PeakOil is You
THE Offshore Drilling Thread (merged)
Re: Some offshore projects
by Chuckmak » Thu 03 Jul 2008, 08:16:57
I think vampyregirl is either OF2's wife or alias...
"if god doesn't exist, it is necessary that we invent him" - Voltaire
"they say prescott bush funded hitler" - Nas
"they say prescott bush funded hitler" - Nas
- Chuckmak
- Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Sat 19 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Bridge City
Re: Some offshore projects
by TheDude » Thu 03 Jul 2008, 12:45:37
Some of the GOM fields haven't paid out like expected - salt layers distort seismic, giving false estimates of field characteristics. Flows haven't been what were expected, and 275F temps and 17k lb/sq inch pressure don't help, either. So I wonder if the Brazilian fields will flow per expectations.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
-
TheDude - Expert
- Posts: 4896
- Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Re: Democrats Cave-In On Offshore Drilling
by The_Toecutter » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 00:10:59
Offshore drilling is only going to amount to a small fraction of today's oil consumption in the U.S. at the peak of its extraction 15-25 years after it is started...
...meaning, it's not going to do anything to lower gasoline prices and further risks making our oceans even more polluted.
The best solution is to use less oil. We have technology for electric cars with 200+ miles range and it would be affordable in mass production; we can have no-compromise 80 mpg midsize cars and 35 mpg full size SUVs with proper attention to aerodynamics; force the automakers to produce them immediately with their next model year or they can't sell cars here! They've already developed prototypes since the 1970s that were market ready, but never sold them. Given that the auto fleet turns over every 17 years, we'd cut our oil consumption by nearly 30% in that timeframe without any sacrifice just from changing our automobiles(and we could be doing plenty of that too).
Of course, this would have the side effect of saving Joe sixpack money and transferring less of his money to society's elite, therefore neither democrats nor republicans like the idea. They support more drilling and more oil use because it keeps us spending money, but the real problem is that we're spending/consuming too much. We can have the same living standard on less resources, but it means that a wealthy few won't be as wealthy.
Forget more drilling. It's a losing proposition because it does not address the underlying problem that we are consuming an irreplacable resource, and consuming far much more than we need to for a given living standard. We need a form of conservation that focuses on first and foremost saving the average American money and encouraging less spending.
...meaning, it's not going to do anything to lower gasoline prices and further risks making our oceans even more polluted.
The best solution is to use less oil. We have technology for electric cars with 200+ miles range and it would be affordable in mass production; we can have no-compromise 80 mpg midsize cars and 35 mpg full size SUVs with proper attention to aerodynamics; force the automakers to produce them immediately with their next model year or they can't sell cars here! They've already developed prototypes since the 1970s that were market ready, but never sold them. Given that the auto fleet turns over every 17 years, we'd cut our oil consumption by nearly 30% in that timeframe without any sacrifice just from changing our automobiles(and we could be doing plenty of that too).
Of course, this would have the side effect of saving Joe sixpack money and transferring less of his money to society's elite, therefore neither democrats nor republicans like the idea. They support more drilling and more oil use because it keeps us spending money, but the real problem is that we're spending/consuming too much. We can have the same living standard on less resources, but it means that a wealthy few won't be as wealthy.
Forget more drilling. It's a losing proposition because it does not address the underlying problem that we are consuming an irreplacable resource, and consuming far much more than we need to for a given living standard. We need a form of conservation that focuses on first and foremost saving the average American money and encouraging less spending.
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
-
The_Toecutter - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2142
- Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Re: Democrats Cave-In On Offshore Drilling
by mos6507 » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 00:49:35
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', '
')Offshore drilling is only going to amount to a small fraction of today's oil consumption in the U.S. at the peak of its extraction 15-25 years after it is started...
')Offshore drilling is only going to amount to a small fraction of today's oil consumption in the U.S. at the peak of its extraction 15-25 years after it is started...
Everybody's turned into armchair oil men these days. They think they know better than geologists. I think the public just need to find that out about oil depletion and supply vs. demand the hard way. Just give them the closure they want and we can move down the line to the next stage of grief.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', '
')force the automakers to produce them immediately with their next model year or they can't sell cars here!
They might just go out of business before we have a chance of dictating to them. We might just wind up with a DIY conversion future after all.
- mos6507
Re: Democrats Cave-In On Offshore Drilling
by 3aidlillahi » Thu 10 Jul 2008, 07:48:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonsieurX', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'w')e are consuming an irreplacable resource
Um, no we aren't. Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe and carbon is the fourth most common element in the universe. Hydrocarbons are infinite and renewable.
"It is obvious that the total amount of petroleum in the rocks underlying the surface ... is large beyond computation." -- Edward Orton, 1888
Let me speak for everyone on this forum with the following:
*pause*
What most people seem to forget about off-shore drilling is that the states can still veto it. It's up to them, IIRC, to issue permits and it's a virtual no-go for the next 50 years in CA. The Legislature won't approve of it and the Gov is against it as well.
FL is a bit trickier. The GOP has a 65% majority in both houses of the legislature, but even they are generally against drilling and have been for quite some time. There's starting to be a trickle of GOP for support of drilling, but they will likely need 90-100% of the GOP part of their congress to get drilling approved which seems doubtful over the next few years.
But just like everything else in American politics, states' rights are neglected, by and large. What a disgrace.
So the real question becomes: when will the GOP cave-in to off-shore drilling?
Riches are not from abundance of worldly goods, but from a contented mind.
-
3aidlillahi - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1416
- Joined: Tue 25 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
![[smilie=BangHead.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/BangHead.gif "BangHead")
Then stop driving to work, duh..... 
