Reply
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 04:02 pm
I am a republican, yet I am against drilling. AMERICA WANTS CLEAN AIR!
I am especially against drilling in ANWR. No one is told of the massive water resources drained from the land to fill the underground empty oil caverns left by drilling. The Alaskan people would think again if they were INFORMED of the actual impact not from drilling but from FILLING.
THE LAND DRIES UP AND DIES WITH WATER SOURCES DEPLETED.
This is what happened in Alberta Canada. FILLING turned most of Alberta CA into a parched barren desert.
They fill the caverns they empty with wildlife reserve water and the oil becomes pressurized and floats to the top so they can retrieve even more.
WHY? So we can pollute and kill the earth with even more billions of cubic tons of life killing air bourn toxins.
I am against the burning of ethanol too. The emission from ethanol is not carbon monoxide but it is formaldehyde which causes genetic malformations in the births of biological life forms.
The only answer is to slit the throats of the automobile industries and the oil companies and go electric completely. GIVE THE MONEY TO THE UTILITY COMPANIES INSTEAD! I am not kidding!
Thus there becomes zero emissions with the actual vehicle and the energy is derived from either nuclear or clean coal technologies or even massive pulp steam turbines. WIND WATER SOLAR ETC
ALSO companies should be fined heavily for buying competing patents.
Like Texaco should be fined for owning the patents for hybrid batteries. What is an oil company sitting on battery technology for?! This is not only unethical but fraudulent.
Most people do not drive more than across town to and from work. Why do I have to pay to carry a giant engine when all that is needed is electric propulsion? The engine not only costs more to transport but it also will probably kill me with the added inertia if I were to get into an accident and crash. The car engine should go the same way as the steam engine of the trains when they were replaced by diesel. Today electric trains are the most efficient also. Even the vehicles that carried the last probes to Mars were electric. If they can send an electric vehicle to Mars why can't they send one to take me a few miles down the road into town and back? Why burden the car down with a heavy engine when most consumers would rather not "go all out" and have a "fuel" alternative combustion engine even built into their car at all.
Most people would rather have electric cars than even hydrogen and the dangers of it exploding and tankers accidental spills of hydrogen into the environment are devastating...
Wind, water, solar and some nuclear could be used to generate electricity and the grid could be upgraded significantly.
Americans would like to be given the choice over oil companies or the utility companies.
Some could be given the voluntary option of cars that run on fuels and moderate fueling stations could dot the landscape. Even fuel alternative cars could have electric options.
Bottom line, consumers should be offered the options of a bare bones electric car with no engine to haul around.
An idea I thought of, parking meters could have charging stations, also vehicles could charge by getting behind a utility recharging truck and driving a few miles transferring a charge through laser fixed mirrors. Even motorists could enroute exchange a charge with each other.
The only thing to this plan is the environmental impact of battery waste and disposal. Also the stability and lack of energy seepage and waste with regard to current battery technology is a factor. The complexity of this problem cannot be exponentially "more" involved than the gymnastics preformed to design a combustion engine and then the consumer must also pay to recycle the engine later. What is worse, disposing of an engine and a battery or just recycling the battery alone?
I don't remember the exact quote but Isaac Asimov said, Oil should not be the fuel in the lamp that burns but it should be the fuel that lights the match that lights the lamp.
looks like a blueberry patch up near Meddybemps
farmerman wrote:looks like a blueberry patch up near Meddybemps
My exact thought too.
'cept for the mountain ranges.
Start the drilling now and rebuild our commuter rail lines.
How about we make a deal. Drill in ANWR, do some of the slant drilling f-man suggests, retool to use natural gas where possible, and leave the Californicatecoast in reserve?
Im a liberal whosees nothing wrong in drilling , mostly because the teschnology and environmental protection methods are established through 30 years of poorer stewardship. Todys oil drilling tech is orders of magnitude safer than drilling done even through the 1980's.
Drilling isnt an either or option. In order to evolve into the next generation of energy supply, we will rely on petroleum for the near future and then we will still need the feedstock for plastics etc until we develop a new line of bio-fatty acids
Both sides need to meet in the middle
No drilling is a stupid option,Drill and f*** the boosters that the govt can give toalternative energy development is also lame. Petroleum is given all sorts of "quiet govr subsidy on the front end and the back end and stuff like alternative energy is not even on the same playing field.
fman I respect your opinions on this subject. If you were in charge of this tomorrow.... would you outline your exact plan and actions on this subject?That will be interesting reading.
very briefly bpb.
1 DEFINING A PLAY
A play is a group of formations in a specific area that serve as source, migration paths, or reservoirs for oil/gas. A play includes all the scuzzy stuff like salt brines and tarred sands that can contaminate the ground water.
When the US DOI defines a play and starts auctioning leases there should follow a "Go/No Go" study that defines the Risk/benefits and the epected percentage for actually finding petroleum. If a source rock is only 15% (from testing and seismic), then drilling should be weighed heavily-This is why nobody in the know is really fighting for ANWAR, because its actual possible yields arent that encouraging .
II TEST DRILLING-Make the companies post several times performance bonds and have the drilling over seen by registered geos and engineers savvy in environmental sciences(right now the sirty little secret is that all geos and engineers need to be registered in most states _EXCEPT FOR PETROLEUM GUYS)
"DAmage zone analyses" testing for possible leakage and interformational permeability needs to be done and it is only required state by state. In Pa, eg, the gas test drilling needs to show that fracturing of the source rocks "Fracking" wont propogate upwards and hit aquifers that lie at shallow depths (The gas is at about 5 to 8000ft BLS and the ground water only goes down to about 1000 ft) you dont want water and gas to mix cause theres a lot of sulfur in the gas.
FRACKING can open huge areas that were requiring many hundreds of well to be drilled. Horizontal drilling and fraking can mean that wed only need to drill in an area as big as say 1000 m sq and be able to hit reservoirs out for a few 100000 m. (about 1:100) If a field is found and its a biggun, wed want to drill secveral wells to tap and keep pressures equal.
Id require oversite and more oversite with monitoring and routine reports . The North Slope oil drilling went really very smoothly with only 2 spills in the drilling and they were very minor (The big deal was the piping and the EXXON VALDEZ of course).
I would fine people for flaring and dumping brines.
I would be exploring the next generations of plays, like the Triassic basins (theyd drilled these in the 60's and they found oil and gas but it wasnt worth going after , and this was in NJ). Many states have natural gas potential and the total reserves are continually rising as more sensitive trce testing and "sniffing" is developed.
Methane Hydrates are a constantly renewable resource and are in the form of "chunks" like ice floes. These occur at certain depths of the ocean and mining them has been a problem because they can be unstable and cause a ship to sink if the nhydrates (clathrates) start fizzing in the sea bottom. The Bermuda Triangle may be a real phenomenon because the Bahama Banks are a great source of renewable Clathrates that fizz up every so often.
ANyway, these methane hydrates can be a significant renewable resource for engines and electrical generation.
In short, I feel, with proper monitoring (BY THIRD PARTY DISPASSIONATE OBSERVERS) and overseen by competent environmental professionals, drilling (and finding)could make a major dent in our energy dependency.
The argument taht it takes 10 years to get to market is kind of self serving. If the "play" is ;locked up in eternal hearings then yes , it could take several years just to get to the field. But the testing, mobilization, drilling, demobe and capture and piping can be done in a few years tops.
Then on top of this we need to subsidize alternative energy research just to even the playing field. eg, Solar energy, should the pittance rebate be removed, wont have nearly the driver to continue for long term research and planning for developing all solar "cities" or "plug in cars".
The plug in cars are being subsidized by electric companies now and things like the DChevy "VOLT" may be coming to market soon (if they can develop a battery that doesnt need charging every 50 miles.
Imsaddened by the lefts inability to embrace drilling and the rights inability to embrace energy research and conservation.Its almost a guaranree that nothing will get done and we will further subsidize the oil companies .
You watch, after I post this Ill be excoriated for not following aparticular agendas kool-aid party. My trouble is I really dont fit anywhere
I know that man inducd global arming is bullshit
Im for drilling and a deeper comprehensive energy research plan
Im anti religious
Im pro choice
Im agun lover but want relly tighter controls to prevent more murders and irresponsible gun owning
I believe that there is a place for govt as a seed store for all new technologies. All the recent bubbles and technology markets have been the result of over exhuberant embrace of tech ( computers, internet, biotech) and now we have energy which will require govt assistance and leadership from the NAtional LAbs.
Oh well, maybe theres a place in Canada where they arent so friggin judgemental .
farmerman... you're the **** buddy... a common sense guy. Much respect.
cjhsa wrote:You're no republican....
I assure you I am a happily registered republican voter. Just because I prefer a capitalistic government, and applaud the presence of big business does not mean I do not believe there is a balance between big business and good business. I would vote for Bush a third term...
F-man, who gets to define "responsible gun ownership"? You?
Way, way too much wiggle room in those words especially coming from an anti-gun card carrying member of the Brady supported AHSA.
thats why my vote cancels your vote
Actually it doesn't. That's why we are a Constitutional Republic.
How about instead if the plan is to not ONLY drill in safe places but we apply a work force employ MANY people and create new energy infrastructure that people can buy. The energy market is unbalanced.
How about if Nancy Pelosi gets off her lazy ass and reconvenes the House so they can actually discuss the issues?
She needs to be tarred and feathered. Seriously.
cjhsa wrote:How about if Nancy Pelosi gets off her lazy ass and reconvenes the House so they can actually discuss the issues?
She needs to be tarred and feathered. Seriously.
Yea and run outa town on a mule!
Nancy may be tired of the republican wanting to discuss only oil...
My point is oil should not be the main or only focus.
By focusing on only oil, the republicans are doing to our party, the earth and the consumers, (national security) a disservice.
I am going write about a story I read in a magazine once. I will then in a later post explain how it applies to our energy crisis. I am not sure who wrote it or whether it was reader's digest or some other publication where I found this pearl of wisdom.
It is about a city where it never snowed. Then one night the snow fell and by morning the people awoke and looked out of their windows and were amazed!
The king saw the snow and began to think, we must warn the people not to tread on this wonderful gift from the skies until we have time to discover what it is.
So the king devised a plan that he would send a messenger out to warn all of the people not to leave their houses until his astrologers had time to fully understand this new phenomenon.
Suddenly one of his astrologers said to the king. Well if we send out a messenger to alert the people won't they leave footprints in the miraculous white snow? So the king devised a plan that he would have four couriers to carry the messenger to alert the people.
Needless to say, later that day when the king looked outside, the snow was riddled with many "footprints" left by the couriers who carried the messengerÂ…
The question becomes, what is the best way to send the messenger while leaving no (carbon) footprints?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace