OT Sink Hole in small Texas town east of Houston

Page 1 of 2  
It has made the national news now, a giant 500' x 600' x 150' deep sink hole has formed inside a small Texas town. It is sucking up vehicles, buildings and trees. Arial camera views from a helicopter are perfect for viewing how ever, "business as usual" a member of congress has decided that he needs to spend more of the tax payers money to fly down and see for him self.
Perhaps he plans to use all his hot air to reinflate the salt dome that is collapsing.
http://www.click2houston.com/video/16211395/index.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

Congress answer to everything, throw money at it and it will go away. Or instead of determining the problem, (Gas and Oil industry) tax their profits... How about allowing them to freakin DRILL!!!! God, I hate our government! Vote all the asses out!!!!
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"evodawg" wrote

We should start with the "asses" in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has effectively shut down exploration based on lawsuits filed by hysterical, psuedo-environmentalist.
You can't get more "environmentally conscious" than most European countries on the North Sea, and they somehow manage to both drill, and appease their "environmentalist" in a manner that suits everyone.
There are far too many close minded in this country.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/27/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Swingman wrote:

Oh do I agree with that.

You saw that report to. Trying to remember where I heard this. Could it been Fox News?

Understatement of the year!
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Strategic Oil Reserve is oil that has already been pumped and is stored in places along the Gulf of Mexico.
--
Mike
Watch for the bounce.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
evodawg wrote:

Drill where? The only undrilled place in the US with proven reserve is the Strategic Oil Reserve, which is there in case of a survival-of-the-nation need such as WWII. Drilling there in the absence of such need (and keeping oil prices down for another few years is not such a need) is not a solution to any problem.
The solution, which will take decades to implement, is to QUIT USING OIL. The utility industry had a _good_ start on it in the '60s, then the environmental whackos shut that down. The Navy the same but Congress was more interested in cutting purchase costs than life-cycle costs so that ended.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

For starters, Colorado, The Gulf of Mexico the California coast line.
The only undrilled place in the US with proven reserve is

Oil can still be had from where we have drilled. The problem is that it is now unlawful to continue drilling/exploring there. The only reason we use OPEC is because their oil is easier to obtain.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"J. Clarke" wrote:

If a way can be found to clean up coal, we will have gone a long way toward solving the energy problem.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There's ANWR, an area the size of SC where they would create an oil field the size of NYC's Central Park and contains billions of barrels of oil. There's the Gulf Coastline, not drilling there is not going to prevent environmental risks, since Cuba is beginning drilling on their side. Offshore west coast. Develop the oil shale/sands in CO, WY, Dakotas. Additional fields in West Texas and Eastern New Mexico that were not economically viable at $30 a barrel oil but now seem cheap at $125 oil.
Here's a quote from a decade old report: "During the 1970's and 80's, exploration effort focused on finding billion-barrel fields -- fields of less than several hundred million barrels were considered uneconomic at anything less than the inflated prices of the early 1980's. Only a few fields were discovered that fulfilled the apparent size requirements. However, today, accumulations as small as 50 million barrels are considered to be of economic interest."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lee K wrote:

Uh huh, they're going to solve the world's energy problems with an area the size of a rich guy's back yard. How long will "billions of barrels" last?

In what "gulf" do you believe Cuba to be located? If you mean the Gulf of Mexico, when did they _stop_ drilling there?

How much oil is there that has not already been tapped?

This is not an issue of "drilling". Find out what it costs to extract oil from oil shale and you'll find that it's not economically feasible at this time.

What's preventing them from being used?

Yeah, but how long is 50 million barrels going to last? The message here is that we're scraping the bottom of the barrel, not that we're going to solve the problem with more diligent scraping.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Cite, please.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Cite, please.
ROTFLMAO
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A contra-cite, not the one you are looking for, but here is the topic form another view. This is about 7 months old, but it claims profitability at $30 a barrel, using shale available in almost unlimited quantities here in the USA.
http://tinyurl.com/ywczhp
A one off, the good folks of CA are now processing their "oil sand" as fast as they can to sell. Technologies improve, methodologies improve, and with the upswing in oil prices the impetus to find the substitutes we need for foreign crude has been set in motion.
Finally.
Robert
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Well, as an outside guess (since I didn't ask, I'm not going to google oil consumption statistics), I'd say a darn sight longer than 0 barrels of oil which is what we are getting from there now. Kind of like the original argument against drilling in ANWR about 10 years ago when the liberal senator made the comment that it would be 10 years before anything would come from drilling there. Guess what? It's 10 years later and we've now got NOTHING because of doofus arguments like that.

To be more precise, China is drilling off the coast of Cuba.
.. snip

No, the argument here is that small pockets of oil are economically feasible to develop now.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You said "Drill where" and there's an area. How long will billions of barrels last? Longer than not having our own billions of barrels. Drill there.

We're talking a huge expansion in drilling. Cubans are looking to develop these feilds with Chinese help. So, you're saying we shouldn't drill in the Gulf because Cuba is already doing it?

Who knows, since all exploration is outlawed. Again, this is in response to your "Drill where?" query. After all these options are proposed, and you reject them all, you'll then say "Why don't these oil companies do something?".

??!! "Not economically feasible at this time"? OK, you said find out what it costs to extract oil from oil shale (and sands), so here it is: "The cost of a barrel of oil extracted from the shale ranges from as high as US$95 per barrel to as low US$12 per barrel. However it would be prudent to think that costs would be inline with those of the Tar sands and so an oil price in the US$30-40 per barrel range would be considered realistic for them to be profitable."
It seems to me we need to develop these huge areas if only in our self interest to eliminate our dependence and vulnerability to mid-eastern politics and Venezuelan nut-jobs. Even if these areas prove to be more expensive, albeit marginally, they are OUR areas, and profits and jobs are HERE, taxes paid are into U.S. and state coffers, not some Sheik's.

The run-up to $125 has been so quick these areas are only now being developed.

Again, you say "Drill where" and when areas of potential are pointed out you immediately naysay. 50,000,000 barrels of oil at $125 a barrel is $6,250,000,000. Get a few areas, or a hundred areas of that size and you begin to talk about real money. Dollars that stay here.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've resisted getting into this, but the thing that is scary to me is that the U.S. has no inventory of hard manufactured goods, no inventory of petroleum, and our money is all paper. Part of the rising cost is caused by the devalued dollar. We are broke! The world is hungry and we are paying our farmers to let their land lay idle. We make fuel out of corn and the cost of food is going up all over the world.
The only inventory we have is bull shit and political wrangling. The liberal / conservative warfare going on in our country is paralyzing us. We will not drill in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico and we know Cuba is going to take that oil. If we nationalize our medicine, where will the Canadian hospitals send their overflow (people they can't or will not treat.) The whole world is using atomic power plants, but our legislatures know better and we can't do it. If we erect wind generators, the bird nuts have a fit. ....................................... . . . .
Well, I have to go take my grandson for a walk. I hope I can do it without crying. :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lowell Holmes wrote:

The US has something like 65 commercial power reactors in operation, that's in addition to numerous research reactors, military reactors, etc. That's about as many as in the entire EU. The only other single nation which has anything approaching that number of working reactors is Japan.
--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I suggest you look at France as an example of nuclear power generation and usage, especially the French company Areva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areva). As of 2002 there were 59 nuclear power plants in France, generating about 79% of the country's usage, plus significant exports. As of 2005, there were 104 licensed nuclear power plants in the U.S. 103 of which were in operation, generating about 20% of electrical power used. "In the USA, AREVA is present in 40 locations across 20 states and employs 5,000 people. AREVA supplies network products to two-thirds of all US utilities. Moreover, AREVA was ranked the #1 US supplier in nuclear energy products and services, in Energy Management Systems and in Energy Market Systems. Its US headquarters are located in Bethesda, MD.
You might find the following of interest: "At the time of the 1973 oil crisis, most of France's electricity came from foreign oil. France was strong in heavy engineering capabilities, but had few indigenous energy resources,[2] so the French government decided to invest heavily in nuclear power, and France installed 56 reactors over the next 15 years.[7] President of Electricite de France Laurent Striker said, "France chose nuclear because we have no oil, gas or coal resources, and recent events have only reinforced the wisdom of our choice".[9]
Areva NC claims that, due to their reliance on nuclear power, France's carbon emissions per kWh are less than 1/10 that of Germany and the UK, and 1/13 that of Denmark, which has no nuclear plants. Its emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide have been reduced by 70% over 20 years, even though the total power output has tripled in that time.
French environmentalist Bruno Comby started the group Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy, and says, "If well-managed, nuclear energy is very clean, does not create polluting gases in the atmosphere, produces very little waste and does not contribute to the greenhouse effect"."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lee K wrote:

Three cheers for the French. What does this have to do with "legislatures"?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You should ask that of yourself. I was responding to your commentary on nuclear power, which itself was a non-response to the prior poster's comments on "legislatures".
Look to the top of this post to refresh your memory.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.