Bush ok's Gulf of Mexico Drilling

[steve70638]

Let me also add that this helps the US with balance of trade issues. I would rather be paying for oil off US rigs (and all ancillary services) with US folks getting paychecks (paying US and local taxes), putting money into the US economy than supporting some dangerous regimes overseas.

Conservation is another valid issue but has nothing to do with this.

 

[BKP]

great job! now we need to open ANWR, Coast of CA, and pump that oil.....
oh, and ban china, korea and Japan from importing cheap cars........
Time to look out for our own, the U.S...........

Hey... I *like* my Nissan Frontier... makes a great dive truck...

And for the record -- I also support the drilling... it's not just oil, but methane fields as well. The rigs make fabulous artificial reefs, and ultimately are an ecological boon to the marine life, whether or not they're close enough to dive...

Perhaps they'll take a fresh look at nuclear as well...

 

[RV]

well, President Bush has sgned into law a bill opening up 8.3 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas drilling

it's part of House Bill 6111

so ...

it's happened

Florida does get a 125-mile buffer from its coastline:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/16201124.htm

i did some looking, but couldn't find any major oil spills from drilling platforms.
all but one of the listed ones are from ships (one is from a pipeline):

http://www.endgame.org/oilspills.htm

china gets all the oil between us and cuba

 

[Bill51]

It's about time some US president had the gumption to get some wells started. Now he's got to turn to the refinery issues and get more of them built, and IMO more nuclear plants.

Even more important and a cause to celebrate was that we got Senator Nelson to sign this legislation and FINALLY get it to the President. As recently as 2 months ago he was still fighting it, and when I spoke at a DoI hearing last month in Panama City on the bill he had at least moved to sitting on the fence. What moved so many in the Congress to finally act was when both the DoI and several respected university researchers “proved” to them that much of the information they had received from NGOs was not just wrong, but intentionally wrong and misleading. They saw the potential embarrassment factor in voting based on myth and legend rather than science and fact.

Permitting for refineries has already begun under the Energy Act earlier this year and barring any major Supreme Court challenges by a state the process of getting some new, efficient, and environmentally friendly refiners is on moving on schedule. While there are still some issues on moving forward with some nukes I think we’ve seen more progress in the past 2 years than the past 30 so I’m hopeful we’ll be on our way to real clean energy soon.

Not only is natural gas a great feed stock for things such as hydrogen, I was amazed (and don’t understand most of it) to find that there are many other products we use today that are manufactured from oil, but can be made from natural gas feedstock – if we have a good and stable American producer. Using gas as a manufacturing feedstock is supposedly much cleaner, but it greatly reduces the dangers of oil spill in transport.

 

[H2Andy]

china gets all the oil between us and cuba

cite?

Even more important and a cause to celebrate was that we got Senator Nelson to sign this legislation and FINALLY get it to the President.

so, what's the downside? likelihood of oil spills? leaching chemicals into the water, that sort of thing

anyone done any real studies?

 

[Bill51]

cite?




so, what's the downside? likelihood of oil spills? leaching chemicals into the water, that sort of thing

anyone done any real studies?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/09/washington/09drill.html?ex=1166763600&en=d61e883ea166e2a2&ei=5070

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news/economy/oil_cuba/index.htm

These are couple older articles from the original China Cuba announcements.

The only legitimate downside (if you want to call it that) to drilling is that it will prevent many of the volatile spikes in energy costs that some claim are necessary to keep people thinking about conservation and alternative fuels. They do also correctly point out that increased domestic production does make it harder for alternative fuels to compete in the market. The downside to this logic is the blind assumption that alternative fuels will be enough cleaner than conventional hydrocarbon fuels to offset the economic losses caused by manipulating fuel prices through artificial shortages. The other downside to this thinking is that we would still be able to afford the environmental protections we enjoy if the economy were artificially slowed down by reduced hydrocarbon supplies.

The only industry that has had more environmental and safety studies done than the nuke world is the petroleum industry. The irony is that the restrictive regulations and industry funded study requirements brought about by the energy act of 1977 is actually responsible for the power of large oil companies today since it was so burdensome that it drove most of the small producers out of business or forced them to sell out to the big few that could afford the governmental paperwork and risks.

 

[H2Andy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/09/washington/09drill.html?ex=1166763600&en=d61e883ea166e2a2&ei=5070

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news/economy/oil_cuba/index.htm

These are couple older articles from the original China Cuba announcements.

yes, i am aware of those. those are in Cuban-controlled waters just off Cuba.

I believe the statement was that "China gets all the oil between us and Cuba," which seemed to imply China was somehow drilling in "neutral" territory that we were somehow giving up.

not so.... they are drilling in Cuban territory (under treaty with the US)

basically, Cuba doesn't have the technology to do it (duh) and so they are leasing the rights off to several countries, but those are Cuban waters to drill (again, by treaty with the US)

 

[drbill]

As long as you and I keep buying cars that run on oil (at least mine get 38 and 60+ mpg), and waste copious amounts of that and other energy sources by not adopting good personal conservation practices, we will need to continue to produce this rather disasterous product.

I recognize my dependence on these energy sources, and practice conservation whenever possible to reduce my use.

Back in the 70's I was the energy conservation officer for a major aerospace firm. I put together a proposal to save $750,000 worth of energy costs per year (at the then prevailing prices). When I presented my proposal to the V.P., he said it was all well and good, but as a defense contractor "we" worked on a cost plus contract. Turns out my job was only present to comply with government contract requirements, not to actually implement any real conservation.

 

[H2Andy]

As long as you and I keep buying cars that run on oil (at least mine get 38 and 60+ mpg), and waste copious amounts of that and other energy sources by not adopting good personal conservation practices, we will need to continue to produce this rather disasterous product.

America is a junkie for oil ... a good start would be to cut back on oil and grow our own supply

the only real way to be independent of oil is to find an alternative energy source that we can control

i don't see that happening anytime soon

 

[Bill51]

yes, i am aware of those. those are in Cuban-controlled waters just off Cuba.

I believe the statement was that "China gets all the oil between us and Cuba," which seemed to imply China was somehow drilling in "neutral" territory that we were somehow giving up.

not so.... they are drilling in Cuban territory (under treaty with the US)

basically, Cuba doesn't have the technology to do it (duh) and so they are leasing the rights off to several countries, but those are Cuban waters to drill (again, by treaty with the US)

Technically it is correct that China is only drilling Cuban oil under contract, but from what we’ve heard of some of the contractual terms in practical terms China is dragging Cuba around by the nose on these. This is very similar to the situation with Russia and the contracts they signed shortly after the USSR fall, and the very contracts Putin is now reneging on with Shell and a few other firms where he’s suddenly nationalizing them. If this is the plan of the Castro government to do the same I think they’ll discover that China won’t roll over and give up as easily as Shell did.

Another major concern many have with this partnership is that there appears to be very little stewardship of the oil reserves involved which will not just ultimately hurt Cuba, but it could also hurt the US and US firms who may eventually get a chance to drill on our side of the treaty line. Oil companies are very careful to control the rate they pump wells since if you attempt to pump too much too fast you can do damage to the formations leaving huge reserves inaccessible to all but the most expensive recovery processes. If China and Cuba decide to make a fast buck and pump the wells closest to the line too fast it could effectively destroy our oil reserves. There is also some limited concern that it will be difficult to monitor the drilling and prevent possible slant drilling into reserves on the US side of the line.

While I have very little concern for the potential risk of spill damage from American drilling operations, I don’t share the same confidence in the way this drilling will be done. Since much of it will be done on the southern side of the Gulf Stream I do worry that some Chinese or Cuban will cut corners on blow out protectors or other standard safety devices and the entire east coast of Florida will be awash in Cuban oil – in a very un-useful way.