More oil and clarification

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually good money is flowing into nuclear power, and yes MarkC I am so sorry, some big BLAME does fall on the environmentalists for shying away from nuclear power. Our record is not bad, and it's enough to tell me they we shouldn't follow their lead.

I don't think any rational people are saying we will solve all our energy issues with C based sources. But we should use what we have rationally. The non-policy we have in place is just crazy. Sure it would be great if we didn't need oil. If we have it we should use it, rather than import it. There is enough oil that is "off limits" to make a difference. WE can drill with very little or no environmental impact.

Quote:
Question: Who knows what happens to oil wells and the other equipment, etc, when the oil field is played out, such as Prudhoe Bay will be in a matter of years?
Another question: Is land here only for us to exploit? Is it really all about us and our ability to make more money, have more stuff, whatever?
Are a few years of trickling oil which will have very, very little effect on gas and oil prices worth putting our [censored] in places that might be better left as they are?


The equipment does not take up much space actually. Drilling areas in ANWR for example will take up a couple-three football fields or so. When oil is gone (a bit longer than your estimate), then the equipment is removed and wells capped. Situation monitored.

No that's not all there is, it's not just about making more money, but last time I checked - you drive. How's the MPG on the Jeep, btw? Exploit is an interesting loaded term. I see nothing morally/ethically/inherently wrong with utilizing earth's resources. I have nothing against people that don't want that to happen, but they shouldn't set the rules unless they are the majority.

Your last question is fully loaded with your assumptions, so I'll leave it alone.
 
"The equipment does not take up much space actually. Drilling areas in ANWR for example will take up a couple-three football fields or so. When oil is gone (a bit longer than your estimate), then the equipment is removed and wells capped. Situation monitored."

I'd like to investigate this further, I've been told by several people who would know such things, that neither the oil companies who own the equipment or the government which owns the land seems willing to commit to removing the old equipment.

My mpg is as good as I can make it be, and I don't have far to drive. But like everyone else, I'm using resources that aren't renewable, that's why I say "we" when blame gets thrown around.
I don't think we have such a good record with nukes, either, especially with cleanup and disposal of waste. Hannford comes to mind,as do the protests I recall--and not just from environmentalists--to trains carrying waste passing through certain areas on the East coast.

Would you care to live near a disposal site?
Where are the big proposals that are always shot down by greenies? Couldn't it also be that nobody really wants to spend money on nukes when they can make it far easier with oil?
FRance has a larger "green" movement than we, yet they get along with nuclear power very well.

And if your have any actual facts and data to back up your own assumptions, I'd like to see them.
I don't get my info from greenie websites, for the most part I look to USGS studies, talk with actual geologists that I know, and pretty much take it for what it is, not what would be nice.
 
Quote:
Killing the geese that provide our economy with black gold is no answer to high energy prices.


That's a Veruca Salt perspective, portrayed by yourself as an attack by the greenies.
 
The first "article" is not a very factual one, the USGS says ANWR's oil reserves are closer to 4.3 bb than the claimed 10.6.
Prudhoe Bay's record isn't as spotless as claimed either, though it is better than some anticpated.
Why continue to put up links to such "balanced" articles, which are nothing really but editorials coming from a certain prospective?
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
No sense trying to discuss stuff rationally with you guys. I'm done here.


Originally Posted By: Forest

I think I'm done with this thread. [/i]


Lol .... Facts getting in the way?
 
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Pablo
No sense trying to discuss stuff rationally with you guys. I'm done here.




Lol .... Facts getting in the way?


Whatever you say - but calling people names? What's factual about that? I'm sick of it, that's all.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Quote:
Killing the geese that provide our economy with black gold is no answer to high energy prices.


That's a Veruca Salt perspective, portrayed by yourself as an attack by the greenies.


Portrayed by me? Please, stop with the rational, logical discussion - I can't handle it. Your facts are overwhelming me!!
LOL.gif
crackmeup2.gif


Rather than using fantasy characters to fog your argument, tell us why taxing the living [censored] out of USA oil companies will lower the price of fuel? (or rather not add to the increase). Face it, in the USA we have no sustainable energy policy, not that you care in Aus (or rather you follow us pretty closely and yes I know why - we are all one planet, what the USA does...blah, blah, blah) - No, all we currently have is block this and block that - because some folks want to brag how "green" we/they are.
 
ANWR drilling is max 2,000 acres out of 19 Million. The drilling goes down, then spreads out. Congress is in the way of more drilling, although North Dakota is drilling more.

USA's usage is down 5%!! That's a lot, with more people cutting lately.

Why the #ell do we need production choking boutique blends & 3 grades of gas?? Two grades was and is plenty.

If people checked & filled the air in their tires, it would be a massive savings.

So, we can do out part to conserve some, but we should be going after what energy is there...

We need Nuclear power also, but some Americans have the "Not in my Backyard" stigma halting that.
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
No, all we currently have is block this and block that - because some folks want to brag how "green" we/they are.


I think a lot of people are opposed to new drilling - not for the sake of "green", but that it's good policy.

"IF" we drill everywhere we can, it'll take decades to realize the output, and the total amount of output we could generate is questionable - IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS. If us Americans had the supply - the cheap supply, we could consume 30 million barrels a day easily, or even more.

"IF" we were to become so fortunate and our output became so much that we could sell abroad, what is the rest of the world, especially the developing world going to do? Gobble it up as fast as they can - like Rosie at a buffet.

Yea, "IF" we get to that point, the environmental ramifications might end up being beyond severe.

So we pump everything we can for a couple decades, maybe even a century. We'll end up right smack dab back to where we are today - except the pain then will make today's pain feel like a Swedish massage.

What we should be doing is constructing public policy to go after every facet of renewable energy - and we should start building our economy around it. Do you realize how much growth potential there is there?
shocked2.gif
And then, we should sell it to the rest of the world. It's going to happen.......wait, let me rephrase that. It has to happen eventually, or our country is finished. Because China or India will do it if we don't.

We've had the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, the technology revolution - we had better start the renewable energy revolution yesterday.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: tpitcher
ANWR drilling is max 2,000 acres out of 19 Million. The drilling goes down, then spreads out. Congress is in the way of more drilling, although North Dakota is drilling more.

USA's usage is down 5%!! That's a lot, with more people cutting lately.

Why the #ell do we need production choking boutique blends & 3 grades of gas?? Two grades was and is plenty.

If people checked & filled the air in their tires, it would be a massive savings.

So, we can do out part to conserve some, but we should be going after what energy is there...

We need Nuclear power also, but some Americans have the "Not in my Backyard" stigma halting that.


The Bakken play in North Dakota isn't in a wildlife refuge, either.
I think Mr. P needs to take a nap or something.
 
Quote:
What we should be doing is constructing public policy to go after every facet of renewable energy

Such as? And will it be as cheap as oil? NO.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
What we should be doing is constructing public policy to go after every facet of renewable energy

Such as? And will it be as cheap as oil? NO.

This answer underscores your lack of understanding. It costs $.25 to generate one kWH of electricity using fuel oil at $4.00 with an overall efficiency of 45% and this does not include maintenance, construction, or any other costs..just friggin' fuel.


Wind turbines can generate electricity for under $.06/kWH including capital costs and maintenence.....scheeeeesch. Its obvious why we'll never get anywhere in this country.
 
I think wind turbines are a hair more than that - and they could really help, maybe in the 5-10% range of our power. Another 5-15% from "alternative sources" such as solar, 40-60% from nuclear, 10% hydro, remainder clean coal technology - 0% petro, 0% NG.

That is a sustainable plan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

buster
RIP Harald Malmgren - his last interview
Replies
1
Views
628
buster
Hohn
Oil Filter Relocation for convenience and performance
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
Donald
goblin
On measuring oil level on my 3.3 V6 Hyundai, 20-years old Kawasaki trivia, and how factoids work in a brain
Replies
5
Views
146
Patman
john_pifer
Help Me Decide on Oil for new 2024 Elantra N
3 4 5
Replies
84
Views
13K
02zx9r rev2
tired
Help with recommendation for motor oil for Toyota and Nissan daily drivers
2 3
Replies
54
Views
5K
tired
Back
Top Bottom