Author Topic: Drilling Off Shore, Down Right Stupid (Read 3455 times)

Sourdough · « **on:** April 29, 2010, 10:30:27 AM »

It is down right stupid for them to be drilling off shore when we have enough oil and natural gas to satisfy this country for the next 50 years (some geologist say 100 years) on shore. And by that time we should be able to come up with alternative sources of energy. The only problem with the ion shore areas is that environmentalist have those areas locked up.

Dee · « **Reply #1 on:** April 29, 2010, 10:59:07 AM »

Does seem rather moronic, doesn't it?

Rustyinfla · « **Reply #2 on:** April 29, 2010, 02:40:07 PM »

When I was a kid growing up in Ft.Myers, Fla there were oil wells along hwy 82 between Ft.Myers and hwy 29. they aren't there any more from what I can see. They also sunk a well on my mom's section of land down there and struck oil. then they just capped it off and walked away.

Splain dat to me Lucy?

williamlayton · « **Reply #3 on:** April 29, 2010, 04:11:57 PM »

Lordy--they have been drilling in the Gulf since the early thirties.
There are just as many blowouts on land as in the gulf.
Now this IS a historic depth---they will clean it up and not as much damage will occur as some leftsided monkey wants---but they will splash it around until folks from Iowa come to Galveston and want to watch it flood the shoreline.
I think tar balls existed before drilling.
I do know that some shallow surfaced gas pockets have been know too turn over, That is one of the theories of the triangle and loss of ships at sea.
Blessings

Hooker · « **Reply #4 on:** April 29, 2010, 04:12:20 PM »

Off shore drilling makes good sense there are vast oil and gas out there also. Off shore drilling carries a bit more risk but production is also higher. Off shore drilling has a very good record in both safety and environmental protection. Considering the amount of off shore drilling going on their record is great. This industry operates under a microscope so every little bump is scrutinized to the nth degree. Yes disasters like the BP rig are very bad but for every situation like that there are thousands of other wells site that have no incidents at all.
No it's not stupid to drill off shore we need to drill where ever the oil and gas is.

Rusty there are usually 2 reason why wells are capped.
1- Prices are to low for the cost of production.

2- The production of the well is to low to make money.

Pat

Swampman · « **Reply #5 on:** April 29, 2010, 04:22:59 PM »

I wish they'd drill off the FL coast. We need more good jobs.

wreckhog · « **Reply #6 on:** April 29, 2010, 04:41:58 PM »

Depending on where the oil is on land, you need a road or a pipeline. Which cost $ and tend to annoy those who lose their land through eminent domain. Boats are kinda cheap compared to those options. And of course these days, a pipeline is a perfect terror target.

Dee · « **Reply #7 on:** April 30, 2010, 02:19:16 AM »

I'll bet ya could build a road, and PAY the land owner for it crossing his land, cheaper than you could replace a fishing industry, and all the jobs that go with it, for years to come. Family businesses are about to be wiped out forever, because we have allowed the government to dictate to us, totally ridiculous policies.

beerbelly · « **Reply #8 on:** April 30, 2010, 02:59:00 AM »

I am for of shore drilling and any and every where else. We need to get off foreign oil and the green technology is just not here ! We need to produce our own oil. There are mishaps in every industry.
Some guys just got blown up in a mine, should we stop mining? Hell no. You ask the miners that survived and they will tell you they want their jobs!
I saw on the news where compared to other spills in the past this one is fairly small. The tree huggers want you to get your panties in a wad about this. Drill baby drill!
Beerbelly

Dee · « **Reply #9 on:** April 30, 2010, 04:43:47 AM »

I think British Petroleum is much to blame for this. They told the feds it wasn't going to take long, and they weren't losing that much oil. I could have my facts wrong though.

magooch · « **Reply #10 on:** April 30, 2010, 04:45:41 AM »

No, it probably makes more sense to leave the off shore oil to others, like the Chinese, Indians, or Russians to drill. You know they will be much more careful of the ecology--right?

Dee · « **Reply #11 on:** April 30, 2010, 05:03:24 AM »

magooch, my own personal point is, not that we shouldn't be drilling off shore, but instead that we should be drilling ON SHORE more, and perhaps off shore less. Besides, I believe this well in question is BRITISH OWNED?
A Texas State Representative friend of mine whom I knew BEFORE he won the election, once introduced a Secession bill JUST TO MAKE A POINT.
Texas has enough natural resources, in this case oil, that if it were to secede from the Union, it would be able to provide a FREE COLLEGE EDUCATION for every child in the state, without Federal Government interference.
The Iraq War that our young men and women have been fighting and dying in for the last 20 years was over Kuwait ANGLE DRILLING into Iraqi oil reserves under Iraqi soil. Surely our government would defend OUR OIL RESERSERVES as vigorously as they have defended Iraq's.

lee1954 · « **Reply #12 on:** April 30, 2010, 05:14:28 AM »

There is going to be setbacks - and spills any place we drill--it is part of the cost .... off shore has vast amounts of oil.. a better shut off migh be the key

150 years ago whale oil was the popular lamp oil.... There was no gas engines -- There were steam power trains and horses for stagecoachs.

When we run out of oil, times will change again.

Years from now if all the oil is gone there will be something better. The world
history will have a foot note -- Once we needed oil and it was pumped out of the Earth.

Sourdough · « **Reply #13 on:** April 30, 2010, 06:09:10 AM »

British Petroleum did not use a remote shut off valve, like they should have, because it cost money. Just another corner they cut. They have been cutting corners like that here in Alaska for decades. There was a spill out on the tundra a couple of years ago and when the state went looking in their records found they had not been doing maintenance and checks like they were supposed to have been doing. The state fined them, and forced them to replace all the pipe going to collection point at the start of the Alaska Pipeline. They replaced that pipe, but shut the Alaska Pipeline down for a week (for no real reason) costing the state millions in revenue. British petroleum has proven themselves negligent in their practices and operations. This is just another example of their cost cutting practices. They are not nice to deal with either, their attitude is "Mess with us and we will take our ball and go home". They own the Alaska Pipeline and have shut it down just to make a point before.

So the Feds will not do anything to them over this. Oh they might go to court and get a big fine, and restitution for the folks affected. But British Petroleum will drag it out in the courts and appeals courts will whittle it down to nothing. And affected folks will never see anything. Just ask the folks around Prince William Sound.

Sourdough · « **Reply #14 on:** April 30, 2010, 06:17:29 AM »

One other thing, yes they have been drilling off shore for decades with no major problems fortunately. But when off shore no one can check up on what they are doing like they can when drilling on shore. How many more rigs are sitting out there with no remote blowout valves. When is the next Hurricane due that area?

Dee · « **Reply #15 on:** April 30, 2010, 06:59:20 AM »

That was part of my point Sourdough. I don't know all the detail in drilling off shore, but it has to be far more complicated that drillin in dirt.

saddlebum · « **Reply #16 on:** April 30, 2010, 07:40:06 AM »

Quote from: wreckhog on April 29, 2010, 04:41:58 PM

Depending on where the oil is on land, you need a road or a pipeline. Which cost $ and tend to annoy those who lose their land through eminent domain. Boats are kinda cheap compared to those options. And of course these days, a pipeline is a perfect terror target.

Most of the large gas and oil reserves are on federal government land in Alaska, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming. That is one reason why enviromentalist are so successful in banning development of those resources. Alot of the land owners in that region are happy to get the revenues from producing oil and gas on their property or from easments. Eminent domain should be outlawed. It is nothing more than legalized land theft. I would much rather see more land based drilling than off-shore. If this same blowout we are seeing now in the Gulf happened on land, it would be under control by now and not caused near as much damage and loss. Easier to prevent, control, stop and clean up.

Anybody else see those comercials on TV about one platform producing oil from 5 oil wells? Imagine if that platform blew up like this one. That would be 5 wells flowing into the Gulf instead of 1. 5 times as likely to have problems, at least.

I'm not totally against off-shore but darn-it, why did Obama open up more off-shore instead of more land based development???

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #17 on:** April 30, 2010, 07:43:22 AM »

I find it odd that it took the Federal Government 8 days to do something. Wasn't the same group in charge now the ones screaming the nothing was done in the gulf after Katrina, the same groups that stole the tax money to rebuild, and reenforce the levies? And they took over a week to do anything.
I think they want the oil to hit the shores to stop the drilling.
Also about 5,000 barrels of oil a week seeps from the ocean floor into the gulf. the gulf just absorbs it and deals with it.
This 5,000 barrels is one big spill on top of the standard 5K a day.
If the ocean floor seeps 5,000 barrels a day why not drill and tap the gulf and use that oil first before it turns into nothing.
I also wonder why SWAT teams are sent to the rigs. Was this eco terorism? Was this done to stop all drilling? Were Swat teams sent to stop ELF and similar groups from attacking oil rigs or were they sent to beable to close the rigs by force.
How many spills has Citgo (Chavez owned) rigs off Venezula have happened that have not been reported?
Dictators never worry about the safety of the enviroment or the people. Look at the Caspian sea and the old soviet union.

saddlebum · « **Reply #18 on:** April 30, 2010, 07:49:36 AM »

OH AND ANOTHER THING!! If states would use Sarah Palin's plan that she used in Alaska, everyone in the state would benifit from oil revenues. Actually they do anyway because the state taxes from oil and gas development goes to roads and highways and infrastructure, at least in Wyoming.

JOBS!!!!!!!!!!

williamlayton · « **Reply #19 on:** April 30, 2010, 09:54:28 AM »

They did use a shut-off valve. It has failed.
Last time I checked the government does not have a say in international waters.
Last time I checked this operation is free enterprise--free enterprise is what drives this nations economy.
The third Coast does not have a lot of fishing industry except for shrimp.
Blessings

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #20 on:** April 30, 2010, 10:12:06 AM »

I have no problem with off shore drilling . Don't have a problem if all safety is taken and a spill happens and gets ckeaned up. I have gone to the beach in N C for over 40 years and can assure all that oil-tar floats in on the beach in a natural form . The some hotels have trays of kerosene where you can wash your feet when leaving the beach . Why do you think the folks in N C are called tarheels ?
Hey if they take enough oil out of the ocean floor maybe all the floods expected from global warming won't happen as the sea water fills the holes .

beerbelly · « **Reply #21 on:** April 30, 2010, 12:14:53 PM »

Barack Obama, the US president, has ordered all new domestic offshore oil drilling to be put on hold until the current disaster has been fully investigated.

Just the excuse he was looking for. Strange that when he is trying to pass some legislation we have a crisis about that same thing. Health care, the swine flue phony crisis, wall street reform, Goldman sacks, cap and trade and we have an oil spill! I don't believe in condense! I smell a rat!!
Beerbelly

TheCoachZed · « **Reply #22 on:** April 30, 2010, 12:20:53 PM »

Well, when stuff like this happens, IMHO - IF IT IS PROVEN THAT A COMPANY WAS WILLINGLY NEGLIGENT, their assets should be seized and sold off to pay for damages. The people of a country allowed them to drill in a safe manner. That trust was betrayed, and they should pay the penalty.

Dee · « **Reply #23 on:** April 30, 2010, 12:24:39 PM »

Quote from: beerbelly on April 30, 2010, 12:14:53 PM

I don't believe in condense! I smell a rat!!
Beerbelly

LOL!
Perhaps it's a CONDENSED RAT that you smell?

garbhead · « **Reply #24 on:** April 30, 2010, 12:27:10 PM »

Check out this link old but interesting reading

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1553044/Blair-Gaddafi-and-the-BP-oil-deal.html

Also they did have an automatic valve that did fail , but it was not the more expensive "remote-control" valve that would have done by remote control that the robot subs are trying to do now without success

TheCoachZed · « **Reply #25 on:** April 30, 2010, 12:42:10 PM »

No matter what way you cut it, everyone is going to be a loser over this. Except for maybe Big Government.

saddlebum · « **Reply #26 on:** April 30, 2010, 01:00:18 PM »

Quote from: williamlayton on April 30, 2010, 09:54:28 AM

They did use a shut-off valve. It has failed.
Last time I checked the government does not have a say in international waters.
Last time I checked this operation is free enterprise--free enterprise is what drives this nations economy.
The third Coast does not have a lot of fishing industry except for shrimp.
Blessings

All wells have a blowout preventer,(set of valves), bolted onto the well head casing. Most are controled by both hydraulic power, remotely, and manually by way of large turn wheels on the BOP itself. It is unclear, so far, why the BOP was not closed by hydraulic power at the time of the blowout. 11 men died in the explosion. They were most likely the ones in the best position to hit the switch to close the BOP. Did they have 5000ft of hydraulic lines running down to the wellhead, I don't know. Did multiple warning devices, (gauges and alarms), fail? Did they have time to hit the switch? If there is drill pipe in the hole, running through the BOP, is that why they can't close the BOP now? How did the blowout get away from them in the first place, there is usually some warning before it's too late. Still lots of questions out there yet.

williamlayton · « **Reply #27 on:** April 30, 2010, 02:41:21 PM »

The folks that do offshore inspections had a golf tourney today and I visited with a friend and some others over coffee.
It is too early too tell what happened yet--but --the shut off was 5000' down on the ocean floor--no one is sure how it was too be operated. At that depth manual would hardly be practical---for sure it was a low bid item.
It may be immaterial at this point because the weight of the rig settling on all that drill stem could have caused fractures below the shutoff.
Lots of questions but the main effort is containment and clean-up at this point.
The depth of the leak is a major obsticle.
Yes they will continue too drill.
They are building rigs at Pt Arthur as fast as they can and the work on the Fuschon Bay gathering station is still progressing.
There is too much money out there under those waters---This is just a blip on the profit picture.
Blessings

scootrd · « **Reply #28 on:** April 30, 2010, 03:19:26 PM »

Quote from: saddlebum on April 30, 2010, 07:40:06 AM

I'm not totally against off-shore but darn-it, why did Obama open up more off-shore instead of more land based development???

It was the Bush administration that pushed to end the ban on off shore Drilling - and as I recall in previous discussions there were a whole lot of folks in favor of it on these threads when the Bush administration proposed it saying how it would help move us away from dependency of foreign oil.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/14/bush.offshore/index.html

WASHINGTON — President Bush urged Congress on Wednesday to end a federal ban on offshore oil drilling and open a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration, asserting that those steps and others would lower gasoline prices and “strengthen our national security.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/washington/19drill.html

wreckhog · « **Reply #29 on:** April 30, 2010, 03:44:00 PM »

Quote from: saddlebum on April 30, 2010, 07:49:36 AM

OH AND ANOTHER THING!! If states would use Sarah Palin's plan that she used in Alaska, everyone in the state would benifit from oil revenues. Actually they do anyway because the state taxes from oil and gas development goes to roads and highways and infrastructure, at least in Wyoming.

JOBS!!!!!!!!!!

Isn't Sarah Palin's plan a corporate tax? VA backed the Obama offshore plan because VA is taking something like 70% of the profit on anything drilled by them. That is one heck of a tax.

Obama opened up a crapload of additional AK for oil this year. What got shut down was Bristol Bay. Go to Costco and buy the smoked salmon. Yeah, that is where it comes from according to the package.