Offshore drilling bill passes house - CONTACT YOUR SENATORS!

[radinator]

There is absolutely no reasonable debate against the fact that human activities are contributing to increased CO2 emissions which are changing the climate. None. It is amazing to me me that for some reason, so many people choose to believe oil industry spokespeople over actual research scientists.

Just a small sampling showing you're wrong.

By the way, the guy in the first link is an "actual research scientist", as are people in the other ones.

That last one is really interesting. Mars is undergoing global warming. How much fossil fuel burning is happening there?

Of course, attacks labelling anyone who disagrees with your opinion as an 'oil industry spokesman' is the way to win a scientific debate.

 

[radinator]

Hydrogen power seems to be the darling.

What is the obstacle?

Unfortunately, hydrogen is not a power source. It is only a storage and transfer mechanism. You still have to make the gaseous hydrogen to start with, which requires an input of energy, so you still need power plants (NOT running on hydrogen, or there'd be no point) to supply that energy.

 

[JES]

As someone who has lived and dived my 62 years in Louisiana I can speak with some knowledge of offshore drilling. Were it not for the offshore rigs the Gulf off the Louisiana coast would be a barren waste land. Over the centuries the Mississppi River has dumped billions of tons of sediment over the Gulf floor turning it into a submerged desert, no structure for the reef building organisms to cling to so there could be no food chain established that would allow varied species to live. About 1949 offshore drilling began, almost immediately fisherman began catching more fish and more species started appearing. The rigs provided the structure that allowed the food chain to begin.The larva of many species that normally in the past had drifted by with the currents now attached themselves to the rigs. In the early years the enviromental regulation weren't what they are now. I don't know if there was any regulation at all in 50's and 60's. but in the last 30 years I can not recall any major oil spills coming from rigs even during hurricanes. By far most major oil spills have come from oil tanker accidents. The rig have very little oil stored on them where as ships have thousands or millions of gallons in their tanks. Ships that bring in oil from the middle east. The oil produced by rigs is pumped by pipeline to shore as it comes out of the ground. Wells and pipelines have automatic shut off valves that will close when the smallest leak is detected. Thought several rigs were destroyed by hurricanes Katrina and Rita the only significant oil spill was from a barge that was damaged when it hit submerged debris. Without the rigs there would be no diving sites other than the Flower Gardens which is 110 miles from shore. Many of the rigs that have reached the end of their usefull life are being left in place as artifical reefs. If you are a Florida diver you should be looking forward to a new and different diving adventure.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42189-2005Apr10.html

Captain,

To paraphrase Judge Chamberlain Haller: "This is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out post."

Thank you for providing us with a small part of your long-term personal observations on this subject.

As a resident, active diver (and registered voter) of the Great State of Florida for the last 33-years, I'm personally looking forward to the Oil Rigs. Based upon my 4 years of being able to dive the Oil Rigs while stationed in Louisiana, I agree with your statement "If you are a Florida diver you should be looking forward to a new and different diving adventure".

 

[tigersharks77]

I agree this thread has gotten political, but allowing it in the first place gave way to the debate to take place. I think we have had a pretty respectful conversation on the topic (aside from the bits of sarcasm that we would expect from those that use it!), and think that this topic is very credible to our lifestyle.

With that said, I personally have not had the opportunity to dive the rigs off the Cali or Gulf Coast. I do know several people that have and say the diving is superb. Especially if you like to hunt. These rigs are just like sinking old war ships as they serve as artificial reefs. Thanks to the tree huggers, means have been put into place to prevent oil or gas spills in our waters. I am not complaining about the prevention, because it does protect our marine life, but it does add cost.

As for the debate of going to ethenol as a solution...not gonna be one. It helps, but ethenol still uses oil. E85 is 85% alcohol and 15% petroleum (in case you wondered what that 85 meant). I agree we need a solution to our dependance on oil. However, by the time we have the technology availble at a price the general public can afford it, we will still need oil for 5-10 years after it rolls off the production line. I personally can't afford to go out and upgrade my used truck for a new one just for the fuel conversion. I have a modest income, what about those that are impoverished. They definately won't be able to afford to get a new car until they are at least 10 years old. They will still need oil at least 10 years after the new technology arrives on the market.

I will close with a link to the facts supporting the cost of fuel. According to the Department of Energy, http://http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp, 53% of the price of gas goes to crude oil....that price is set by the world market. It is only logical that if we had our own oil, it would be cheaper for us to use ours. We could also sell ours to the world market and make money off of it.

 

[trigfunctions]

Radinator, your links are typical of the phony distractions against the proven science. they quibble over minor details while ignoring the bigger picture.

Human activities are adding to the CO2 which will change the climate. There is no real debate against those facts. The only debates are over what exactly will happen and when. Those questions are too difficult to predict with 100% accuracy, but that's really irrelevent. The big picture is that we are going to radically change the planet's weather systems if we don't take steps to stop soon.

What is there to lose by trying to reduce CO2 emissions? NOTHING. Any losses in oil industry profits will be offset by profits for someone else who comes up with the new technologies. People aren't going to have to throw awy their cars live like the Amish - they are going to be able to buy newer, better technology that will actually improve their standards of living.

 

[MEL-DC Diver]

OMG!!! Do you even believe what you think is "logic?" What you said makes no sense!

You're arguing that conservation does more harm than blindly using as much as you can?? OMG! We are currently moving away from gas vehicles, and there is a LOT of research going on to improve them. By reducing your gas consumption, you help take some money out of the oil companies pockets. Further, by purchasing cars that use alternate fuel sources (including hybrids), then you are telling the auto makers that you value these new alternatives. By doing this, they make more, dropping their prices, and allowing more people to buy in -- and also reducing the overall consumption of gas, and the burning of more fossil fuels.

Do you really believe an ounce of what you said?

Yeah, I'm sure that the more everyone consumes, the better off we all will be. Gimme a break!

- ChillyWaters

OMG! I really do. There is nothing at all blind about my approach. If you had even bothered to fully consider my post you would see that I said that conservation by ITSELF would perpetuate the current issue, I did not say that conservation was not part of the eventual solution. At the moment, the the idea would be to drive prices up, slowly and over time. Already the price is having an impact. In a free market, at least for consumers, price is the motivator. Keep things cheap, and there is little incentive for change. Changes to a world-wide infrastructure built around oil cannot and will not be changed overnight. Outside of driving, probably half or more of the items you consume or use on a daily basis are made with oil.

Getting back to automobiles, the idea is to reduce overall oil consumption, not just for individuals to use slightly less as the overall number of drivers and manufacturing world-wide increases and current production output is maintained or even increased. Unless you get to that, you are by no means "taking money out of the oil companies hands" because someone else is going to snatch up the oil you didn't use - read China and India. As far as the oil companies go, they will eventually become part of the solution - believe it or not. Maybe not in the strictest 'switch completely from oil to alternatives' sense, but their distibution infrastucture is already in place and look for them to start investing in the alternative fuels (actually, they already have, albeit on a small scale) when the market demands that they do. Someday you may see a merger between Exxon and ADM - who knows. Then you will be free to redirect your energies to how the exponential increase in the production of corn for ethanol has caused a similar increase in the use of pesticides and fertilizers and now they are contaminating our lakes and rivers...

I can see where you're coming from with the funding of the technology Chilly, but you really need to have a more price driven solution. If you purchase a 40mpg hybrid to replace your 20mgp SUV and the price of a gallon of gas doubles, then the impact to you personally is non-existant. The oil you didn't use is now available on the market and since the price isn't going up due to increased demand, someone else is just going to take it and use it. You may be able to say you did your part, but did you really?

Regards,
MEL

 

[MEL-DC Diver]

Yes, Catherine, again it's a call that promotes great concern and reason to be very cautious. Merely abandoning huge structures in the ocean would be reckless and cause for concern. There has been some success, however, with a program known as
"rigs to reefs", in which the superstructures of the rigs were removed, leaving only the bases and legs. In most areas, they had to be removed to a depth of 85 feet so they would not pose a navigation hazard. Some, however, were allowed to remain to a shallower depth but had to be marked with radar buoys. Of course, this program is very closely monitored by federal and international agencies. The success of the program has generally been good by most scientific studies. Those studies, of course, are under intense scrutiny, and that's good. There needs to be good clear thought on this issue before further precedents are set.

I believe the Tenneco platforms off of Miami is a good example of this.

 

[MEL-DC Diver]

Why not? There are sensible posts, which may differ from your view, but they make you think. And then there are some posts that you just have to say: Are you on drugs? That's what I thought of the previous poster.

Don't worry, I've noticed many of your posts through various threads, and you're definitely not on any (hard) drugs. You actually usually make a lot of sense. Keep it up.

- ChillyWaters

That's cute. Differing from your point of view on a topic seems to involve you slinging mud.

I'll leave it to you then to always offer up the most predictable (and incorrect) solution, generally devoid of any real consideration of the magnitude of the challenge faced.

 

[tigersharks77]

Radinator, your links are typical of the phony distractions against the proven science. they quibble over minor details while ignoring the bigger picture.

Human activities are adding to the CO2 which will change the climate. There is no real debate against those facts. The only debates are over what exactly will happen and when. Those questions are too difficult to predict with 100% accuracy, but that's really irrelevent. The big picture is that we are going to radically change the planet's weather systems if we don't take steps to stop soon.

What is there to lose by trying to reduce CO2 emissions? NOTHING. Any losses in oil industry profits will be offset by profits for someone else who comes up with the new technologies. People aren't going to have to throw awy their cars live like the Amish - they are going to be able to buy newer, better technology that will actually improve their standards of living.

I agree that there will be new technology, but that technology isn't coming out next year, so how are we going to lower fuel costs in the interim? When that fancy new technology does hit the consumer market, do you really believe that every American will be able to go out and purchase it? We will need oil for many years after this new technology comes out to allow those of us that can't afford to go out and buy a new car to be able to fill up our gas tanks.

 

[H2Andy]

wow... there are so many issues being discussed here... let me see if i can sum them up for my own benefit:

1. everybody seems to agree the Earth is on a warming trend.

2. not everybody agrees that the warming is due to man-made causes.

3. everybody seems to agree that man-made emissions contribute to the warming.

4. would it follow that since man-made emissions contribute to the warming it would be a good idea to try to limit them?

5. risk of oil spills from off-shore drilling is minimal.

6. the off-shore sites will create new habitats for fish in the area.

7. the US needs to free itself from foreign oil production; producing oil in the US is a good idea in this respect.

8. overall, the US needs to move away from an oil-based economy; finding alternative sources of energy is a good thing.

9. a viable alternative energy source is not available yet; thus, we need to continue depending on oil until such a source is found


how's that?