?



Even hurricane Katrina couldn't so much as pop a zit on the gulf coast's energy infrastructure.

In May 2006, the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) published their
offshore damage assessment: "113 platforms totally destroyed, and 457
pipelines damaged, 101 of those major lines with 10" or larger diameter."


Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Caused 124 Offshore Spills For A Total Of
743,700 Gallons. 554,400 gallons were crude oil and condensate from
platforms, rigs and pipelines, and 189,000 gallons were refined products
from platforms and rigs. [MMS, 1/22/07]


Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Caused Six Offshore Spills Of 42,000
Gallons Or Greater. The largest of these was 152,250 gallons, well over
the 100,000 gallon threshhold considered a "major spill." [MMS, 5/1/06]

And I trust Mr. Market to move us away from oil much more effectively and equitably than any command and control scheme.

Explain how the government subsidizing oil exploration for private companies and giving below market deals on offshore lease while ignoring the long term environmental and other costs - is letting the market work.

I say let the oil companies drill wherever they'd like - at cost, no subsidies, and they are responsible for ALL environmental damage and cleanup, including 10x punitive damages in any case where cover-up or fraud is discovered.


I'd say failure to increase domestic drilling is akin to buying a ticket on the Titanic. So there!

The oil ship is sinking, no matter how hard we try to prop it up. Increased domestic drilling is a guy with a dixie cup trying to bail the water pouring through 10' hole in the side of the ship.

--
lp

[yoopertoo]

With respect to more domestic drilling - the consequences of doing nothing are basically identical to the consequences of doing the drilling.

Your statement has been shown wrong by multiple posters.

[yoopertoo]

...but the roads, pipelines, etc. DO fragment habitat. One need only look at the effects of Jonah Gas Field in Wyoming's Green River on pronghorn and mule deer to see a similar problem.

No they do not. Spend time in ND. The bakken has not fragmented the deer habitat. It is silly to think so. No more then logging roads have fragmented the habitat for whitetail deer herds in the UP. The pronghorn are on the upswing in ND despite MUCH greater obstacles to movement then the Caribou will ever face in ANWR.


No, the question is: Do the costs outweigh the benefits?

In your hypothetical example you failed to list costs. You created a false dilemma in which we are "stuck between a rock and hard place". This is NOT the case. Responsible development can be done. Mistakes and maleficence can be anticipated and managed. You erroneously minimize the benefits of domestic crude production by pretending the only benefit is a few cents on the gallon. It has been shown repeatedly on this and other threads that production from the restricted areas can be a *significant* contribution to current US demand (never mind all the other economic benefits).

[yoopertoo]

Demand exceeding supply is WONDERFUL for countries with large oil reserve.

Then the price will not decrease and the wells won't close. You are arguing circles.


It means lower revenue, but greater profit.

This must be that new economics - can we call this Obamanomics. :lol:


It's debatable that would even happen.

You're the one that argued OPEC would decrease production. You are disagreeing with yourself, again.


Demand has exceeded supply for four straight years, and is increasing. The best thing possible for the American economy is to as quickly as humanly possible move away from our reliance on oil.

This is ALL the more reason to produce domestic oil. If we develop alternate fuels and drill we will reduce domestic consumption and allow for a greater shift of wealth to the US by increased exports.

[yoopertoo]

Explain how the government subsidizing oil exploration

So I guess you would support opening drilling in the restricted areas if the government eliminates subsidies.


Increased domestic drilling is a guy with a dixie cup trying to bail the water pouring through 10' hole in the side of the ship.

No, domestic drilling is suppling the world with a commodity that has ever increasing value and will benefit the US economy at a time it needs it greatly.

[fishenrg]

Even hurricane Katrina couldn't so much as pop a zit on the gulf coast's energy infrastructure. And I trust Mr. Market to move us away from oil much more effectively and equitably than any command and control scheme.

Speaking of drinking kool-aid. The claims that katrina caused no oil spills and China drilling in the US's territory are the two hottest flavors at the moment.

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

[pescadero]

So I guess you would support opening drilling in the restricted areas if the government eliminates subsidies.

Yes - no subsidies, no tax breaks, no under market value leases, and the companies are responsible for ALL environmental damage mitigation and 10x punitive damages in any case of cover-up or fraud.

--
lp

[bobcolenso]

This must be that new economics - can we call this Obamanomics. :lol:

THAT would certainly be an abomination!!!

[Jackster1]

THAT would certainly be an abomination!!!

Seems pretty much any economic theory would be better than the pitiful, fuzzy math of BUSHenomics!

[farmlegend]

Speaking of drinking kool-aid. The claims that katrina caused no oil spills and China drilling in the US's territory are the two hottest flavors at the moment.

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

1. Even lefty Jim Cramer acknowledges there was virtually NO material spillage from Katrina. Heck, even the granddaddy of spills (Exxon Valdez) had no lasting environmental impact.
2. I don't think anyone suggested the Chinese were drilling in US territory, except those interested in making straw man arguments. They do have options in Cuban waters.

[pescadero]

1. Even lefty Jim Cramer acknowledges there was virtually NO material spillage from Katrina.

In May 2006, the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) published their
offshore damage assessment: "113 platforms totally destroyed, and 457
pipelines damaged, 101 of those major lines with 10" or larger diameter."


Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Caused 124 Offshore Spills For A Total Of
743,700 Gallons. 554,400 gallons were crude oil and condensate from
platforms, rigs and pipelines, and 189,000 gallons were refined products
from platforms and rigs. [MMS, 1/22/07]


Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Caused Six Offshore Spills Of 42,000
Gallons Or Greater. The largest of these was 152,250 gallons, well over
the 100,000 gallon threshhold considered a "major spill." [MMS, 5/1/06]


Heck, even the granddaddy of spills (Exxon Valdez) had no lasting environmental impact.

Bullpucky -

http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/misc_pdf/peterson.pdf

"Oiled mussel beds and other tidal shoreline habitats will take an estimated 30 years to recover."

--
lp

[Bwana]

In May 2006, the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) published their
offshore damage assessment: "113 platforms totally destroyed, and 457
pipelines damaged, 101 of those major lines with 10" or larger diameter."


Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Caused 124 Offshore Spills For A Total Of
743,700 Gallons. 554,400 gallons were crude oil and condensate from
platforms, rigs and pipelines, and 189,000 gallons were refined products
from platforms and rigs. [MMS, 1/22/07]


Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Caused Six Offshore Spills Of 42,000
Gallons Or Greater. The largest of these was 152,250 gallons, well over
the 100,000 gallon threshhold considered a "major spill." [MMS, 5/1/06]




Bullpucky -

http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/misc_pdf/peterson.pdf

"Oiled mussel beds and other tidal shoreline habitats will take an estimated 30 years to recover."

--
lp

Natural seepage, marine transportation and atmospheric fallout from fossil fuel usage each deposit far more Oil in the oceans than the activity of the Oil and Natural Gas Industry. The industry's record has greatly improved from the time when the drilling ban was first put into place and that should be recognized.

[yoopertoo]

Definitely - anything non-fossil fuel, and especially non-oil is a good way to go. We need more nukes, more wind, more solar...


Yes - no subsidies, no tax breaks, no under market value leases, and the companies are responsible for ALL environmental damage mitigation and 10x punitive damages in any case of cover-up or fraud.

So do you believe that all energy exploitation should be held to these same standards?

[yoopertoo]

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Caused Six Offshore Spills Of 42,000
Gallons Or Greater. The largest of these was 152,250 gallons, well over
the 100,000 gallon threshhold considered a "major spill." [MMS, 5/1/06]

The vast majority of the hurricane caused spills could be prevented with further regulation. For example, regulations requiring pipeline purging in advance of the storm can prevent leakage from pipeline breaks. We have the technology and the ability to make this much safer. Better regulation could have resulted in zero major spills with katrina and rita. Considering katrina was a cat 5; that is amazing.


"Oiled mussel beds and other tidal shoreline habitats will take an estimated 30 years to recover."

So in essence farmlegend is correct. There will be no lasting impact.

The key in all this is that we can through tougher regulations, which can be better tolerated with higher crude prices, make environmental problems rarer and rarer.

[Nu_2_MI]

A couple things I've read I just wanted to draw attention to.

1. "Seems pretty much any economic theory would be better than the pitiful, fuzzy math of BUSHenomics!"

True...this would be called trickle down economics and we see how well this has benefited the American people. Tax breaks for the rich so they can reinvest in America...or how about giving tax breaks to corps if they send jobs overseas...great idea!! Clinton started this with NAFTA....let's be honest...this isn't Bush's doing...he just mastered it.

2. "This is ALL the more reason to produce domestic oil. If we develop alternate fuels and drill we will reduce domestic consumption and allow for a greater shift of wealth to the US by increased exports."

Perhaps you didn't fully develop your thought here but drilling more and developing alternative fuels won't necessarily reduce domestic consumption. Until we develop the tech to utilize the alternative fuels we can have no impact on oil consumption. If tech development is also linked in here you are right. I doubt highly our production will provide enough of a supply boost to make a dent in the worldwide consumption however. I fear our reduced consumption will not outpace worldwide increases in consumption. The Chinese and India have a much greater capacity for growth than we could ever help to reduce over the next 20-30 years....this is the basis of my argument. We can't control them.

However...if we want our companies to take advantage of big markets now and employ people..have at it...albeit responsibly. But as I stated earlier, our main focus can't be increased production. That is the push now in America....pushed to the forefront by big oil companies who don't want us focused on alternatives. Alternatives have to be mission number 1. OPEC isn't worried about our production, but if we had a serious national initiative to develop alternative fuels and technology, they would surely perk up then. They know we can do it. The announcement of such a plan would drop prices far quicker than even placing rigs in ANWR.

Also, I have not seen a response to the point of the already available 65 million acres of offshore drilling leases already in the hands of oil companies they haven't done anything with. If we want to DRILL DRILL....why not start there while we are all arguing about new leases? Before you argue there is no oil there...under oath, the oil companies said the area where they hold these leases are rich with oil. Under oath they admitted this. So again, there is little motivation for oil companies to develop new drilling as the capital they invest may be a big loss as they can see what's coming. Why invest in all that infrastructure when they are already reaping record profits each new quarter. They aren't worried about domestic economic stability...they can just sell to the highest bidder...China.......but that's capitalism and the effect of the world market. Not saying it's bad...it is just the reality. That's why I don't trust the business world to push alternatives. When you are talking something new and ground breaking when there is a helluva lot of influence and money dedicated towards keeping things status quo.....it just won't go anywhere unless the government tries to make the initial push in that different direction. Then once things get rolling, business will have to convert and they can handle it from there. There are so many examples of this throughout our history. Sometimes you have to give motivation to change.

[Ranger Ray]

Interesting article.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1369487/brazil_aims_to_provide_efficiently_produced_ethano l_but_has_few/index.html

[pescadero]

Natural seepage, marine transportation and atmospheric fallout from fossil fuel usage each deposit far more Oil in the oceans than the activity of the Oil and Natural Gas Industry.

The diffuse nature makes some difference... and we should be working on eliminating those also.

Heck, leaking car oil and other sources (stormwater runoff polluted with oil etc.) account for about the equivalent of six Exxon Valdez spills per year in the United States.

The industry's record has greatly improved from the time when the drilling ban was first put into place and that should be recognized.

I don't disagree - it's gone from completely horrendous to not too bad. There is still WAY too much oil being spilled though.

--
lp

[pescadero]

So do you believe that all energy exploitation should be held to these same standards?

Yes, I think all energy exploration (and chemical plants, and...) should be responsible for the cleanup of their own messes. This garbage of the federal government cleaning up superfund sites and the like which they did not create is completely bogus.

You make the profit off the polluting, you pay for the mitigation. Hooker Chemical should have been on the hook for completely mitigating their dumping at the "Love Canal" for example.

--
lp

[pescadero]

So in essence farmlegend is correct. There will be no lasting impact.


30 years is "lasting" - there may be no permanent impact, but even that is yet to be determined.

The key in all this is that we can through tougher regulations, which can be better tolerated with higher crude prices, make environmental problems rarer and rarer.

So pass the regulations, THEN open drilling... and the regulations really need to stick it to anyone who engages in fraud or cover-up. Accidents always will happen, but hiding and lying about them never should.

--
lp

[pescadero]

Interesting article.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1369487/brazil_aims_to_provide_efficiently_produced_ethano l_but_has_few/index.html

Yep - thank the farm lobby.

--
lp

[WAUB-MUKWA]

And the million of miles of paved roads and highways do more damage everyday than anything else. :yikes:

[yoopertoo]

Yes,
Then your support for new nuclear power is equal to your support for new oil, which means you want all forms of energy exploitation including oil. You seem to have been arguing against yourself again.

[yoopertoo]

30 years is "lasting"

I did not see farmlegend use quotes. This is arbitrary. Why isn't 29, 31 or 1 lasting?


So pass the regulations, THEN open drilling

Then the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the democratic law makers who oppose drilling in any circumstances instead of proposing regulations to allow drilling.

[pescadero]

Then your support for new nuclear power is equal to your support for new oil, which means you want all forms of energy exploitation including oil. You seem to have been arguing against yourself again.

I don't WANT new oil exploration, but I'm resigned to the fact that it is necessary. I would much prefer an energy tradeoff of fossil sources to non-fossil sources (nuclear, wind, solar) because of the inherently less polluting nature.

I'd also like a REAL cost benefit analysis done (that actually includes all costs) in the decision making process on whether a particular area should be opened to drilling.


--
lp

[pescadero]

I did not see farmlegend use quotes. This is arbitrary. Why isn't 29, 31 or 1 lasting?

29, 31, or 1 year all ARE lasting.


Then the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the democratic law makers who oppose drilling in any circumstances instead of proposing regulations to allow drilling.

You mean all those Democrats who have no problem granting leases on offshore areas that contain approximately 80% of the offshore oil?

Lets not pretend that the oil companies aren't allowed to drill in the great majority of the oil bearing areas that are part of the US, both onshore and offshore.

--
lp

[yoopertoo]

I don't WANT new oil exploration, but I'm resigned to the fact that it is necessary.

Nice to see you have changed your position.


I would much prefer an energy tradeoff of fossil sources to non-fossil sources (nuclear, wind, solar) because of the inherently less polluting nature.

I don't understand how you can say that nuclear is less polluting.

[yoopertoo]

29, 31, or 1 year all ARE lasting

So then are 1 day and 20 seconds. Your argument against drilling based on your "lasting" effects is empty. The damage is repairable. This combined with the fact that most can be avoided is a strong argument for drilling.


You mean all those Democrats who have no problem granting leases on offshore areas that contain approximately 80% of the offshore oil?
Lets not pretend that the oil companies aren't allowed to drill in the great majority of the oil bearing areas that are part of the US, both onshore and offshore.

All the more proof the anti drilling mantra in the democratic party is completely trumped up bull.

[pescadero]

Nice to see you have changed your position.

I haven't. We need to do oil exploration and drilling, but it should be as much as possible minimized and done as a stopgap. Those who profit from it should also pay market costs and be responsible for all environmental mitigation.

I don't understand how you can say that nuclear is less polluting.

Nuclear plants release significantly less radioactive material than coal or oil fired power plants - never mind the complete lack of carbon and nitrogen oxides, mercury, and sulfur oxides that fossil fuel fired plants generate.

Power plant nuclear (note, not weapons grade production plants like Hanford) generate significantly less pollution than fossil fuel fired plants, and the resource extraction associated with them is less damaging than coal extraction.

--
lp

[pescadero]

So then are 1 day and 20 seconds. Your argument against drilling based on your "lasting" effects is empty. The damage is repairable. This combined with the fact that most can be avoided is a strong argument for drilling.

Some of the damage is self repairing, some is repairable... but we're talking over long time periods here. Just about anything is repairable given enough time.


All the more proof the anti drilling mantra in the democratic party is completely trumped up bull.

There is no "anti-drilling" mantra - there is a "anti-drilling in certain places where the environmental costs are believed to outweigh the economic and energy benefits" mantra.

Like I asked before -

Would you drill in Yellowstone for 10 million barrels of oil?

Would you drill in Yellowstone for 500,000 barrels of oil?

Would you drill in Yellowstone for 500 barrels of oil?

For most of us, there is point where the environmental costs outweigh the benefits.

--
lp

[Hamilton Reef]

The John Engler administration corruption in this case was well known at the time. He was the under-the-table partner helping his oil money buddies defraud the state of millions of dollars.

Settlement Reached on Nordhouse Dunes
http://www.state.mi.us/migov/gov/PressReleases/199509/Nordhous.html

More Disclosures in the Nordhouse Dunes Case
Settlement wasted millions of taxpayer dollars, undercuts environmental laws
The study, published last March by the Society of Petroleum Engineers, said that the value of the oil beneath the dunes wilderness probably was no more than $10 million, and may have been less than $3 million.
http://www.mlui.org/landwater/fullarticle.asp?fileid=7577

[yoopertoo]

Those who profit from it should also pay market costs and be responsible for all environmental mitigation.

This would not be possible in the case of the nuclear industry, but you seem willing to give them a free pass.


Nuclear plants release significantly less radioactive material than coal or oil fired power plants

Obviously this is not the case. Given the right failure we could have a catastrophic event that no company in the world could cover financially. Then there is also the small problem with waste.

[yoopertoo]

Some of the damage is self repairing, some is repairable... but we're talking over long time periods here.

You were not talking about "long periods" of time. You were talking about a fake definition of "lasting". In any event, it is inconsistent that you are willing to risk a hugely more catastrophic failure with nuclear, but are unwilling to risk a much less severe and much more repairable risk with oil.


There is no "anti-drilling" mantra - there is a "anti-drilling in certain places where the environmental costs are believed to outweigh the economic and energy benefits" mantra.

It is very clear that in ANWR, for example, the environmental costs are minuscule compared to the economic benefits. The mantra is indeed a simple anti-drilling one.


Like I asked before -

Why bother with hypotheticals when we have reality. We can talk reality by talking about the places that actually have oil - like ANWR and the offshore locations.

[pescadero]

This would not be possible in the case of the nuclear industry, but you seem willing to give them a free pass.

Sure it would? There is no reason uranium mining operations can't pay to mitigate the damage caused by their mining, there is no reason fuel producers can't pay to mitigate the byproducts of their operations, and there is certainly no reason power plants can't pay to mitigate their waste issues. Things like vitrification, fuel re-processing, etc. all work rather well.


Obviously this is not the case. Given the right failure we could have a catastrophic event that no company in the world could cover financially.

Not really - modern BWR/PWR and passive reactors (due to having a negative void coefficient) have little likelihood of any sort of truly catastrophic failure - and in cases where a company can't cover the costs of a cleanup they can and should be divested of all holding and put out of business and those funds used to fund cleanup to the extent possible.

Then there is also the small problem with waste.

Nuclear medicine generates significanlty more waste than nuclear power, and it is much harder to deal with. Both can relatively easily be dealt with through re-processing, vitrification, or even long term safe storage - and it is more than possible to safely store nuclear waste long term.

--
lp

[pescadero]

You were not talking about "long periods" of time.

30 years isn't a long period?

In any event, it is inconsistent that you are willing to risk a hugely more catastrophic failure with nuclear, but are unwilling to risk a much less severe and much more repairable risk with oil.

Your understanding of modern power nuclear is obviously pretty shallow.

It is very clear that in ANWR, for example, the environmental costs are minuscule compared to the economic benefits. The mantra is indeed a simple anti-drilling one.

What is the value of pristine wilderness areas?

That is what it comes down to... if you value them highly, it isn't very clear. If you think they are worthless, it certainly is.

At what level of recoverable oil would you be willing to drop oil rigs into Yellowstone?

How about Yosemite?

Was the O'Shaughnessy dam on the Tuolumne river that flooded Hetch Hetchy Valley the right decision? It's made lots of electricity for San Francisco, and lots of irrigation water for the San Joaquin Valley.

Was the electricity and irrigation generated by the Grand Coulee Dam worth the extinction of numerous salmon species?


Why bother with hypotheticals when we have reality. We can talk reality by talking about the places that actually have oil - like ANWR and the offshore locations.

Because the hypotheticl goes right to the heart of things - every natural environment is exploitable for profit, at a cost of the loss of or damage to that natural environment. The question is, how do you value that natural environment relative to the benefits you can derive from it.

[shametamer]

30 years isn't a long period?



Your understanding of modern power nuclear is obviously pretty shallow.



What is the value of pristine wilderness areas?

That is what it comes down to... if you value them highly, it isn't very clear. If you think they are worthless, it certainly is.

At what level of recoverable oil would you be willing to drop oil rigs into Yellowstone?

How about Yosemite?

Was the O'Shaughnessy dam on the Tuolumne river that flooded Hetch Hetchy Valley the right decision? It's made lots of electricity for San Francisco, and lots of irrigation water for the San Joaquin Valley.

Was the electricity and irrigation generated by the Grand Coulee Dam worth the extinction of numerous salmon species?




Because the hypotheticl goes right to the heart of things - every natural environment is exploitable for profit, at a cost of the loss of or damage to that natural environment. The question is, how do you value that natural environment relative to the benefits you can derive from it.

spoken like an ENGINEER.......The question is, how do you value that natural environment relative to the benefits you can derive from it.[/QUOTE]
define value..define benefit.........if by benefit you mean a few rich folk deepen their pocket and us common folk get a few more days? weeks? months? a year or 2? to play 'destroyer of worlds'......well..er..uh doesn't seem the benefit is worth the loss..............I'll take VALUE......................if you are talking permanent, life changing, life sustaining benefit..i would whole heartedly agree.......................

[yoopertoo]

Sure it would?

So you don't believe the oil companies are liable?


Not really - modern BWR/PWR and passive reactors (due to having a negative void coefficient) have little likelihood of any sort of truly catastrophic failure

So you think Oil companies are only responsible for a subset of possible failures?


and in cases where a company can't cover the costs of a cleanup they can and should be divested of all holding and put out of business and those funds used to fund cleanup to the extent possible.

Interesting, so you do agree damage is acceptable. How do you place a price on the human cost?

So even if a company was not found negligent you would destroy an industry. Who would cover the strategic loss of an American industry?

Nuclear medicine generates significanlty more waste than nuclear power

You don't seem to understand what a röntgen is.


Both can relatively easily be dealt with through

So you are willing to accept the risk of high level irradiation but not the risk of an oil spill?

[yoopertoo]

30 years isn't a long period?

Compared to which nuclear isotope?


Your understanding of modern power nuclear is obviously pretty shallow.

Your understanding of the pathologies or irradiation is obviously pretty shallow.


What is the value of pristine wilderness areas?

What is a "pristine wilderness area"?


That is what it comes down to... if you value them highly, it isn't very clear. If you think they are worthless, it certainly is.

Clarity comes with ingenuous analysis of the situation. In order to get clarity a person needs to be willing to set aside the partisan positions held purely for the sake of ideology. Your simplistic false dilemma is bogus. Unfortunately this particular propaganda piece works in our disney channel society.

The human footprint on earth is unavoidable and inevitable. To deny humanity the right to extract the resources it needs to survive is inhumane. The question is how do allow humanity to obtain the best possible quality of life while still protecting, conserving and enhancing the environment we all live in. The answer is not to "worship" the natural world as some kind aesthetic painting on your living room wall. We can both extract resources while at the same time protect our natural environment.

[pescadero]

So you don't believe the oil companies are liable?

Fully liable for full mitigation and responsible for bearing market costs - no.


So you think Oil companies are only responsible for a subset of possible failures?

History has shown that to be the case.

Interesting, so you do agree damage is acceptable. How do you place a price on the human cost?

Not acceptable, just unavoidable. How do you place a price on human cost? The same way we do it now. The current figure used by our government in deciding these issues is $7.22 million for the value of a human life.

So even if a company was not found negligent you would destroy an industry. Who would cover the strategic loss of an American industry?

If there were only one company in the industry - yes. If there is a demand, and money to be made, someone will fill it.


You don't seem to understand what a röntgen is.

I understand all too well what a röntgen is, as well as rads, Grays, rem, and sievert.

I also understand the quantities involved and the difficulty of blocking various alpha, beta, and gamma radiations.

I also understand where most what has caused most irradiation instances in the world, and it isn't power reactor related.

So you are willing to accept the risk of high level irradiation but not the risk of an oil spill?

I'm willing to accept the risk of either, given the correct safe guards - those safe guards exist for nuclear power and do not for oil.

--
lp

[pescadero]

Compared to which nuclear isotope?

Lots of them. Yttrium-90, Iodine-131, Strontium-89, Irridium-192, Cobalt-60, Copper-64... tons upon tons of radioactive substances have half lives orders of magnitude less than 30 years.


Your understanding of the pathologies or irradiation is obviously pretty shallow.

No, I understand them quite well... might have something to do with being good friends with a University of Florida Nuclear and Radiological Engineering professor, and having worked at a nuclear power plant and gone through radiation area training.

How many radiation areas have YOU worked in?


What is a "pristine wilderness area"?

Whatever we as a society choose to define as such. Generally I would say a wilderness area that is not spoiled, corrupted, or polluted.


Clarity comes with ingenuous analysis of the situation. In order to get clarity a person needs to be willing to set aside the partisan positions held purely for the sake of ideology. Your simplistic false dilemma is bogus. Unfortunately this particular propaganda piece works in our disney channel society.

The human footprint on earth is unavoidable and inevitable. To deny humanity the right to extract the resources it needs to survive is inhumane. The question is how do allow humanity to obtain the best possible quality of life while still protecting, conserving and enhancing the environment we all live in. The answer is not to "worship" the natural world as some kind aesthetic painting on your living room wall. We can both extract resources while at the same time protect our natural environment.

So you believe there is nowhere which should be off limits to resource extraction? Even if that resource extraction destroys the unique qualities of the place?

Flooding Hetch Hetchy to generate electricity was the right decision?

Extincting numerous salmon runs above Grand Coulee to generate electricity was the right decision?

--
lp