Gawain 0 #1 June 17, 2008 Can't wait to see the dancing on this one. We, the US, so far behind in pollution...the bane of the world's existence... I'm not saying it's the cure to the world's energy ills, but if the rest of the world hasn't banned it, why do we? Off-shore rigs actually form habitats for sea life, and during Hurricane Katrina, not one spilled any fossil fuels.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VTmotoMike08 0 #2 June 17, 2008 Quote but if the rest of the world hasn't banned it, why do we? Because our legislature has been unable to come up with a compromise between reasonable environmental protection and causing our economy to collapse under the strain of energy costs. Maybe someone who is better at searching can look up how many of these we currently have and see what legislature is blocking the constuction of more. Now heres a possibly crazy idea that vaguly makes sense in my feeble 22 year old brain: The US starts its own national oil company (heavily subsizided at first, but eventually slightly profitable)and suddenly drills a lot of our own crude. Couple this with a lot more domestic refineries, and we could flood the market with supply and force prices down. Reasons I can think of why it would never work: -Would take too long to pass congress -Environazis (am I allowed to say that?) would never allow it -NIMBY crowd -simply not enough oil exists on our land/ off shore I'm not an expert like a lot of people here, so the above represents just the little bit that I think I know. I would love to hear critiques. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #3 June 17, 2008 an even crazier idea. take all that money that would go to that national oil company and use it for development and marketing of alternative energy sources. I say marketing, because right now, that's where we fail. immensely. people don't understand it, all they think is "it's gonna be waaaaay too expensive to switch" and they don't get past that. so yeah, it needs to be marketed better.Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #4 June 17, 2008 QuoteBecause our legislature has been unable to come up with a compromise between reasonable environmental protection and causing our economy to collapse under the strain of energy costs. But I just said that off-shore rigs don't pose a real threat to the environment. In fact, they seem to have helped it. QuoteMaybe someone who is better at searching can look up how many of these we currently have and see what legislature is blocking the constuction of more. Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) introduced yesterday regarding exploration on the Continental Shelf. It was dropped in committee. He plans on reintroducing today or tomorrow. QuoteNow heres a possibly crazy idea that vaguly makes sense in my feeble 22 year old brain: The US starts its own national oil company (heavily subsizided at first, The US government is not an expert on oil exploration. In fact, Congress is planning on privatizing their own restaurants...now there's talk of them handling health care and energy even more? Sorry, I really, really, really hate your idea. QuoteReasons I can think of why it would never work: How about: Socialism doesn't work. Quote-Would take too long to pass congress -Environazis (am I allowed to say that?) would never allow it -NIMBY crowd -simply not enough oil exists on our land/ off shore Your right about bullet number one and two. We and estimated trillions of resources in the shelf and rocky mountains (shale oil). Government needs to get out of the way. So, my original question still stands: Name the countries that have banned off shore drilling. If it's so bad for the environment, why have the enlightened Europeans not abandoned it? Brazil achieved independence through sugar ethanol (about 15%) and off-shore drilling.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #5 June 17, 2008 Quote Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) introduced yesterday regarding exploration on the Continental Shelf. It was dropped in committee. He plans on reintroducing today or tomorrow. Where do you find this kind of info?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #6 June 17, 2008 QuoteQuote Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) introduced yesterday regarding exploration on the Continental Shelf. It was dropped in committee. He plans on reintroducing today or tomorrow. Where do you find this kind of info? I just heard his interview on the Glenn Beck radio program about 20 minutes ago. Plus, I went here: http://www.house.gov/johnpeterson/So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #7 June 17, 2008 Quote why have the enlightened Europeans not abandoned it? LOL, because most of them live in landlocked countries! seriously though, the banning is an appeasement measure. ask Chamberlain how well that worked. The europeans also don't drive as much (public transportation and an amazing rail system) or consume as much as we do. And when they drive, they drive cars with efficient gas or diesel engines, or even motorcycles/scooters. anyone driving around Rome will attest to the amount of those things scooting around >Dropping wells all over the place where there might be a hint of oil, "environment" be damned, is NOT the answer either. reducing our dependence on fossil fuels for our energy and transportation needs IS. save what's left for plastics, because honestly, the modern world would have a harder time surviving without petroleum based plastics, building products, etc than it would without the gasoline engine.Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AWL71 0 #8 June 17, 2008 Glenn Beck is good stuff. You pose a good question? There is no reason we should not be building more off shore rigs. Like someone esle said, we need oil for more than just gas. I guess most politicians are against doing anything that makes sense.The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #9 June 17, 2008 Quote Quote why have the enlightened Europeans not abandoned it? LOL, because most of them live in landlocked countries! The industrialised nations of western Europe are not land locked. Britain, Belgium, The Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Portugal, Greece, Poland... Quote seriously though, the banning is an appeasement measure. ask Chamberlain how well that worked. I don't dispute that. That's my point. When the founder of Green Peace isn't on board with the current environmental movement... Quote The europeans also don't drive as much (public transportation and an amazing rail system) or consume as much as we do. And when they drive, they drive cars with efficient gas or diesel engines, or even motorcycles/scooters. anyone driving around Rome will attest to the amount of those things scooting around No dispute there. Different societies though. The US is not that type of country. One nation, much larger, more people, less overall development given the land-mass. So, it's an apples to oranges comparison. France also gets 80%+ of its energy from nuclear power. We can't build those either. Quote Dropping wells all over the place where there might be a hint of oil, "environment" be damned, is NOT the answer either. I'll state for a third time, the off-shore rigs have not been proven to be an environmental detriment, in fact, it seems to be the exact opposite. Quote reducing our dependence on fossil fuels for our energy and transportation needs IS. I am not opposed to that, but I don't think it's feasible to out right replace oil. Energy supplements can reduce consumption across the board -- nuclear, hydro, solar, ethanol, natural gas, and oil need to be harnessed as an overall strategy. Quote ...world would have a harder time surviving without petroleum based plastics, building products, etc than it would without the gasoline engine. Right now, the internal combustion engine drives the entire world economy and turbine get engines and heavy fuel ships connect those economies. Even rail runs on diesel to power electric motors. Every item that is of use (and not of-use) is delivered or transported via truck. It's unavoidable. And again: I'm still looking for any country that has banned off-shore drilling....So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VTmotoMike08 0 #10 June 17, 2008 Quote But I just said that off-shore rigs don't pose a real threat to the environment. In fact, they seem to have helped it. Congress has never been known to let a few pesky facts get in the way.... Quote Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) introduced yesterday regarding exploration on the Continental Shelf. It was dropped in committee. He plans on reintroducing today or tomorrow. It is also part of McCain's plan: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/17/mccain.energy/index.html Quote The US government is not an expert on oil exploration. In fact, Congress is planning on privatizing their own restaurants...now there's talk of them handling health care and energy even more? Sorry, I really, really, really hate your idea. No, but they could hire contractors that are. I will do some more research into how other countries (Russia, Venezuela) run their national oil companies so that I can comment further. Quote How about: Socialism doesn't work. I fail to see how my idea equates to socialism. I am not suggesting that the gov't give us oil. I even mentioned that eventually this national oil company should be profitable. The main benefit would be that it would not be in the hands of foreign interests and it would not be controlled by investors that want to drive the price up. Quote Name the countries that have banned off shore drilling. 1. The United States I am not happy about this either. Edit: Off shore drilling is banned in 85% of US Costal waters http://www.awb.org/articles/presidentscolumn2006/offshore_drilling_ban_allows_china_to_steal_u_s_oil_reserves.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steel 0 #11 June 17, 2008 Quote Quote why have the enlightened Europeans not abandoned it? LOL, because most of them live in landlocked countries! Just to name a few, feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Countries that are NOT land-locked in Europe: England, Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Denmark, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Croatia, Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Germany, France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Portugal, Italy, Turkey. Countries that are land-locked in Europe: Austria, Switzerland, Cech Republic, Slovakia, BelarusIf I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #12 June 17, 2008 QuoteNo, but they could hire contractors that are. I will do some more research into how other countries (Russia, Venezuela) run their national oil companies so that I can comment further. Russia's oil industry is not nationalized. Venezuela's is, and is hurting bad. Since Chavez took over, production is down. One article: http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10696005 QuoteQuote How about: Socialism doesn't work. I fail to see how my idea equates to socialism. I am not suggesting that the gov't give us oil. I even mentioned that eventually this national oil company should be profitable. The main benefit would be that it would not be in the hands of foreign interests and it would not be controlled by investors that want to drive the price up. See my thread about oil companies not controlling the price of the commodity. Government control over an industry is regulation. A government "company" per your idea, is socialism.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #13 June 17, 2008 >but if the rest of the world hasn't banned it, why do we? We currently have around 4000 offshore oil and gas platforms, and are drilling in many of them. So answer - we haven't banned it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #14 June 17, 2008 Quote>but if the rest of the world hasn't banned it, why do we? We currently have around 4000 offshore oil and gas platforms, and are drilling in many of them. So answer - we haven't banned it. Um, there are 27 off the coast of California. Are you really going to tell me that there are 3973 rigs in the Gulf of Mexico? Try again. You're off by 1700. There is a federal ban....using a previously posted link.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #15 June 17, 2008 Thanks!We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #16 June 17, 2008 *sigh* sorry for trying to be humorous. the landlocked comment was a JOKE. ANYWAY.... QuoteDifferent societies though. The US is not that type of country. One nation, much larger, more people, less overall development given the land-mass. So, it's an apples to oranges comparison. then isn't asking why the europeans haven't banned offshore drilling also an apples to oranges comparison? Different societies. *shrug* I'm not opposed to offshore drilling. what i'm opposed to is the attitude that rather than looking for ways to depend less and less on oil, we are looking for stopgap solutions. ("we" meaning american policy-makers as a whole) You mentioned in a previous post other possible sources (besides offshore). this is what i was addressing with my "dropping wells" comment. ugh, why do i do this? i hate debating on the internet. it's like people intentionally take things out of context or the wrong way, when they know damned well what was being talked about.Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #17 June 17, 2008 >Um, there are >27 off the coast of California. Are you really going to tell me that there > are 3973 rigs in the Gulf of Mexico? And thereabouts, yep. (Not surprising; you put oil platforms where the oil is.) Take a flight over the Gulf sometime, or just read the article you yourself linked to. The Thunder Horse platform is the world's largest oil platform. It was finished in 2004, towed in place, and has just started oil production. Once it is fully operational it will be delivering 250,000 barrels of oil a day, or about 1.3% of our total demand. It will also deliver 200 million cubic feet of gas per day. I guess it's just a matter of time before they get arrested for illegal drilling, eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VTmotoMike08 0 #18 June 17, 2008 Quotean even crazier idea. take all that money that would go to that national oil company and use it for development and marketing of alternative energy sources. I say marketing, because right now, that's where we fail. immensely. people don't understand it, all they think is "it's gonna be waaaaay too expensive to switch" and they don't get past that. so yeah, it needs to be marketed better. I aggree that we should fund alternative energy research and marketing, but I disagree whole heartedly with the implication that marketing is currently the biggest failure. All of the current alternative fuel vehicles are inferior to fossil fueled vehicles in at least one of several ways. Insight? Way to small for most people, although good for commuters. Impossible for soccer moms and anyone requiring a decent payload capacity. Scooters? Really silly looking, and not as safe as a car. Home fill up natural gas vehicles? Still gotta pay for all that gas, and try to fit a 16 hour fill up into your day and deal with the limited range. Once someone does come up with an alternative fuel vehicle that truely is "as good" as its fossil fuel competition, it will be such a break thru that it will practically market itself without much effort needed. So I disagree with spending much on marketing for now, lets put it towards research. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #19 June 17, 2008 Quote then isn't asking why the europeans haven't banned offshore drilling also an apples to oranges comparison? Different societies. *shrug* Yes and no. Often, the enviro-crowd likes to tout some myth of European enviro-superiority, when there are key elements that seem to indicate otherwise. Regardless of their society, and diesel fumes, their fuel prices and society are a result of taxation, regulation and relative congestion. Yet, they do accomplish things which we cannot seem to manage due to what Phil Valentine likes to call the "dirt people". The enviro-movement crippling the US is not about the environment, it's about power, and anti-capitalism. Quote ugh, why do i do this? i hate debating on the internet. it's like people intentionally take things out of context or the wrong way, when they know damned well what was being talked about. I didn't intend to take anything out of context, and I replied as such. It is possible to exchange ideas and clarify on the internet...as long as you remember that it's also...well...the internet... So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #20 June 17, 2008 > All of the current alternative fuel vehicles are inferior to fossil > fueled vehicles in at least one of several ways. I could do exactly the same thing with big vehicles. Every single big SUV out there is inferior to my Prius in at least one of several ways. If you want to, you can always find a reason to not buy a car you don't like. That doesn't change the fact that they are available - even if many people don't think they are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #21 June 17, 2008 QuoteOff-shore rigs actually form habitats for sea life, That's probably the weakest part of the argument. Ocean ecosystems don't need oil rigs to thrive. And a thriving community doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing. Cancer and Zebra mussels are good examples. But once again, how will drilling "here/now" help gas prices without us nationalizing our supply? And even if we did nationalize our supply, the offshore supply is not ours. Alternatives are the answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VTmotoMike08 0 #22 June 17, 2008 I am talking about deal breaking big ways, not little details. Sorry, but the only way your prius beats my Mitsu Montero is gas mileage. I am just claiming that if they made an alternative fuel vehicle that offered the same level of overall utility as a fossil fueled vehicle, it would be such a break thru that it would hardly have to be marketed. It would be like setting up a lemonade stand in the Sahara (sp?). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #23 June 17, 2008 Quote diesel fumes, dammit, i was gonna stop. But diesel cars are one of my things. This here illustrates the poor marketing thing i was talking about earlier. The modern diesels they are using in cars nowadays (yes, in europe) are NOT smelly, loud, or obnoxious. These are not the typical Dodge Ram Cummins turbo diesel truck engines Americans think of when they hear "diesel". Go drive a Jetta TDI or a diesel BMW sometime. a modern one. you won't be able to tell the difference between it and a gas version...except perhaps in the increased power and fuel economy Yes, i'm a proud member of the "enviro-crowd" who will happily buy one of the new diesel cars when they come out next year. It's too bad that we've done such a poor job marketing the new diesel technology.Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #24 June 17, 2008 Canada, like the US, has a partial ban. Drilling is allowed in the Atlantic and banned in the Pacific. It is allowed in the Arctic, but is not currently occurring. That is about to change as their was a rights auction last week. There is environmentalist action but the local inuvialuit are in favour. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #25 June 17, 2008 > Sorry, but the only way your prius beats my Mitsu Montero is gas mileage. And handling; the Prius has a much lower CG due to its body shape and its battery pack. And looks; the Montero looks like a brick. And service; less maintenance required since I don't have to change brake pads or oil as often. > I am just claiming that if they made an alternative fuel vehicle that >offered the same level of overall utility as a fossil fueled vehicle, it would >be such a break thru that it would hardly have to be marketed. There are a great many pickups and large SUV's that run on E85. There are eight SUV modles available with hybrid drives that get around 30mpg. Many have electric-only rear wheel drives, which saves weight, space and maintenance. There are two companies out there now who will convert a Prius into an electric pluggable hybrid, so most of your energy comes from an outlet. That's a good example of what Andi was talking about; people just plain don't know they're available. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
