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
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"
We should start with the "asses" in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
which has effectively shut down exploration based on lawsuits filed by
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
??!! "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
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.
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
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
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
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
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, so the French government decided to
invest heavily in nuclear power, and France installed 56 reactors over the
next 15 years. 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".
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"."
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.
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.