0
   

Obunga kills Atlantic offshore drilling for 5 years

 
 
Sat 31 Mar, 2012 06:38 am
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/30/Atlantic-Oil-And-Gas

I'm just praying that we don't get any sort of a repeat of what happened in 2001 in which George W. Bush treated everything SlicKKK KKKlintler had ever done as if cast in stone somehow or other. The damage this current president has done is too great to allow that.
 
farmerman
 
  5  
Sat 31 Mar, 2012 07:20 am
@gungasnake,
you are really a stupid douche bag. Weve got a GLUT of natural gas that by even the most conservative estimates gets us to an ENTIRELY NATURAL GAS economy for at least 100 years (There are several hun dred untapped gas basins in continental US in almost EVERY state.
We can serve all or fuel, elctric power generation , AND petrochemical needs by a reatively clean series of compounds.
Staying the oil drilling offshore until they define the best and safets basins is good science and economics. Of Course I dont expect you to understand anything written with two or more syllables and no cartoons.
djjd62
 
  1  
Sat 31 Mar, 2012 07:32 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Of Course I dont expect you to understand anything written with two or more syllables and no cartoons.


i hope the cartoon is of jesus carrying stone tablets with the explanation written on them

and jesus is riding on a dinosaur
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Sat 31 Mar, 2012 07:32 am
@gungasnake,
wait a minute, breitbart is dead, you can't trust anything a dead man says
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 31 Mar, 2012 07:37 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
2001 in which George W. Bush treated everything SlicKKK KKKlintler had ever done as if cast in stone somehow or other. The
Or in 2005 when Darth Cheney exempted all oil and gas drilling from ANY environmental regs which ultimately led to the showdown to shut down the Keystone Pipeline so it couldnt **** up the Ogallala aquifer.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 31 Mar, 2012 07:39 am
@djjd62,
didnt even see the ref in the ink. MAybbe Gunga only gets his thoughts from dead people.
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 31 Mar, 2012 08:06 am
@farmerman,
NAt gas prices are at a 15 year LOW due to the oversupply. They are actually capping wells in the MArcellus Fields and are extendiong the use to power plants where a 1000 megawatt combined cycle gas fired plant takes up less than 12 acres and will have very low emissions (except fpr those of you that believe in CO2's. "Detrimental effect" to the environment).

We can aso site and design nifty itte gas fired small (portapower) plants of 10 megs or less to serve areas ike small cities and even industrial complexes.

ALl we gotta do is separate the gas drillers from a cowboy mentaity as they drill. Right now the gas drilling industry is unpopulated by any grownups
Fido
 
  1  
Sat 31 Mar, 2012 09:05 am
@gungasnake,
You may have the head of a snake, but your brain is the size of a flea...
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Sat 31 Mar, 2012 03:53 pm
Unsubstantiated opinion is all Gunag is capable of.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -3  
Sat 31 Mar, 2012 06:53 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
NAt gas prices are at a 15 year LOW due to the oversupply. ...



The problem that nearly 100% of present vehicles run on gasoline and diesel fuel. Republicans are trying to get to the future in a rational way; Bork Obunga is trying to crash us into it.
farmerman
 
  2  
Sat 31 Mar, 2012 07:42 pm
@gungasnake,
youre really an idiot. We can make very good, compact and custom sized dual cycle power plants that burn nat gas. Several units were already built here aong East Copast. (All quietly done in last few years) 1000 megs on 15 acres. Try doing that with a coal fired plant . I was at a Duke Power coal fired dual cycle facility that was ony 600 Megawatts and it was as big as half a county. and it spewed dirty, acid laden smoke and required all kinds of post cleanup facilities all the way from acid rain deposition controls,air pollution to water and ash disposal and coal storage.

You have no argument in your quiver except what you read in some bog,
According to your source,if Dems would get us into a new age of fossil fuel you are kvetching that were doing it too fast. If they push for new oil wells in sensitive environments or require restudy of a really stinking pipeline, they are being obstructionist. Which way do you want your spin to go, clockwise or counterclockwise ?.

Try thinking this **** out instead of just swallowing any blog's tripe thats written by some rabid douche bag who knows nothing about things like fact

0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  2  
Mon 2 Apr, 2012 08:34 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
NAt gas prices are at a 15 year LOW due to the oversupply. ...



The problem that nearly 100% of present vehicles run on gasoline and diesel fuel. Republicans are trying to get to the future in a rational way; Bork Obunga is trying to crash us into it.
Do you know how many people I have seen on t.v. lately saying: We have a hundred year supply of natural gas!!!
Well; time isn't moving slower, but we are not going anywhere... We blew through the last one hundred years of our history like a rocket, literally starting with horses and bugies and getting to the moon and back...We have pissed though a lot of energy we will never ever get back; but think of all the people we have killed who turned out to be unnecssary though they never thought they were...

You start to see after a while that a government that cannot govern business is no government at all; but only a tyranny on the individual for the sake of business that does what it wants with resources we might need in the future and never have again...
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Mon 2 Apr, 2012 06:03 pm
@Fido,
The idea is to develop natural gas and vehicles which run on them with all possible dispatch but, until we HAVE those vehicles, we need to be producing oil and gasoline HERE, and not buying it from people who are not natural allies or anything like that. It isn't complicated.
parados
 
  2  
Mon 2 Apr, 2012 06:06 pm
@gungasnake,
You may want to get caught up on reality gunga..


http://www.woodworkingnetwork.com/news/woodworking-industry-news/Andersen-Windows-Truck-Fleet-Embraces-Natural-Gas-144740175.html
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 2 Apr, 2012 06:30 pm
@gungasnake,
you can easily convert any gas engine to nat gas or propane .
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Mon 2 Apr, 2012 06:44 pm
Vehicles using compressed natural gas (CNG) to fuel conventional IC engines have been around for many years. Indeed it isn't particularly difficult to convert any contemporary internal combustion engine to CNG fuel. Most of the cost is tied up in the tank & fuel distribution system. What we lack is only a more widespread and ubiquitous CNG distribution system.

A very good case can be made for this in lieu of electric vehicles, in that the energy losses involved in using the natural gas to generate electricic power in a (very efficient) compound cycle tubine plant ; and then distribute it over the grid; charge a vehicle battery; and then convert it to mechanical energy in the vehicle's motor - are likely greater than using the gas directly to power the vehicle with a conventional IC engine. (Modern automobile Otto cycle IC engines are much more efficient than they were a few decades ago.)
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 2 Apr, 2012 06:58 pm
@georgeob1,
I once did a job to test and permit 3-1000gpm wells to serve a combined cycle gas fired power plant. Most of the water needs were consumptive steam oss and the biggest environ concern I saw was the loud swueals and whistles from the steam turbines.
This was about a 1000meg plant and it was realy tiny in the amount of ground it needed.

BAtelle did most of the design aong with Gilbert Commonwealth and we were primary consultants for water supply and as a secondary (QA only) foundation analyses.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Mon 2 Apr, 2012 07:48 pm
@farmerman,
Agreed. Compared to a coal fired plant, you don't need a fuel storage yard; a pulverizer and the compolex fuel injection systems, as well as the compound boilers & regenerators that go with a big steam plant. I still find it a bit hard to believe that these new GGT plants can achieve the thermodynamic efficiency of a big coal plant, but apparently it is so.

Nuclear plants are smaller than CGT plants on a unit of power basis.
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 2 Apr, 2012 11:19 pm
@georgeob1,
not to mention those big ash disposal landfills and the big water treatment lagoons. Ive stil got a sizable collection of "stenospheres" we were trying t use them for a filter screening medium at cyanide leaching metal mounds.

I see where the CEO of EXcelon stated that nuke plants will not be financially viable within several generations. SOunds like the industry wants to bail with all this newly discovered cheap gas. Of course "cheap" is a temporary condition that becomes self erasing should everone decide to turn to Nat Gas. for everything from cars , to power plants, to cooking
georgeob1
 
  0  
Tue 3 Apr, 2012 01:22 am
@farmerman,
I agree. We're busily shutting down the coal fired plants that today produce aboutr 52% of our electrical power. With what will we replace it? That we will do so with reewables is a fantasy. More and more it looks like we will squander our plentiful natural gas reserves on this. However there are better, more beneficial uses for this valuable resource.

Our industrial plants run increasingly on natural gas: our chemical industries and our transportation systems run on petroleum. Petroleum involves about 38% of our total energy consumption, while electrical power generation is slightly greater at 41%.

By fuel source our 2010 total energy consumption (including fuel mused in electrical power generation & delivery) was about;
-- 38% Petroleum & bio liquid fuels
-- 25% Natural Gas
-- 21% coal
-- 9% nuclear
-- 4% Hydroelectric
-- 3% Renewables & electricity imports from Quebec

Between coal and nuclear we're talking about almost a third of our total energy consumption. It would be very foolish to squander our natural gas resources on replacing them. A better solution is to use our natural gas to replace imported petroleum in our transportation system; keep our nuclear plants and build enough new ones to replace about half of the coal consumption in electrical power generation; and count on other renewables to do the rest ( even that will take a lot of subsidies for the expensive reneweables and, because they cost 2 - 3 times more per KWHr delivered than other sources, will nearly double our electric power cost - something folks don't often think about, amidst all the overt and hidden subsidies & mandates).

EXELON is old Commonwealth Edison and they currently operate about 10 nuclear plants. However they have apparently lost hope on a new generation of these plants. Interestingly Dominion Power (old VEPCO) and the Southern Company are pressing ahead with their proposed new nuke plants (all at existing nuke sites).

From a pure economic perspective the capital cost of nuke plants is about the same as that for coal and far less(per KWH delivered) than wind or solar. However, in a world in which you cannot realistically forecast when you will be able to bring your 5 billion dollar investment on line due to environmental intervenors & associated court actions, calculating a Return on investment is impossible. That is the real problem.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obunga kills Atlantic offshore drilling for 5 years
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/07/2023 at 02:39:06