|
Post by Tired in CV on Jun 4, 2010 0:53:36 GMT -5
Here's my question: Why were we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place? Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we've had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. So we go deep, ultra deep -- to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for. There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. That's a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation? My solution is no new drilling anywhere, but I guess I'm in a small minority. Really jdredd? Just think, since we still will not have enough "alternative energy" developed along with the devices to utilize some of it, where will we be in 10 years or less. We will have industries closing down (massive unemployment), all modes of transportation greatly crippled, farming production drastically dropping and people starving due to lack of food. Not to mention many of your everyday "necessities" standing idle like the TV or computer with the electricity turned off or possibly on extremely reduced hours. Yes, it would take less than 10 years to bring the world back to the dark ages! What ever fuel would be available would be so expensive that what ever it is used for would not be affordable to most people. To the people who could obtain food, they would be tearing down their homes (or others homes) in order to have fuel to cook with. I could describe a whole lot more about this. It is obvious you didn't put much thought into what it would do across the world. And the one thing that I know who despise the most would become very prevalent in an "old fashion" way. That is we would have wars all over the world until a free for all of each person fighting for their own survival. Not a pretty sight. All of the endangered creatures of this earth will no longer be protected as they will become a food source and the environment will be their least concern. Yeah, let's stop drilling!
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 4, 2010 2:41:56 GMT -5
My solution is no new drilling anywhere, but I guess I'm in a small minority. Really jdredd? Just think, since we still will not have enough "alternative energy" developed along with the devices to utilize some of it, where will we be in 10 years or less. We will have industries closing down (massive unemployment), all modes of transportation greatly crippled, farming production drastically dropping and people starving due to lack of food. Not to mention many of your everyday "necessities" standing idle like the TV or computer with the electricity turned off or possibly on extremely reduced hours. Yes, it would take less than 10 years to bring the world back to the dark ages! What ever fuel would be available would be so expensive that what ever it is used for would not be affordable to most people. To the people who could obtain food, they would be tearing down their homes (or others homes) in order to have fuel to cook with. I could describe a whole lot more about this. It is obvious you didn't put much thought into what it would do across the world. And the one thing that I know who despise the most would become very prevalent in an "old fashion" way. That is we would have wars all over the world until a free for all of each person fighting for their own survival. Not a pretty sight. All of the endangered creatures of this earth will no longer be protected as they will become a food source and the environment will be their least concern. Yeah, let's stop drilling! Your Doomsday scenario is quite impressive. Did you see all of that in your crystal ball? I tend to think people's ability to adapt is much stronger than you do, I guess. But it's all moot because we won't be taking my path anyway, we're going to keep drilling no matter what the environmental costs. So be it. (Sorry, nikki)
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Jun 6, 2010 2:37:32 GMT -5
Your Doomsday scenario is quite impressive. Did you see all of that in your crystal ball? I tend to think people's ability to adapt is much stronger than you do, I guess. But it's all moot because we won't be taking my path anyway, we're going to keep drilling no matter what the environmental costs. So be it. (Sorry, nikki) If you mean that people's ability to adapt is that they create the technology to continue life as we do today without the predominate use of fossil fuels, I believe that may be possible one day. Each year we will move closer to that point but it is still so far off than none of us on this blog will ever see it, nor our children. My scenario was upon the cessation of drilling now! People don't like to be out of their comfort zone and the cessation of drilling would create to many changes way to fast and throw them out of their comfort zone. On a massive (world) scale it would become very ugly in an extremely short time. Some small areas may work something out together for a short while, but generally the war between the haves and have nots will begin. It will grow uncontrollable quickly and soon become those who can conquer and hold vs the weak and defenseless. It will be a survival of the fittest or most conniving until there isn't anything left for anybody. A total breakdown of society, government, etc.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 6, 2010 2:58:35 GMT -5
Your Doomsday scenario is quite impressive. Did you see all of that in your crystal ball? I tend to think people's ability to adapt is much stronger than you do, I guess. But it's all moot because we won't be taking my path anyway, we're going to keep drilling no matter what the environmental costs. So be it. (Sorry, nikki) If you mean that people's ability to adapt is that they create the technology to continue life as we do today without the predominate use of fossil fuels, I believe that may be possible one day. Each year we will move closer to that point but it is still so far off than none of us on this blog will ever see it, nor our children. My scenario was upon the cessation of drilling now! People don't like to be out of their comfort zone and the cessation of drilling would create to many changes way to fast and throw them out of their comfort zone. On a massive (world) scale it would become very ugly in an extremely short time. Some small areas may work something out together for a short while, but generally the war between the haves and have nots will begin. It will grow uncontrollable quickly and soon become those who can conquer and hold vs the weak and defenseless. It will be a survival of the fittest or most conniving until there isn't anything left for anybody. A total breakdown of society, government, etc. Well, if we ceased pumping oil tomorrow, I would agree with your scenario. But I was advocating a moratorium on drilling new wells, and only in the U.S.A. Other countries are not my concern, even though I think we should use up their oil first if we have a choice!
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 6, 2010 4:03:21 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/us/06peak.html?hp"For Mrs. Wilkerson, 33, a moderate Democrat from Oakton, Va., who designs computer interfaces, the spill reinforced what she had been obsessing over for more than a year — that oil use was outstripping the world’s supply. She worried about what would come after: maybe food shortages, a collapse of the economy, a breakdown of civil order."
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Jun 8, 2010 22:29:25 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/us/06peak.html?hp"For Mrs. Wilkerson, 33, a moderate Democrat from Oakton, Va., who designs computer interfaces, the spill reinforced what she had been obsessing over for more than a year — that oil use was outstripping the world’s supply. She worried about what would come after: maybe food shortages, a collapse of the economy, a breakdown of civil order." Isn't that what I said! We need to try to keep up with the use while decreasing the demand. Hopefully we can develop technology that will further decrease the demand until we have little to no demand for oil. (Don't expect demand to ever go away completely though). We are in a race to develop the technology before we completely lack the oil needed to maintain our transportation, industries and power needs. If we don't succeed in new technologies, the future is dim. (no pun intended)
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 8, 2010 22:54:12 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/us/06peak.html?hp"For Mrs. Wilkerson, 33, a moderate Democrat from Oakton, Va., who designs computer interfaces, the spill reinforced what she had been obsessing over for more than a year — that oil use was outstripping the world’s supply. She worried about what would come after: maybe food shortages, a collapse of the economy, a breakdown of civil order." Isn't that what I said! We need to try to keep up with the use while decreasing the demand. Hopefully we can develop technology that will further decrease the demand until we have little to no demand for oil. (Don't expect demand to ever go away completely though). We are in a race to develop the technology before we completely lack the oil needed to maintain our transportation, industries and power needs. If we don't succeed in new technologies, the future is dim. (no pun intended) I posted that link for that reason, that it echoed what you said. I try to keep an open mind...
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Jun 8, 2010 23:54:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by animal on Jun 8, 2010 23:59:33 GMT -5
personally, I trust the knowledge of the oil folks over the administrations people.... at least the oil folks worked real jobs and have real solutions.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Jun 9, 2010 0:16:59 GMT -5
personally, I trust the knowledge of the oil folks over the administrations people.... at least the oil folks worked real jobs and have real solutions. Don't know if I missed something? The engineer who wrote the article I posted does not work for the administration. He, like many engineers, designed things with a possibility of failure but his attitude was changed by some of his customers. Sometimes failure is far beyond just expenses and is not acceptable. He has developed a new appreciation in building things designed to not ever fail. Impossible? Maybe and maybe not, it depends upon what and where it is. He is stating that the engineers for oil wells have failed to develop the same appreciation of designing wells not to fail or have failed to have a reliable fix in an emergency (BEFORE HAND). Oil well engineers have been dancing on the edge for a long time, just as our Shuttle engineers did.
|
|
|
Post by animal on Jun 9, 2010 1:39:13 GMT -5
I wasnt refering to the article or your post, just making my statement.
As a design engineer, I/we would design machinery to the best of our ability to not fail.... with what we were given. Unforseen issues, like corrosion, killed us.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Jun 10, 2010 2:42:10 GMT -5
I wasnt refering to the article or your post, just making my statement. As a design engineer, I/we would design machinery to the best of our ability to not fail.... with what we were given. Unforseen issues, like corrosion, killed us. In that respect I agree with you. It isn't just one company either, they have pulled in representives from all over to try to solve this mess. It doesn't seem to matter who was at fault for those trying to resolve the continued spill. All the oil companies have an interest in stopping the spill. It is interesting that our government had emergency procedures for just such an accident (maybe not lasting this long though) in limiting and cleaning up the mess. It seems that few if any of those procedures have been undertaken. Surface to subsurface barriers, floating absorbants, fabric to suspend under water that allows water to pass yet traps oil, etc. All of these emergency procedures were to be administered from offices in Florida. The only one that seems to have been deployed is a "dispersent" that assists breaking down the oil but is, itself, a hazard in the water. Yes, the oil companies will have more solutions and follow through than our government will have.
|
|
|
Post by animal on Jun 10, 2010 9:34:46 GMT -5
They were discussing the Jones Act today, where forein boats cant come into our waters.... I guess several contries offered up the equipment boats to skin or seperate the oil in the Gulf... Obummer has to waive the Jones Act to let them in, but instead they are removing the equipment from the forein boats and installing it on USA boats, a very timely process. People are shaking their heads on this one too.
|
|
|
Post by animal on Jun 10, 2010 9:37:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dj on Jun 10, 2010 12:24:34 GMT -5
Here's my question: Why were we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place? Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we've had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. So we go deep, ultra deep -- to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for. There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. That's a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation? As a courtesy to the actual author of the above text, here is the citation: Charles Krauthammer - Washington Post www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052702988.html
|
|