Florida offshore oil rigs

[captain]

Originally Posted by vladimir
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.)



Could it be that the United States is a much bigger country with much greater distance between cities and states. UK, and France are only as big as some of our states and the middle of Australia is sparcely populated. Touring France would be like touring one state in the US. The distance products and people have to travel has to be considered when quoting useage.It takes a lot more fuel to go between New York and Los Angeles which is internal travel then to go between London and Paris which is international travel. Many rural people have a very real need for large pickup and SUV's. Is it more economical to make many trips with a Prius to haul what a pickup can do in one trip.

 

[Thadmn]

Good points

 

[Thadmn]

Here's an idea! As long as we're going to go back to the days of sailing ships and ox carts. We can shut down all petroleum production and go back to slaughtering whales for oil to put in our lanterns! HEY NOW!

 

[vladimir]

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?

I have to point out for the third time in this thread that I support offshore drilling, which probably disqualifies me from "tree hugger" status, as does advocating increased nuclear power. I don't know where I got the 3% figure--probably the same place T. Boone got it. I guess he's a tree hugging Sierra Club volunteer when he's not in the oil business.

Could it be that the United States is a much bigger country with much greater distance between cities and states. UK, and France are only as big as some of our states and the middle of Australia is sparcely populated.
<snip>
Many rural people have a very real need for large pickup and SUV's. Is it more economical to make many trips with a Prius to haul what a pickup can do in one trip.

Sure; I certainly considered that driving distances in France and the UK are probably much shorter, which is why I included consumption on the continent of Australia for a better comparison. The consumption figures are per capita, so population sparseness shouldn't matter.

I also expected somebody to bring up the "hauling" red herring too. I am sure you do a lot of hauling, Captain, but a huge percentage of the gas guzzlers on the road are hauling nothing but groceries.

I was hesitant to resurrect this thread, but I thought the article was well worth posting. This seems to be an emotional issue with some people, and I am not sure why. But when American servicemen are sacrificing their lives in Iraq, it seems to me the rest of us should be more than willing to make sacrifices as well. We should be doing everything we can to ensure that we deal with the Middle East, Russia, Venezuela, etc, from a position of strength. And that means increasing our energy supply--the long term solution--and cutting our demand, which we can accomplish in a much shorter term. Drill, yes. But let's be realistic about how much oil that gets us in the short term.

 

[captain]

I have to point out for the third time in this thread that I support offshore drilling, which probably disqualifies me from "tree hugger" status, as does advocating increased nuclear power. I don't know where I got the 3% figure--probably the same place T. Boone got it. I guess he's a tree hugging Sierra Club volunteer when he's not in the oil business.

Sure; I certainly considered that driving distances in France and the UK are probably much shorter, which is why I included consumption on the continent of Australia for a better comparison. The consumption figures are per capita, so population sparseness shouldn't matter.

I also expected somebody to bring up the "hauling" red herring too. I am sure you do a lot of hauling, Captain, but a huge percentage of the gas guzzlers on the road are hauling nothing but groceries.

I was hesitant to resurrect this thread, but I thought the article was well worth posting. This seems to be an emotional issue with some people, and I am not sure why. But when American servicemen are sacrificing their lives in Iraq, it seems to me the rest of us should be more than willing to make sacrifices as well. We should be doing everything we can to ensure that we deal with the Middle East, Russia, Venezuela, etc, from a position of strength. And that means increasing our energy supply--the long term solution--and cutting our demand, which we can accomplish in a much shorter term. Drill, yes. But let's be realistic about how much oil that gets us in the short term.

I agree many SUV's haul nothing more than groceries. It's just my wife and I but I have a 22 foot 5000# boat that takes a large vehicle to pull it, but I don't pull it every day and other days my wife is hauling groceries or the grandchild. My wife and I do a lot of non dive related travel by motorcycle.

I could sell the boat and charter but there are no charters near by and I would have to drive 200 or more miles one way and still have something big enough to carry dive gear and luggage plus the expense of fuel for a smaller vehicle, hotels and food so cost wise one charter trip would cost me more than the fuel for the SUV for a whole month or more of normal use. I do drive slower than I did in the past and make less dive trips with the boat.
Should I just sell the SUV and boat at a big loss, buy a Corolla and give up diving as my sacrifice to conserve.
There are no easy answers but some degree of reason has to be applied. Realistically, no one knows how much oil there is or isn't.
Here a offshore company just said it is increasing the life of one particular group of wells 10 years by using new technology.
I just gave permission to an oil survey company to do computer seismic surveying on family property. I had a lengthy discussion with the company. It seems computer seismic surveying was developed in the early 90's and until now had just been used offshore because of the expense and logistics of getting permission from the hundreds of thousands land owners on shore. Right now they are in the process of resurveying most of Louisiana and it has resulted in new wells being drilled with impressive production rates.
The company said prior to computer surveying only 1 or 2 wells out of 10 drilled produced oil. Now with the new methods 7 or 8 well will be producers and in many places where oil was originally found at a shallow depth computer surveying is finding oil deeper in the same locations.

How do we cut demand in the short term and what is a short term. Obama wants to tax oil companies and send the money to the middle income citizens. I believe the number was $1000. Well, how many will be motivated by $1000 to sell their present vehicle at a loss to buy a more expensive hybrid. I know I wouldn't be.
All of the vehicles currently on the roads have to cycle through their lifetime. If I sell my SUV and buy a hybrid that SUV isn't going to the scrap yard, someone will buy it and use it or is the government going to buy them all up with the windfall profit tax on oil and sell them for scrap. I don't think so.
They talk about more flex fuel vehicles. My SUV is a flex fuel vehicle but where and what will the flex fuel be. It looks looks ethanol is finally turning into the big boondoggle I always though it was.

It takes 26 wind turbines to generate 20 mega watts of power. Nuclear plants can generate 500 to 2000 mega watts. It would take 2600 wind turbines to generate as much electricity as one 2000MW nuke plant which would take up a relatively small amount of land compared to 2600 wind turbines. Wind turbines can not be put anywhere, they have to in open areas with favorble wind speeds. I don't think it is feasable to expect more that 5% of total electrical production from wind farms. We need to be 75% nuclear.

I looked at T Boons plan. I think there might be more in it for him than us. He want to replace 20% of US electrical production with wind farms. 20% of U S electrical production is 157474 mega watts. T Boons world largest wind farm is 667 turbines will produce 1000MW so we need 1574 of T Boons wind farms to replace 20%. 78 2000 MW nuke plants would be needed to produce the same amount on a much smaller and less visible footprint.


A revival of the railroads is needed not necessarly to transport people but rather freight to get some of the tens of thousands of long haul 18 wheelers off the highways. The train is a much more economical way to move freight long distances.

Even if we get electrical generation and transportation off oil, oil will still be needed to lubricate the wheels and make plastics and other products

 

[vladimir]

I agree many SUV's haul nothing more than groceries. It's just my wife and I but I have a 22 foot 5000# boat that takes a large vehicle to pull it, but I don't pull it every day and other days my wife is hauling groceries or the grandchild. My wife and I do a lot of non dive related travel by motorcycle.

I could sell the boat and charter but there are no charters near by and I would have to drive 200 or more miles one way and still have something big enough to carry dive gear and luggage plus the expense of fuel for a smaller vehicle, hotels and food so cost wise one charter trip would cost me more than the fuel for the SUV for a whole month or more of normal use. I do drive slower than I did in the past and make less dive trips with the boat.
Should I just sell the SUV and boat at a big loss, buy a Corolla and give up diving as my sacrifice to conserve.
There are no easy answers but some degree of reason has to be applied.

I agree that there are no easy answers, and you highlight the problem on the demand side: it will take some time for people to make the capital investments necessary to reduce demand. If the price of crude stays at $137/bbl, demand will eventually take care of itself. If the price dips, we will revert to our wasteful ways. The solution is a fat tax on crude (and some substitutes) to offset any price dips. That will curb demand and force a large scale restructuring of our society to reflect the higher cost of energy. People will abandon suburbs an hour's drive from work, live in smaller houses, drive more fuel-efficient vehicles, telecommute, etc. The extra revenue would go to pay down our debt. In general, I have always felt we should minimize our tinkering with free markets, but there are clear externalities in the energy market that should be addressed politically.

Realistically, no one knows how much oil there is or isn't.
Here a offshore company just said it is increasing the life of one particular group of wells 10 years by using new technology.
I just gave permission to an oil survey company to do computer seismic surveying on family property. I had a lengthy discussion with the company. It seems computer seismic surveying was developed in the early 90's and until now had just been used offshore because of the expense and logistics of getting permission from the hundreds of thousands land owners on shore. Right now they are in the process of resurveying most of Louisiana and it has resulted in new wells being drilled with impressive production rates.
The company said prior to computer surveying only 1 or 2 wells out of 10 drilled produced oil. Now with the new methods 7 or 8 well will be producers and in many places where oil was originally found at a shallow depth computer surveying is finding oil deeper in the same locations.

This technology came too late for me. I helped finance some dry holes in Mississippi in 1990 in a brief flirtation with the upstream side of the business. I could have been hanging with T. Boone.

How do we cut demand in the short term and what is a short term. Obama wants to tax oil companies and send the money to the middle income citizens. I believe the number was $1000. Well, how many will be motivated by $1000 to sell their present vehicle at a loss to buy a more expensive hybrid. I know I wouldn't be.
All of the vehicles currently on the roads have to cycle through their lifetime. If I sell my SUV and buy a hybrid that SUV isn't going to the scrap yard, someone will buy it and use it or is the government going to buy them all up with the windfall profit tax on oil and sell them for scrap. I don't think so.
They talk about more flex fuel vehicles. My SUV is a flex fuel vehicle but where and what will the flex fuel be. It looks looks ethanol is finally turning into the big boondoggle I always though it was.

All true. I hate to even discuss the silliness that spews from politicians' mouths. Oil companies are a convenient scapegoat, especially around election time. They actually have a fairly modest return on their massive investment, something like 8%. Certainly not a "windfall." McCain's gas-tax holiday is equally silly.

It takes 26 wind turbines to generate 20 mega watts of power. Nuclear plants can generate 500 to 2000 mega watts. It would take 2600 wind turbines to generate as much electricity as one 2000MW nuke plant which would take up a relatively small amount of land compared to 2600 wind turbines. Wind turbines can not be put anywhere, they have to in open areas with favorble wind speeds. I don't think it is feasable to expect more that 5% of total electrical production from wind farms. We need to be 75% nuclear.

I looked at T Boons plan. I think there might be more in it for him than us. He want to replace 20% of US electrical production with wind farms. 20% of U S electrical production is 157474 mega watts. T Boons world largest wind farm is 667 turbines will produce 1000MW so we need 1574 of T Boons wind farms to replace 20%. 78 2000 MW nuke plants would be needed to produce the same amount on a much smaller and less visible footprint.

I have no problem believing T. Boone's proposal is self-serving--that's why he's a billionaire. And I agree that nuclear energy is the most obvious partial solution.

A revival of the railroads is needed not necessarly to transport people but rather freight to get some of the tens of thousands of long haul 18 wheelers off the highways. The train is a much more economical way to move freight long distances.

Even if we get electrical generation and transportation off oil, oil will still be needed to lubricate the wheels and make plastics and other products

I agree.

 

[cdiver2]

History&#8217;s 10 Most Famous Oil Spills | gCaptain.com

10 Largest Oil Spills (The Valdez Doesn't Make the List)
Written by Hank Green
Thursday, 28 February 2008

The Exxon Valdez, the tanker responsible for the worst oil spill in American history, has come back into the news this week, as the Supreme Court finally decides the price that Exxon will pay for ruining the fishing industry in Alaska. But it will likely surprise you to know that the Valdez spill was actually only the 34th largest oil spill in history.

These ten oil spills, all massively larger than the Exxon Valdez, were all smaller new stories, either because the ships were offshore, or dropped their toxic loads in less developed parts of the world. The Valdez spilled 10 million gallons off the coast of Alaska, the smallest spill in the top ten was four times larger.

Kuwait - 1991 - 520 million gallons
Iraqi forces opened the valves of several oil tankers in order to slow the invasion of American troops. The oil slick was four inches thick and covered 4000 square miles of ocean.
Mexico - 1980 - 100 million gallons
An accident in an oil well caused an explosion which then caused the well to collapse. The well remained open, spilling 30,000 gallons a day into the ocean for a full year.
Trinidad and Tobago - 1979 - 90 million
During a tropical storm off the coast of Trinidad and Tobago, a Greek oil tanker collided with another ship, and lost nearly its entire cargo.
Russia - 1994 - 84 million gallons
A broken pipeline in Russia leaked for eight months before it was noticed and repaired.
Persian Gulf - 1983 - 80 million gallons
A tanker collided with a drilling platform which, eventually, collapsed into the sea. The well continued to spill oil into the ocean for seven months before it was repaired.
South Africa - 1983 - 79 million gallons
A tanker cought fire and was abandoned before sinking 25 miles off the coast of Saldanha Bay.
France - 1978 - 69 million gallons
A tanker's rudder was broken in a severe storm, despite several ships responding to its distress call, the ship ran aground and broke in two. It's entire payload was dumped into the English Channel.
Angola - 1991 - more than 51 million gallons
The tanker expolded, exact quantity of spill unknown
Italy - 1991 - 45 million gallons
The tanker exploded and sank off the coast of Italy and continued leaking it's oil into the ocean for 12 years.
Odyssey Oil Spill - 1988 - 40 million gallons
700 nautical miles off the cost of Nova Scotia.
The Exxon Valdez oil spill was a disaster, but so were the 33 oil spills that were, in fact, worse. Spills have slowed down in recent years, due to advances in logistics and tanker hulls. There are no longer any new single-hulled tankers being built...but there are still plenty that haven't yet been decommissioned.

But as long as we're dependent on the stuff, there will be accidents, as there were three in 2007 alone, one of over 3 million gallons of oil.

 

[scubapro50]

The American public will have to change their driving habits before anything will get done. Back in the late 70's durning the OPEC mess we change to meet the need ..... then gas got cheap and we went back to our old habits. The Mustang II was a piece of junk by most standards but it was the second best selling Mustang model Ford has ever had to the great MPG it got for that time. I own both a Corolla and a Ford Explorer. The Corolla does have good MPG but it's small and cramped for me and the family. Anytime we go on a long trip we use the Explorer ...... MPG sucks but it makes up for it with room and comfort.

 

[Rick Murchison]

It's almost funny to see the near orgasmic enthusiasm in the MSM for Pickens... 'cause they can say they have an "oil man" who says "we can't drill our way out" of our dependence on foreign oil.
Pickens is a businessman (ne oil man) whose current business is windmills. His plan takes on new meaning with that in mind...
Drill here, Drill now, Pay less!
Build windmills too.
Build nuclear plants too.
Build efficient, safe, convenient mass transit too.
Build "commuter" and "city cars" too.
Fund alternate energy research too.
Back to Pickens' Plan... he's absolutely correct that using natural gas to generate electricity is insane. By all means divert natural gas away from electrical power generation - but I'm not too keen on having a huge increase in the number of pressure vessels filled with LNG on the road, especially in the hands of your "average" driver. Ever seen a FAE (Fuel/Air Explosive) go off? Impressive!
No, I think rather than putting it on the road, a better use of natural gas is to use it for heating homes, replacing heating oil (LNG can be stored for winter use a whole lot safer in stationary tanks than in personal vehicles on the highway); break the crude now used for producing heating oil into gasoline and diesel fuel instead.
Above all, get the government out of the way; market pressure is already in place to push all these things, and far, far more efficiently than any government run "program."
Above all, don't use the "energy crisis" to expand government authority over our personal lives at the expense of freedom; we've precious little left.
Rick

 

[John_B]

Mr. Pickens at least is putting his money where his mouth is, which is more than you can say for most of the people with opinions and proposed solutions. And he's not that far off. Not only is a large amount of electricity generated using natural gas, its also used in a big way to make corn ethanol. Personally, I don't care if Mr. Pickens or anyone else makes a mint blazing the new trail, as long as it begins to move us away from the status quo re: imported oil.

A funny thing. While in South Florida the first of this month I saw a car commercial where the basic gist was: For the cost of $4 gas at 11 mpg for 15k miles per year ($454/month) you could park the big SUV and instead lease a small car *and* pay for the gas *and* still come out ahead financially. (I'm sure some of you know which dealer I'm talking about.) Me, I'm about 90% convinced to buy a smallish hybrid. I'm at the stage where I figure its patriotic to buy as few gallons of $4+ gas from imported oil as possible.

BTW the entire week I spent in Key Largo I was just minutes from FPL's Turkey Point facility, which powers a huge chunk of South Florida. Its not as though we don't already have major nuke plants in operation today.