Florida offshore oil rigs

[cdiver2]

First its not yours unless you have a deed and that ends 3 and 12 miles out!

Guba is right! So you like the idea of transporting Ethanol on our nations highways? Using diesel to do it? You can't put it in pipelines so how are you going to move it? Oil is the right thing for our time!

Oil spills aren't as Disastrous as you were lead to believe and they have in some circumstances have been beneficial, believe it or not

!

Splitting hairs? CA coast ours= Californians, FL coast our coast= Floridians

BULL.

Major oil spills since 1960

 

[captain]

Splitting hairs? CA coast ours= Californians, FL coast our coast= Floridians

BULL.

Major oil spills since 1960

I didn't go through every spill but it seems the majority were the result of a transportation accident. Which can happen if a ship carrying grain runs into with a ship carrying corn and both spill fuel oil. Do you suggest we go back to the days of sail.
It makes more sence to produce oil near the point of use and transport it by pipeline than to cross oceans by ship with all the hazards of large quanties of oil subject to the hazards of storms, groundings, collisions, etc. Once the ship is split open millions of gallons are loss to the sea. The Exxon Valdiz spilled 11 million gallons right on shore.

By contrast pipelines are monitored 24/7 365 by instrumentation. A 24" 50 mile long pipeline contains about 6 millions gallons. If the amount of oil entering the pipeline at the rig doesn't equal the amount exiting the pipeline on shore it is instantly shut down at both ends with very little loss. Pipelines are the safest way to transport hadarous materials.

There are also automatic valves on each well located below the sea floor that automaticly shut if the pipe from the sea floor to the rig is ruptures. Many rigs totally vanished in Katrina but there were no major spills because of these valves.

And all the people whose land was taken by the state and federal government to build highways and other projects thought it was their land also.

 

[cdiver2]

I didn't go through every spill but it seems the majority were the result of a transportation accident. Which can happen if a ship carrying grain runs into with a ship carrying corn and both spill fuel oil. Do you suggest we go back to the days of sail.
It makes more sence to produce oil near the point of use and transport it by pipeline than to cross oceans by ship with all the hazards of large quanties of oil subject to the hazards of storms, groundings, collisions, etc. Once the ship is split open millions of gallons are loss to the sea. The Exxon Valdiz spilled 11 million gallons right on shore.

By contrast pipelines are monitored 24/7 365 by instrumentation. A 24" 50 mile long pipeline contains about 6 millions gallons. If the amount of oil entering the pipeline at the rig doesn't equal the amount exiting the pipeline on shore it is instantly shut down at both ends with very little loss. Pipelines are the safest way to transport hadarous materials.

There are also automatic valves on each well located below the sea floor that automaticly shut if the pipe from the sea floor to the rig is ruptures. Many rigs totally vanished in Katrina but there were no major spills because of these valves.

And all the people whose land was taken by the state and federal government to build highways and other projects thought it was their land also.

I somewhat agree with you but look at post #76. As you said most of the accidents come from transporting the oil. So if there are no rigs then there is no oil to transport, it makes no difference to the environment if the oil spill comes from a rig,ship or pipe line.

As you said the pipe lines are monitored in fact the pipe lines were shut down before Katrina hit, however they do not evacuate the lines so if there is damage to the line then whatever is in the line is coming out. Automatic valves well they should work but I would not put a lot of money on anything automatic working every time.

Six million gallons may not seem a lot to you but to me it is, then multiply that by all the oil spills world wide. What would you guess the total oil spill into oceans would be?.

Oil spills from tankers, there is such a thing as double hull ships that would help with oil spills but a lot of the ships carrying oil do not have them?.

No I am not saying go back to sail but I think there needs to be a lot more effort put into research for alternate fuels but while oil CO are making record profits this is not going to be taken seriously.

You said you did not read all the spills on the link, do some research there are a lot more spills that were not reported on that one link.

After that do some research on Globalization, oil is just the start.

 

[captain]

I somewhat agree with you but look at post #76. As you said most of the accidents come from transporting the oil. So if there are no rigs then there is no oil to transport, it makes no difference to the environment if the oil spill comes from a rig,ship or pipe line.

As you said the pipe lines are monitored in fact the pipe lines were shut down before Katrina hit, however they do not evacuate the lines so if there is damage to the line then whatever is in the line is coming out. Automatic valves well they should work but I would not put a lot of money on anything automatic working every time.

Six million gallons may not seem a lot to you but to me it is, then multiply that by all the oil spills world wide. What would you guess the total oil spill into oceans would be?.

Oil spills from tankers, there is such a thing as double hull ships that would help with oil spills but a lot of the ships carrying oil do not have them?.

No I am not saying go back to sail but I think there needs to be a lot more effort put into research for alternate fuels but while oil CO are making record profits this is not going to be taken seriously.

You said you did not read all the spills on the link, do some research there are a lot more spills that were not reported on that one link.

After that do some research on Globalization, oil is just the start.

Keep a close watch for the black helicopters.
Beam me up Scottie, I've seen enough.

 

[cdiver2]

Keep a close watch for the black helicopters.
Beam me up Scottie, I've seen enough.

Nothing constructive to say?, I thought I could have had a reasonable conversation with you without getting cheap shots, guess I was wrong.

We have a lot of black helicopters flying around this area, they belong to the US armed forces

 

[cdiver2]

BBC July 2nd

Opec head sees new oil price rise

Dr Khelil said a recent increase in production had not worked
The president of the oil producers' group, Opec, has warned that crude prices could rise further this week if eurozone interest rates go up.

Dr Chakib Khelil told the BBC that he expected a rise in rates to lead to a further weakening of the dollar which would push oil prices higher.

Dr Khelil blamed the fall in the value of the dollar for recent record highs.

He rejected calls to increase the supply of oil, saying a boost by Saudi Arabia had failed to temper prices.

"What happened was that instead of coming down, they increased, because the perception of the market is that the dollar will continue weakening in future," Dr Khelil told the BBC's World Business Report at the Petroleum Congress in Madrid.

The price of oil hit another record level last week, when US light, sweet crude traded at $143.67.

In late morning trading in London, Brent crude was up almost $1 at $141.58. The European Central Bank has hinted that it may increase its main interest rate from 4% in an effort to control accelerating consumer price inflation.

However, it has not made any firm commitment to lifting borrowing costs at its rate setting meeting on Thursday. A decision will be announced at 1245 BST.

Some analysts have predicted that the bank may lift interest rates by a quarter of a percentage point to 4.25%.

 

[vladimir]

how do you propose we resolve the oil crisis? just curious.

I like T. Boone's ideas. I'd throw in increased use of nuclear power and dramatically increased fuel economy standards and we could quickly make progress towards freeing ourselves from dependence on foreign oil. By the way, T. Boone Pickens is not an environmental "whacko", and he is very gainfully employed. Here's his plan in today's Wall Street Journal:

My Plan to Escape the Grip of Foreign Oil
By T. BOONE PICKENS
July 9, 2008

One of the benefits of being around a long time is that you get to know a lot about certain things. I'm 80 years old and I've been an oilman for almost 60 years. I've drilled more dry holes and also found more oil than just about anyone in the industry. With all my experience, I've never been as worried about our energy security as I am now. Like many of us, I ignored what was happening. Now our country faces what I believe is the most serious situation since World War II.

The problem, of course, is our growing dependence on foreign oil – it's extreme, it's dangerous, and it threatens the future of our nation.


Let me share a few facts: Each year we import more and more oil. In 1973, the year of the infamous oil embargo, the United States imported about 24% of our oil. In 1990, at the start of the first Gulf War, this had climbed to 42%. Today, we import almost 70% of our oil.

This is a staggering number, particularly for a country that consumes oil the way we do. The U.S. uses nearly a quarter of the world's oil, with just 4% of the population and 3% of the world's reserves. This year, we will spend almost $700 billion on imported oil, which is more than four times the annual cost of our current war in Iraq.

In fact, if we don't do anything about this problem, over the next 10 years we will spend around $10 trillion importing foreign oil. That is $10 trillion leaving the U.S. and going to foreign nations, making it what I certainly believe will be the single largest transfer of wealth in human history.

Why do I believe that our dependence on foreign oil is such a danger to our country? Put simply, our economic engine is now 70% dependent on the energy resources of other countries, their good judgment, and most importantly, their good will toward us. Foreign oil is at the intersection of America's three most important issues: the economy, the environment and our national security. We need an energy plan that maps out how we're going to work our way out of this mess. I think I have such a plan.

Consider this: The world produces about 85 million barrels of oil a day, but global demand now tops 86 million barrels a day. And despite three years of record price increases, world oil production has declined every year since 2005. Meanwhile, the demand for oil will only increase as growing economies in countries like India and China gear up for enhanced oil consumption.

Add to this the fact that in many countries, including China, the government has a great deal of influence over its energy industry, allowing these countries to set strategic direction easily and pay whatever price is needed to secure oil. The U.S. has no similar policy, because we thankfully don't have state-controlled energy companies. But that doesn't mean we can't set goals and develop an energy policy that will overcome our addiction to foreign oil. I have a clear goal in mind with my plan. I want to reduce America's foreign oil imports by more than one-third in the next five to 10 years.

How will we do it? We'll start with wind power. Wind is 100% domestic, it is 100% renewable and it is 100% clean. Did you know that the midsection of this country, that stretch of land that starts in West Texas and reaches all the way up to the border with Canada, is called the "Saudi Arabia of the Wind"? It gets that name because we have the greatest wind reserves in the world. In 2008, the Department of Energy issued a study that stated that the U.S. has the capacity to generate 20% of its electricity supply from wind by 2030. I think we can do this or even more, but we must do it quicker.

My plan calls for taking the energy generated by wind and using it to replace a significant percentage of the natural gas that is now being used to fuel our power plants. Today, natural gas accounts for about 22% of our electricity generation in the U.S. We can use new wind capacity to free up the natural gas for use as a transportation fuel. That would displace more than one-third of our foreign oil imports. Natural gas is the only domestic energy of size that can be used to replace oil used for transportation, and it is abundant in the U.S. It is cheap and it is clean. With eight million natural-gas-powered vehicles on the road world-wide, the technology already exists to rapidly build out fleets of trucks, buses and even cars using natural gas as a fuel. Of these eight million vehicles, the U.S. has a paltry 150,000 right now. We can and should do so much more to build our fleet of natural-gas-powered vehicles.

I believe this plan will be the perfect bridge to the future, affording us the time to develop new technologies and a new perspective on our energy use. In addition to the plan I have proposed, I also want to see us explore all avenues and every energy alternative, from more R&D into batteries and fuel cells to development of solar, ethanol and biomass to more conservation. Drilling in the outer continental shelf should be considered as well, as we need to look at all options, recognizing that there is no silver bullet.

I believe my plan can be accomplished within 10 years if this country takes decisive and bold steps immediately. This plan dramatically reduces our dependence on foreign oil and lowers the cost of transportation. It invests in the heartland, creating thousands of new jobs. It substantially reduces America's carbon footprint and uses existing, proven technology. It will be accomplished solely through private investment with no new consumer or corporate taxes or government regulation. It will build a bridge to the future, giving us the time to develop new technologies.

The future begins as soon as Congress and the president act. The government must mandate the formation of wind and solar transmission corridors, and renew the subsidies for economic and alternative energy development in areas where the wind and sun are abundant. I am also calling for a monthly progress report on the reduction in foreign oil imports, as well as a monthly progress report on the state of development of natural gas vehicles in this country.

We have a golden opportunity in this election year to form bipartisan support for this plan. We have the grit and fortitude to shoulder the responsibility of change when our country's future is at stake, as Americans have proven repeatedly throughout this nation's history.

We need action. Now.

Mr. Pickens is CEO of BP Capital.

 

[vladimir]

From today's New York Times, emphasis added:

Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida, said: “I don’t think that solar and renewables are any more of an answer tomorrow than opening up more areas for exploration would be,” Mr. Martinez said. “All of these are long-term solutions.”

He added, “In my way of thinking, the most immediate thing we could do to impact prices is consume less.”

Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, has resurrected the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit.

 

[DeepSeaExplorer]

In the first place, the projected reserves are on the order of a century (some think 3 centuries), not five years. In the second place, not only does modern drilling pose nearly zero risk, but the structures provide habitat for a wide variety of sea life. In the third place, the development of alternatives (1) has an uncertain "finish line" (2) requires a vibrant economy as a foundation and (3) needs a safe place to proceed; we need a robust, reliable, secure energy base to create the future's robust, reliable energy base.
In other words, we need to drill now so we can forego drilling in the future.
There won't be any "alternative development" in a dhimma.
Rick

Sure... tell all that to those that suffered thru the Exxon Valdes disaster. An oil spill like that in South Florida would be total devistation. You're simply suggesting that we continue to do nothing at the expenses of everyone's future.

And, 'habitat for sealife!' Give me a break! I suppose you're one of those that thing dumping trash in the ocean is good for the environment because it gives lobsters a place to hide.

Even T. Boone Pickens says we can't drill our way out of this one! Wake up people!

 

[Thadmn]

Politicians love to promote drilling as a solution to the twin problems of high-priced oil and foreign dependency on oil because we Americans love solutions that don't involve any self-sacrifice. No matter how implausible they may be. Yes, there is oil in ANWR, and some more offshore that is not being exploited. But we have an estimated 3% of the world's oil reserves and consume 25% of the world's production (2004 figures). So clearly, more drilling doesn't effectively address the problem. Per 1000 persons, Americans consume 70 bbl/day, compared to, for examples, 43 bbl/day in Australia, 32 bbl/day in France, and 30 bbl/day in the UK. A Ford F150 gets 14 miles per gallon of gas. A Toyota Prius gets 46 mpg. We waste a lot of gas. A partial solution is staring us in the face.

Apparently a lot of "tree huggers" are changing their tune as the price of gas surpasses $4.00 a gallon. Last I heard, 76% of the US population is in favor of drilling. I don't know about you, but I am sacrificing quite a lot these past couple of years. You sound like you're a volunteer for the Sierra Club, and that maybe the source of the figures you are quoting, 3% you say? I can afford only one vehicle which needs the capability to haul and tow as well for A to B transportation. Al Gore isn't willing to sacrifice one of his mega-homes, but he wants us all to go back to "yoking up the oxen". These are the only politicians that I am hearing these days, tax and spend while "We the People" pay the tab.

By the way, I need to haul some drywall and plywood to my home this weekend. Can I borrow your Prius?