Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Drill, baby, drill Drill, baby, drill

06-12-2010 , 10:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11t
peak oil is a mountain out of a mole hill the same way as the "population bomb" fears of the last century.
Fear mongering is the 2nd oldest profession...
And infinitely more immoral than the 1st...
It's made >>> $100,000,000 for Al Gore.
06-12-2010 , 11:13 AM
Jiggs,

As has been pointed out before, human beings are not bacteria in a petri dish.
06-12-2010 , 12:55 PM
another hmm...

Quote:
Three days after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, the Dutch government offered to help. It was willing to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms, and it proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands.

The response from the Obama administration and BP, which are coordinating the cleanup: “The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,'” said Geert Visser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston.

Now, almost seven weeks later, as the oil spewing from the battered well spreads across the Gulf and soils pristine beaches and coastline, BP and our government have reconsidered.

U.S. ships are being outfitted this week with four pairs of the skimming booms airlifted from the Netherlands and should be deployed within days. Each pair can process 5 million gallons of water a day, removing 20,000 tons of oil and sludge.

At that rate, how much more oil could have been removed from the Gulf during the past month?

The uncoordinated response to an offer of assistance has become characteristic of this disaster's response. Too often, BP and the government don't seem to know what the other is doing, and the response has seemed too slow and too confused.

Federal law has also hampered the assistance. The Jones Act, the maritime law that requires all goods be carried in U.S. waters by U.S.-flagged ships, has prevented Dutch ships with spill-fighting equipment from entering U.S. coastal areas.

“What's wrong with accepting outside help?” Visser asked. “If there's a country that's experienced with building dikes and managing water, it's the Netherlands.”
Even if, three days after the rig exploded, it seemed as if the Dutch equipment and expertise wasn't needed, wouldn't it have been better to accept it, to err on the side of having too many resources available rather than not enough?
06-12-2010 , 09:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11t
world ends in 2012, ldo
No, actually it is 2060.
Sir Isaac Newton
06-12-2010 , 10:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11t
thank you for defining the limits of my imagination
And thank you for creating a straw man, and not showing where I said the gas pumps would run dry.

Anyway, you kinda define those limits yourself when you try to suggest the markets will fix everything on their own. Markets entirely dependent on access to cheap energy to begin with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 11t
but the truth of the matter is this: #1 the "green" energy revolution you speak of is pure fantasy. i have yet to meet a single engineer that would agree with any of the feasbility claims of politicians/activists of such an agenda.
No one said it would be pleasant. It won't provide what light crude has for mankind, not by a longshot. But it's doubtful industrial nations will really have much choice but to begin a serious push towards renewables... within 10-15 years, by modest estimation. You can poo-poo renewables all you like, and make vague allusions to all the "engineers" you've allegedly met and talked with about it all. But heavier and dirtier FINITE hydro-carbons are not going to do any better meeting demand. Nor will they do much for the global economy, especially when you factor in environmental costs. They are the wrong way. Investment should be poured into finding the technology to make renewables the right way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 11t
#2 yes thank you since i am so ignorant of science and math and i have no idea of how exponential growth works.
And yet you mock the legit concerns of population explosion. Either you don't get how exponential growth applies to world population growth already bursting at the seams, or you do get it and your Frank Drebbin "nothing to see here" approach willfully contradicts basic mathematics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 11t
if you are really claiming there haven't been large gains in energy efficiency i would ask you to look into solely into ball bearing manufacturing.
Ball bearings are not an energy source... and not really a "new" gain.

Last edited by JiggsCasey; 06-12-2010 at 10:47 PM.
06-12-2010 , 10:34 PM
ball bearings ITT, why didn't anyone else ever think of that JFC!
06-13-2010 , 01:06 AM
dont worry everybody, the government has fixed the oil leak
06-13-2010 , 01:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggsCasey
And thank you for creating a straw man, and not showing where I said the gas pumps would run dry.

so what exactly are you claiming will happen?

Anyway, you kinda define those limits yourself when you try to suggest the markets will fix everything on their own. Markets entirely dependent on access to cheap energy to begin with.

markets don't depend on cheap energy, the free market system is merely the most efficient means by which society distributes resources.

No one said it would be pleasant. It won't provide what light crude has for mankind, not by a longshot. But it's doubtful industrial nations will really have much choice but to begin a serious push towards renewables... within 10-15 years, by modest estimation. You can poo-poo renewables all you like, and make vague allusions to all the "engineers" you've allegedly met and talked with about it all. But heavier and dirtier FINITE hydro-carbons are not going to do any better meeting demand. Nor will they do much for the global economy, especially when you factor in environmental costs. They are the wrong way. Investment should be poured into finding the technology to make renewables the right way.

fwiw i am an engineer although not in the "i'll fix all your problems" industry. also, turns out (shockingly enough) people are investing money into these technologies but it takes ~10years for any new technological advancement to make it to market.


And yet you mock the legit concerns of population explosion. Either you don't get how exponential growth applies to world population growth already bursting at the seams, or you do get it and your Frank Drebbin "nothing to see here" approach willfully contradicts basic mathematics.

#1 lets whip out our mathematical e-wangs and debate who has a better understanding of math. i am curious, what is the highest level of math, or science that you have an understanding of?

#2 yeah, exponential population growth is obviously still occurring in every developed nation; even though no statistical data shows that. furthermore, turns out science has allowed for higher yields/acre and the price of food adjusted for inflation has steadily been dropping for the past few decades. but hey, facts are so inconvenient.


Ball bearings are not an energy source... and not really a "new" gain.

what exactly do you think energy efficiency is? energy efficiency is the amount of energy used to require a task. lets say i have 2 pumps; pump a and pump b. pump a can pump water for X amount of energy; whereas pump b requires Y amount of energy. a quick examination shows that x < y therefore pump a is more energy efficient. whether or not pump a is cost efficient is a completely different matter.

decreasing demand side energy requirements = increasing supply side energy production

.
06-13-2010 , 03:57 PM
i think we've had the technology for workable alternative energy for a long time. Tesla thought he could have built a tower to provide unlimited amounts of wireless electricity for the whole world. the reason these technologies are not being used today is that energy is used as a means of control and the US dollar (petro dollar) is basically backed by oil.

all the car companies developed working, fully electric cars, two decades ago. The EV1 that GM made looked like it was an awesome car that lots of people wanted. so the cars that we had 20 years ago are still not available to the public and since technology has obviousloy improved over the last two decades, the electric cars that we could build today would be a lot better. instead, all we have are things like the Prius and other crap hybrids which don't even reduce the carbon footprint when compared to other cars (not that a carbon footprint matters to me, but some people incorrectly think it's important).

also, i think that oil is a renewable resource. i think that oil is not a fossil fuel and is instead created by chemical processes near the center of the earth and is pushed outward towards the surface where it collects in oil pools.

but there is some promising stuff being done with the more "mainstream" renewable energy alternatives. it might not be too long before solar pannels are powerful enough to proivde electricty to houses. so there really isn't a crisis with respect to energy. there is a ton of oil and natural gas out there and the prospects for developing new sources of electricity look promising.
06-13-2010 , 05:27 PM
Wait, there is a debate on how oil is actually formed?
06-13-2010 , 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjoefish
Wait, there is a debate on how oil is actually formed?
i sense a tinge of sarcasm; or blinding ignorance
06-13-2010 , 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by plowking2010
also, i think that oil is a renewable resource. i think that oil is not a fossil fuel and is instead created by chemical processes near the center of the earth and is pushed outward towards the surface where it collects in oil pools.
yeah, the Thomas Gold abiotic theory has been put to bed a long time ago by peer review. ... either way, not really the point.... because, well, where is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by plowking2010
so there really isn't a crisis with respect to energy.
really? the IEA, the EIA, the Pentagon, the DoE, ASPO, and countless petrol geologists seem to disagree with you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by plowking2010
there is a ton of oil and natural gas out there.
is that so? where exactly? in what amount? i've asked this of dozens of posters here... No one can really point to anything more than a few weeks/months of supply in any one location.

More hollow vague allusion...
06-13-2010 , 06:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggsCasey
yeah, the Thomas Gold abiotic theory has been put to bed a long time ago by peer review. ... either way, not really the point.... because, well, where is it?



really? the IEA, the EIA, the Pentagon, the DoE, ASPO, and countless petrol geologists seem to disagree with you.




is that so? where exactly? in what amount? i've asked this of dozens of posters here... No one can really point to anything more than a few weeks/months of supply in any one location.

More hollow vague allusion...
If you are talking about a few weeks/months supply for the entire planet in one location; obviously not. from what i have read we easily have enough cheap oil in its numerous recoverable forms for the next several decades. obviously we will need to transfer from oil to other forms of fuel for transportation eventually (i say this since we have enough coal for centuries) but the market will better be able to find ways to do this than a politician making mandates.
06-13-2010 , 07:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by plowking2010
i think we've had the technology for workable alternative energy for a long time. Tesla thought he could have built a tower to provide unlimited amounts of wireless electricity for the whole world. the reason these technologies are not being used today is that energy is used as a means of control and the US dollar (petro dollar) is basically backed by oil.

all the car companies developed working, fully electric cars, two decades ago. The EV1 that GM made looked like it was an awesome car that lots of people wanted. so the cars that we had 20 years ago are still not available to the public and since technology has obviousloy improved over the last two decades, the electric cars that we could build today would be a lot better. instead, all we have are things like the Prius and other crap hybrids which don't even reduce the carbon footprint when compared to other cars (not that a carbon footprint matters to me, but some people incorrectly think it's important).

also, i think that oil is a renewable resource. i think that oil is not a fossil fuel and is instead created by chemical processes near the center of the earth and is pushed outward towards the surface where it collects in oil pools.

but there is some promising stuff being done with the more "mainstream" renewable energy alternatives. it might not be too long before solar pannels are powerful enough to proivde electricty to houses. so there really isn't a crisis with respect to energy. there is a ton of oil and natural gas out there and the prospects for developing new sources of electricity look promising.

:tinf oil:
06-13-2010 , 07:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjoefish
Wait, there is a debate on how oil is actually formed?
Hell no. It's made from dinosaurs.
06-13-2010 , 07:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ineedaride2
Hell no. It's made from dinosaurs.
PVN poops oil?
06-13-2010 , 08:02 PM
I call bull**** on Brian's article:

1. Foreign flagged ships routinely enter US waters.

2. Even if they couldn't, the rig isn't in US territorial waters (within 12 miles of shore)
06-13-2010 , 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjoefish
Wait, there is a debate on how oil is actually formed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
06-13-2010 , 08:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjoefish
Wait, there is a debate on how oil is actually formed?
fyp
06-13-2010 , 08:54 PM
I read that and it basically said it was crazy russian scientists from 30 years ago that thought this but I guess its still going on.
06-13-2010 , 09:19 PM
White people should be banned from voting in elections so Obama can tackle this mess.
Quote:
CNN Blames White People For Obama's Slow Action On Oil Spill

One of CNN's primary sources for this piece has endorsed the notion that "Rev. Wright's anger about the domestic and foreign policies of the USA are well rooted – and documented – in the current reality of the USA." Details below the jump.

The excuses keep rolling in to explain why President Obama is seemingly detached from the oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico.

On Wednesday, CNN.com reached a new low by blatantly playing the race card: President Obama is afraid to look angry in public because white people historically haven't liked angry black men.

This conclusion was offered by four supposed experts (all of whom were sympathetic to Obama), with no one else mentioned to provide any ounce of skepticism.

Apparently CNN's logic goes something like this: Obama grew up being afraid of offending white people, so he developed a natural aversion to public displays of emotion, which means his cool response to the oil spill right now is the final product of white bigotry.

Writer John Blake got straight to the point with his headline "Why Obama Doesn't Dare Become the Angry Black Man." It was all downhill from there.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...#ixzz0qTxFXnY4
06-13-2010 , 09:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggsCasey

is that so? where exactly? in what amount? i've asked this of dozens of posters here... No one can really point to anything more than a few weeks/months of supply in any one location.

More hollow vague allusion...
i think there's lots in Alaska, but most of it is not being allowed to be brought to market. Also there's lots in the Bakken.

and as we've seen from what's happening in the Gulf, that basically if you drill deep enough in some locations, you'll find all the oil you could ever want. Russia was the first country to start drilling these super deep wells (but they were smart enough to do it on land, not in the ocean)... and now Russia is the leading oil producer (or close to it afaik).

also, the oil pools that do exist are having their reserves naturally replenished. the peak oil people look at some of the data and they realize that a lot of these OPEC countries report the same reserves year after year, despite the fact that they extract lots of oil from these wells... so the peak oil people assume they are lying about the reserve levels and then go onto make assumptions about how much oil they think really exists in the reserves and the depletion rates.

and i'm not saying that you can't drill an oil well dry.... because this can obviously happen if you extract oil quicker than it refills... but if you come back a few decades later, a lot of oil wells fill back up again.

so if you work under the assumption that there is a finite amount of oil out there and that these known reserves are finite and that we can't find any more big oil deposits, than i can see why people believe in peak oil. but if you think that there's lots of oil out there, and that the wells fill back up again after you drill from them... then there really isn't an energy crisis.

the oil industry is dominated by a few big oil companies who are in bed with governments all around the world. there are lots of smaller oil companies, but they have to get permission from the government to drill. so i think they're creating artificial scarcity to keep the price high. if you can control energy, you have a lot of control... so i believe that they picked oil to use as the main energy source for the global economy because there was so much of it, but the supply was easy to control to create the artificial scarcity
06-13-2010 , 11:39 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1115006620100611

Quote:
Brazil could benefit from the BP Gulf of Mexico spill as a U.S. moratorium on offshore drilling boosts available rigs for the country’s deep water oil exploration program.

Even as an ecological catastrophe makes the future of U.S. offshore drilling less certain, Brazil is plowing ahead with a $220 billion five-year plan to tap oil fields even deeper than BP’s (BP.L) ill-fated Gulf well, which is still leaking crude.

With an estimated 35 rigs idled in the Gulf of Mexico, Brazil is already receiving inquiries from companies looking to move their rigs here, where vast discoveries in recent years may soon turn the country into a major crude exporter.

“What is bad for some may be good for others,” said Fernando Martins, Latin America Vice President for GE Oil and Gas, which provides services to drillers in Brazil.

“Since operators are shutting down at least temporarily in the U.S. Gulf, some companies are planning to move their rigs to Brazil now,” he said, without offering details.
06-14-2010 , 12:16 AM
Can someone give me cliff notes on what's currently going on down there? Are they trying something new with a cool name like "top kill" or "junk shot"?
06-14-2010 , 12:29 AM
No. Current plans are continue with the cap while getting a bigger cap ready. They will also start using the tubes that pumped the mud during the top kill to suck up even more of the oil and burn it. All while trying to drill the relief well.

They are also having to ship in more tankers and such to the area as the flow is so much that the current capacity on sight can't handle it all if they were at peak efficiency.

At least, that's my understanding.

      
m