Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24
  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default Drilling for Oil

    There have been a couple of threads talking about the drilling of oil. Some suggest that many areas are already open and the oil companies aren't drilling there. CNN has a small piece that tells the truth and there are vast areas that could be drilled in

    Where is offshore drilling allowed? One can easily see that it is more than just the coast of Florida. A little education here can lead to a better debate. Given the facts, we have been mislead by our leaders for the last 27 years.


  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber Emberxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    There have been a couple of threads talking about the drilling of oil. Some suggest that many areas are already open and the oil companies aren't drilling there. CNN has a small piece that tells the truth and there are vast areas that could be drilled in

    Where is offshore drilling allowed? One can easily see that it is more than just the coast of Florida. A little education here can lead to a better debate. Given the facts, we have been mislead by our leaders for the last 27 years.


    This is some interesting reading:

    http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/
    "When you throw dirt, you lose ground."

    IACOJ

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Yes some interesting stuff for sure. Care to look and see where Mr. Pickens has his money invested?

    Like I have said, wind is an excellent choice, Unfortunately, you have to get the power from the mid-west to the coasts.

    What they don't mention is we have created our dependence on foreign oil by not going after our own oil.

    Bio-fuels to date have proven to be a disaster. It takes more energy to make them then it does to just use the oil.

  4. #4
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Yes some interesting stuff for sure. Care to look and see where Mr. Pickens has his money invested?
    Since that is your rationale, should we also ignore the writings of those investing oil companies or whose research is being funded by them?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  5. #5
    MembersZone Subscriber mcaldwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Panorama, British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    3,022

    Default

    If you friggen yanks don't straighten up that "Border" from Yukon/Alaska into the Beaufort Sea, I swear I'll be up there with a canoe and shotgun myself.

    I think offshore drilling will obviously need a ton of regulation and consideration. Simply lifting the ban is inadequate.

    Time has to be spent on considering the social and ecnonomic impacts like land values, disaster plans, and tourism impacts, but certainly there is still a lot of oil to be had. I agree that biofuel is the biggest scam going, and is going to cost you far more in the end when you consider the land losses and affects on other crop prices.

    But don't worry, we'll always have tons of oil to sell you at $100+ a barrel.
    Never argue with an Idiot. They drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience!

    IACOJ

  6. #6
    55 Years & Still Rolling hwoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Glenn Dale Md, Heart of the P.G. County Fire Belt....
    Posts
    10,739

    Thumbs down Uhhh...........

    Quote Originally Posted by mcaldwell View Post
    If you friggen yanks don't straighten up that "Border" from Yukon/Alaska into the Beaufort Sea, I swear I'll be up there with a canoe and shotgun myself.

    I think offshore drilling will obviously need a ton of regulation and consideration. Simply lifting the ban is inadequate.

    Time has to be spent on considering the social and ecnonomic impacts like land values, disaster plans, and tourism impacts, but certainly there is still a lot of oil to be had. I agree that biofuel is the biggest scam going, and is going to cost you far more in the end when you consider the land losses and affects on other crop prices.

    But don't worry, we'll always have tons of oil to sell you at $100+ a barrel.

    I respectfully disagree. The time has long since passed when we could have/should have studied anything. We need to kick everything else aside and start work on more wells NOW. The NIMBYS and Environutz can stuff it, the need for adequate, economically feasabile energy must override all other concerns. Period.
    Never use Force! Get a Bigger Hammer.
    In memory of
    Chief Earle W. Woods, 1912 - 1997
    Asst. Chief John R. Woods Sr. 1937 - 2006

    IACOJ Budget Analyst

    I Refuse to be a Spectator. If I come to the Game, I'm Playing.

    www.gdvfd18.com

  7. #7
    MembersZone Subscriber mcaldwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Panorama, British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    3,022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hwoods View Post
    I respectfully disagree.
    And I'll respectfully disagree right back.

    If you need more surge capacity, you should keep ramping up production on existing wells and oilfeilds, including utilizing additional drilling rigs in the very short term. This will buy you a few months and years with which to selectively open new areas. Of course the longer you wait, the harder that will be.

    The financial limitations of today's market should not be a carte-blanche excuse with which to completely throw out the existing review process. The first time you destroy an environmental assett/industry/fishery, that already has real value in todays market, you will spend far more on recovery and compensation in the long run than the few cents a gallon you'll save by reckless drilling today.

    I'm the ultimate environmentalist's antagonist because I strongly feel that almost any resource can be harvested without destroying the landscape and eco-system, BUT the decisions shouldn't be made thousands of miles away in capitol buildings and corporate headquarters. The issue is the unwillingness to spend a few extra bucks to keep the industrial footprint to a minimum, and employ the long term management practices that will keep the industry and region sustainable. If you can't get a consensus on the appropriate method of collection in sensitive areas, then you should build a buffer into the process to ensure you use the least impactful process available until the issue can be examined further.

    Don't forget that in many cases, reckless explotation of the environment with devastating result, was the very catalyst for those seemingly harsh restrictions and processes.
    Never argue with an Idiot. They drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience!

    IACOJ

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Since that is your rationale, should we also ignore the writings of those investing oil companies or whose research is being funded by them?
    How do you think Mr. Pickens made his riches? He is an oil tycoon. While using things like wind, solar, and hydro to generate heat and electricity make sense, one needs to beware of the messenger. In this case we have a salesman. And just like the used car salesman, they will sell you things you don't need or won't work.

    I was having a conversation earlier with a friend who told me about this house a friend of hers had built back in the 70s. To this day it has no furnace in it. It is completely heated by solar. Why we don't have more of these I don't know. I'm also not sure her facts are accurate except to say it has no furnace. Technology is there, why don't people use it?

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mcaldwell View Post
    If you friggen yanks don't straighten up that "Border" from Yukon/Alaska into the Beaufort Sea, I swear I'll be up there with a canoe and shotgun myself.

    I think offshore drilling will obviously need a ton of regulation and consideration. Simply lifting the ban is inadequate.

    Time has to be spent on considering the social and ecnonomic impacts like land values, disaster plans, and tourism impacts, but certainly there is still a lot of oil to be had. I agree that biofuel is the biggest scam going, and is going to cost you far more in the end when you consider the land losses and affects on other crop prices.

    But don't worry, we'll always have tons of oil to sell you at $100+ a barrel.
    Yes, of course you would not want us to drill for our own oil. Since Canada is the number one importer of oil to the U.S. you would have a lot to loose if we started getting our own oil. There are no need for studies, it's called paralysis by analysis. Go get the stuff, but at the same time, invest in some other replacement technologies. We only have enough oil to last another 200 years or so.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mcaldwell View Post
    And I'll respectfully disagree right back.

    If you need more surge capacity, you should keep ramping up production on existing wells and oilfeilds, including utilizing additional drilling rigs in the very short term. This will buy you a few months and years with which to selectively open new areas. Of course the longer you wait, the harder that will be.

    The financial limitations of today's market should not be a carte-blanche excuse with which to completely throw out the existing review process. The first time you destroy an environmental assett/industry/fishery, that already has real value in todays market, you will spend far more on recovery and compensation in the long run than the few cents a gallon you'll save by reckless drilling today.

    I'm the ultimate environmentalist's antagonist because I strongly feel that almost any resource can be harvested without destroying the landscape and eco-system, BUT the decisions shouldn't be made thousands of miles away in capitol buildings and corporate headquarters. The issue is the unwillingness to spend a few extra bucks to keep the industrial footprint to a minimum, and employ the long term management practices that will keep the industry and region sustainable. If you can't get a consensus on the appropriate method of collection in sensitive areas, then you should build a buffer into the process to ensure you use the least impactful process available until the issue can be examined further.

    Don't forget that in many cases, reckless explotation of the environment with devastating result, was the very catalyst for those seemingly harsh restrictions and processes.
    Agree, we should have been ramping up for the last 30 years. However, the environuts got in the way of progress once again. Anything man does, "exploits" the earth. By breathing, man removes oxygen from the atmosphere. By exhaling he puts nasty pollutants like CO2 back into the air. And we won't even mention that nasty methane gas.

    In fact, the system known as our environment depends on us to use certain resources.

  11. #11
    Forum Member ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    We need to kick everything else aside and start work on more wells NOW.
    More oil is not the answer. It is only a farce to enable big oil to remain king. Drilling more wells with questionable output at huge taxpayer expense only retracts from serious investment in alternative energy sources now...which is the way big oil wants it.

  12. #12
    Forum Member MTKROUSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hernando MS USA
    Posts
    558

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman View Post
    More oil is not the answer. It is only a farce to enable big oil to remain king. Drilling more wells with questionable output at huge taxpayer expense only retracts from serious investment in alternative energy sources now...which is the way big oil wants it.
    You're almost right. More drilling will slow down the research and development of alternative energy sources. It should only be used as a bridge to energy independence. There is no way that as a country we can abandon oil all together at this time. there is no way that we can throw the necessary money into alternative energy and see any positive outcomes immediately. The way to do this is. Remove the dependence on foreign oil. Find it where we have it domestically and get it on the surface by any means necessary. Then invest in wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, Hydroelectric, clean coal, hamsters in wheels and whatever other energy sources are out there to make our dependence on oil for electricity less.

    But the part you're rigth on is the big oil lobby won't let that happen with our greedy, never done a day's hard labor Congress calling the shots and not sending any serious energy legislation to whoever the President is. Bush, Obama, McCain, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Bozo the Clown, none of these men can sign any energy legislation until it gets to them without added pork. An energy policy does not need an ear mark for anything. It needs to be serious legislation by serious people in the best interest of We the People.

    Washington does not understand that we loan them power for a finite amount of time and it is our decision as to how long we allow them to keep it. The President lives in our house rent free. The only thing We the People ask is that he/she/it looks out for our best interests while they live there. For the past 8 years GWB lost sight of that. Congress does our bidding. For as long as there's been Congress they lost sight of that little fact. Until our voters get serious and we have better turnout than 30 - 40% nationally the lunatics will continue to run the asylum. Those numbers are strictly estimates to make a point.
    To err is human, To forgive divine and at times I am as much of both as you will ever find

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman View Post
    More oil is not the answer. It is only a farce to enable big oil to remain king. Drilling more wells with questionable output at huge taxpayer expense only retracts from serious investment in alternative energy sources now...which is the way big oil wants it.
    You do realize that T Boone Pickens is Big Oil right? The answer is indeed to drill and get and use the oil we have available. Trust me when I tell you Canada, Russia, and Norway are drilling and getting oil in the arctic circle. No sense in us letting them have all the oil. Solar, Wind, Nuclear, and Hydro have been around for years. But every time someone comes up with an alternative the enviros take issue. How about the big wind farm that was proposed off of cape cod that the idiot Kennedy's shot down. These democratic leaders are no more interested in alternative fuel sources than there "big oil " counterparts.

  14. #14
    Forum Member MTKROUSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hernando MS USA
    Posts
    558

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    You do realize that T Boone Pickens is Big Oil right? The answer is indeed to drill and get and use the oil we have available. Trust me when I tell you Canada, Russia, and Norway are drilling and getting oil in the arctic circle. No sense in us letting them have all the oil. Solar, Wind, Nuclear, and Hydro have been around for years. But every time someone comes up with an alternative the enviros take issue. How about the big wind farm that was proposed off of cape cod that the idiot Kennedy's shot down. These democratic leaders are no more interested in alternative fuel sources than there "big oil " counterparts.
    You know there is a forest and then there are trees. Sometimes the former is obscured by the latter. I find it hard to believe that our Congress would rather Cuba sell drilling rights to Vietnam, Russia, and whoever else has a buck and a drill to get oil that sits off the coast of Florida that we could be drilling. And they say we can't open up more drilling because of the environmental hazards or whatever foolishness they can dream up. Look up companies like OnShore OffShore Quality Control Specialists, Gulf Interstate Field Services, Mustang Engineering. They have almost as many environmental inspectors and technicians as they do anyone else on any job. But we are not as environmentally conscious as Vietnam. Makes me wonder where I can buy tickets on the stupid express.

    And about the wind farm that Ted Kennedy blocked. It would have been an eyesore to see two windmills out there when his drunken *** was seeing double.
    To err is human, To forgive divine and at times I am as much of both as you will ever find

  15. #15
    Back In Black ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Drill here, drill now.

    Alternative energy is a nice warm fuzzy idea... but it has not proven itself to be practical for the masses.

    Only for the limosine liberals who can afford the extra 4,000 bucks for a hybrid (which, by the way still needs gasoline).

    I'm all for alternative energy, truly. But that isn't going to help the people who make this country run in the next 10 years.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    I see the democrats are wanting to open up the off-shore areas for drilling, with one little catch, they want to take away the tax breaks, incentives, and subsidies the oil companies get. I assume that means the subsidies they get to research alternate energy too. Now realize, if they loose their tax breaks the cost of gasoline and home heating oil will go up. So I will say this; if you take away the tax breaks for the oil companies then also remove the government bailouts for mass transit. If you aren't going to subsidize rural travel then don't subsidize urban travel, it's only fair.

  17. #17
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    I'm not sure how your taxation, subsidies, royalties work in the US, or what you are calling tax breaks. If a state sells an oil company the right to explore and drill for oil on state owned land, then the price they pay the state would be tax deductible I presume as it would be a legitimate expense. Similarly, if they find oil or gas in economically recoverable quantities, I would think they would pay the govt an agreed % of the price per barrel, ( a royalty) or they would agree to produce that barrel of oil and receive a % which would recover their costs and give them an agreed upon return on investment. No doubt, lawyers and accountants would find some interesting creative profitable loopholes there. These are probably the two most common ventures in the international oil/gas industry. There are lots of variations, Canada did subsidize Dome Petroleum, later part of Petro Canada back in the 70's to drill in the arctic but it simply wasn't feasible to exploit then. It may be now, but I don't know of any oil company operating even north of 60 degrees latitude which is still well below the arctic circle. Russia has a big discovery in their arctic, but it is on land and they are having a hell of a time trying to develop it. They also have an elephant play going on in the Shtokmann field but that is years away from viable commercial production. Norway has done some exploratory work off shore in the Barents sea but to my knowledge nothing has come of it yet.
    Conversely, the US might want to look at your north east coast. The continental shelf extends well down your coast and there may be big discoveries there similar to Hibernia, St Georges Banks, and others off Newfoundland. These would be expensive to develop but would come on stream probably within 10 years.
    Someone mentioned that Canadas biggest customer is the US, which is very true. But that also makes us your second biggest supplier as well, and after some of your idiot politicians started getting on their green high horses and threatening not to use that " dirty" Alberta oil, we did a feasibility study and found it would take 4 years to quad our pipelines to our west coast where Chinese and Indian oil tankers would be very happy to receive and pay well for our so-called "dirty" oil.
    More oil is still only a temporary stop gap measure and alternative fuel sources need to be worked on. This sure as hell is going to take a heck of a lot of govt and private money. My bet is if gas gets down to $3 a gallon, everybodies memories go down the drain with it and the whole cycle will just repeat itself.



    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    I see the democrats are wanting to open up the off-shore areas for drilling, with one little catch, they want to take away the tax breaks, incentives, and subsidies the oil companies get. I assume that means the subsidies they get to research alternate energy too. Now realize, if they loose their tax breaks the cost of gasoline and home heating oil will go up. So I will say this; if you take away the tax breaks for the oil companies then also remove the government bailouts for mass transit. If you aren't going to subsidize rural travel then don't subsidize urban travel, it's only fair.
    Last edited by BryanLoader; 09-10-2008 at 10:43 AM. Reason: Spell Check

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    A recent USGS study found that there is a whole bunch of oil in the Arctic circle. Curious is that they say about 90 billion barrels or 20% of the worlds oil. Some enviros are saying this is only enough for 3 years. Well if it is 20% and 20% will last 3 years then we only have enough oil to go 15 years, then it is all gone. Something wrong in the math somewhere.

    The Northern Slope of Alaska, to include ANWR are north of the circle. I believe, but haven't really looked, that there are operations going on up there now. One thing I did see that as a result of more sea ice melt there is more oil available.

  19. #19
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Scarecrow; I know you're excited about the prospect of drilling for oil in the arctic, but you might just change your mind if you spend a couple of months there. I don't know where your USGS gets their estimates from, but I can guarantee you until you get several wells drilled and tested, its like betting red or black on roulette, it might be there and it might not. If you look at the map in your original post, theres the whole east coast of the US that could be opened. Just north of Maine there is a whole hell of a lot of oil and gas and theres a lot better chance of exploring and possibly hitting some good plays there. Not really sure how the Kennedy clan would take to a couple of semi subs sitting off Marthas vineyard and Missisippi roughneck crew changing there, but it would be a lot easier and faster to bring online than the arctic. In Canada, we know theres lots of oil and gas up in the arctic and theres no prohibition against drilling there, but theres no lines of bed trucks heading north. In Russia, the Shtokman field is monstrous but it still hasn't been developed, despite billions being invested already. As Malahat says, yes drill more wells, ramp up production, but you best get with the program and start bringing on alternate energy.



    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    A recent USGS study found that there is a whole bunch of oil in the Arctic circle. Curious is that they say about 90 billion barrels or 20% of the worlds oil. Some enviros are saying this is only enough for 3 years. Well if it is 20% and 20% will last 3 years then we only have enough oil to go 15 years, then it is all gone. Something wrong in the math somewhere.

    The Northern Slope of Alaska, to include ANWR are north of the circle. I believe, but haven't really looked, that there are operations going on up there now. One thing I did see that as a result of more sea ice melt there is more oil available.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BryanLoader View Post
    Scarecrow; I know you're excited about the prospect of drilling for oil in the arctic, but you might just change your mind if you spend a couple of months there. I don't know where your USGS gets their estimates from, but I can guarantee you until you get several wells drilled and tested, its like betting red or black on roulette, it might be there and it might not. If you look at the map in your original post, theres the whole east coast of the US that could be opened. Just north of Maine there is a whole hell of a lot of oil and gas and theres a lot better chance of exploring and possibly hitting some good plays there. Not really sure how the Kennedy clan would take to a couple of semi subs sitting off Marthas vineyard and Missisippi roughneck crew changing there, but it would be a lot easier and faster to bring online than the arctic. In Canada, we know theres lots of oil and gas up in the arctic and theres no prohibition against drilling there, but theres no lines of bed trucks heading north. In Russia, the Shtokman field is monstrous but it still hasn't been developed, despite billions being invested already. As Malahat says, yes drill more wells, ramp up production, but you best get with the program and start bringing on alternate energy.
    Yes, there is the whole off shore area that shows promise as well. In fact, there is a huge natural gas reserve in the southern tier of NY, PA, and Ohio.

    As I have also said. We need to drill and get more oil, thus reducing our reliance on other countries. Side line, how come it is OK for other countries to drill for the oil but not the U.S.? Can Nancy answer that for me? At any rate, there is great promise in the generation of electricity via wind. Solar is still very complicated and expensive. Hydro shows great promise as well except the very people calling for reductions of greenhouse gases also object to this form of clean energy. But the next big issue is the need for bigger and better infrastructure. Most of the wind and solar capability resides in the mid-west. Most of the people live out on the coasts. They need to install some very large transmission lines to get the power from the mid west to the coast where the people are.

    What is truly amazing to me is this stuff has been around for 100 years. Yet our society doesn't use it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Drilling Hybrid Gas Inflators?
    By kevinw in forum University of Extrication
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-28-2003, 10:40 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts