Bush ok's Gulf of Mexico Drilling

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Bill51:
Conservative estimates put ANWR reserves at 10.4 billion barrels and the ability to ramp up fairly quickly to 1 MBPD and sustain that for 30 years, so if taking 1.5 MBPD out of production for 30 days can cause a 15% increase in oil prices, I don’t see how anyone can claim that adding 1 MBPD for 30 years to the supply side of our oil production can do anything but stabilize prices. Oil traders didn’t wait for Katrina to hit before running the prices up, and they won’t wait until our new wells are online to bring the prices down.

Markets in the short term are a voting system and in the long term are a weighing system. You can't really pick apart the effects of Katrina and Rita from the fact that oil pulled back to its $50 200-DMA around June and the run up to $70 put it at the top of an upwards channel that had been established in 2001. The techncial analysis of the stock swing can explain all of the price motion over that period. Longer term the fact that WTIC broke through its 200-DMA and violated the uptrend recently probably is indicating that the market is finding the actual weight which includes all the political risk factors, hurricaine risk, current supply and demand, etc. You can't do the kind of analysis though which looks entirely at the 1.5Mbd that got knocked out short term with Katrina and Rita and assume that the 15% price swing which occurred then is an accurate estimate of the markets weight of that event.

I've also never read any estimates of ANWR coming online with 1 Mbd in much less than a decade, which is too little too late.
 
Merry Christmas :xmastree: may your fossil fuels burn bright.
 
Bill51:
Bummer, but at least they caught it before they dumped more than a few hundred barrels into the Gulf – that’s still less than a days worth of natural seepage in the area.

and in addition to...

and at different concetration level, and over a much smaller area..

unless, of course, you think dumping oil in theGulf is a good thing ... hey ... it's not as much as it naturally seeps

are you saying that we can dump as much oil as it naturally seeps in and still be ok? how much do we get to dump in????

:wink:
 
H2Andy:
and in addition to...

and at different concetration level, and over a much smaller area..

unless, of course, you think dumping oil in theGulf is a good thing ... hey ... it's not as much as it naturally seeps

are you saying that we can dump as much oil as it naturally seeps in and still be ok? how much do we get to dump in????

:wink:
It’s about time you got back in your thread. :D

No, I don’t think it’s alright, and you can bet there will be investigations galore over this given the size of it – close to half of an ordinary year’s spills nationwide. It will be interesting to see what the NTSB finally rules the cause of this one getting as out of hand as it did, but it sure beats what might have happened if we had a tanker incident hauling foreign oil to the US.

Every spill is bad, but if we want to totally eliminate them than we had better ban all boats too because they accidentally spill that much just in bilge water – so no more dive trips folks. Do we need government monitored water/oil separators installed on every boat with a bilge pump? If the preliminary findings from Texas A&M test out we also may see that the drilling taking place in the area has reduced natural seepage by more than what was spilled by several magnitudes.
 
Bill51:
If the preliminary findings from Texas A&M test out we also may see that the drilling taking place in the area has reduced natural seepage by more than what was spilled by several magnitudes.

Cool. Then the oil companies can say they aren't energy firms drilling for oil in the Gulf, they are really environmental firms cleaning up the Gulf. Their plants aren't refining oil to create fuels, they are disposing of a toxic substance called oil.
 
Green_Manelishi:
Stepping along at +2000 FPS, the .30-30 is not subsonic.


ya ya... not sure how i got that into my head

(btw, i checked ... at sea level, the speed of sound is 344 meters per second, or 1,128.61 fps ... all my "wimp" loads are way above that)


Bill51:
It’s about time you got back in your thread. :D

i was in Aunt-in-law hell in Nashville, with no computer. but at least the booze was free.
 
I'm certain the leak described at the link will be investigated as well. Note it was self-reported as soon as it was suspected. This allows maximum availability of response time for action.

The largest quantity estimate, 400 gallons, is less than 10 barrels (42 US gallons to the US barrel). I think it's commendable the leak was so small - I don't know the capacity of this particular pipeline, but the High Island system I'm confident moves more than 10 barrels a day of crude in the course of normal operations (several orders of magnitude more). However, if a total 'zero tolerance' policy is what some desire, we need to include all vehicle oil pans and transmission pans, and drips from them to the environment. Municipal storm water systems generally have little, if any, facilities for recovering the oil from the vehicle drips from all the mega-mall parking lots and Supercenters that goes through the storm water (not sanitary sewer) systems to point of discharge. Basically, Bill51 mentioned boats, but neglected to consider vehicles not traveling on water.

Now, does that provide a reasonable comparison with say Ixtoc 1, just for consideration?

These are just my impressions from growing up in South Texas, I have no scientific data, but I think Bill51 is most likely right in terms of offshore drilling and production in the Gulf of Mexico may have reduced natural hydrocarbon seep rates. I don't think drilling activities increased tar on the beaches while I was growing up, I think cheap imported oil was more likely the cause. When I was younger and domestic production was higher, tar on the beaches was very uncommon. As we got more imported oil, and when it was cheap, I think more was put into the system by the tankers leaving. With higher prices, and things like crude oil washing (COW) systems invented and used on the tankers, the tar is much less again (I last visited September 2005). Again, I have no data to back this up, just my personal impressions. So to me, improving domestic production also helps reduce risk factors for potential pollution.

I've noticed some of the same folks who say they don't want to be part of a climate experiment through increased fossil fuel combustion are the same who often point to the rising demand curve in China and India. I haven't seen what the predictions are if the USA quits consuming so much petroleum - what effect that is predicted to have on the rising demand curve outside the USA and western Europe. I suspect that with less competition, the portion that would not be consumed in the USA may well be added to the consumption of China, India, and / or other countries outside the USA and western Europe, with net consumption globally being little changed, if any. Only time will tell.
 

Back
Top Bottom