Paris thanks 'white-haired dude' for McCain ad

[Jeemie]

Doesn't this thread illustrate what the most viable course of action is?

Americans are looking for the quick fix. Of course we are not alone in this, but here is, and should be, our immediate focus. The problem with energy, and has been since the first gas 'crisis' is that there is no one simple solution.

But politicians never want to present a solution this way, so they have you inflate your tires, just as we were stocking up on duct tape, saying No!, or wearing our WIN buttons to 'solve' the problem du jour.

So, everyone is right. So much effort is expended on trying to see who is more right we only get anything done slowly. This approach equals failure.

What we need to do is, indeed, to inflate those tires and change those air filters. AND return to building nuclear power plants. I too live near a nuclear plant, one run by the feds, who, because of budget cuts, have to cut back on monitoring personnel. I still feel safe.

But as our fellow BB Billy Mays says, but wait, there's more. We need to open up the off shore reserves, as a stop gap. We need to increase r&d in oil shale development. We need to exploit our coal reserves, utilizing pollution control techniques already available. We need to encourage T Boon to build his windmills. We need to ignore the complaints of Nantucket residents about their view, and build the wind generations farm off shore. We need to explore more efficient means to harness solar. We need to move ethanol production away from corn, and toward switchgrass, so people won't be starving to death in those houses we are busy keeping warm.

AND more. We have passed the point where we can dismiss an option because it may be difficult to develop.


With so many fronts to move forward upon, it is apparent that the road to energy sufficiency is not going to be a smooth one. But it is a road we must travel. We need to focus on the more pressing issues, for, if we don't, it isn't going to matter if the oceans rise 4-5 inches from global warming.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I would add- the other thing we have to do is not reject an idea out of hand simply because a person of a different political persuasion than you came up with the idea.

And also- if we want a renewable energy base in the future, we should be wanting to develop the max amount of fossil fuels that we can because fossil fuels will be a crucial input into building that base. People complain about fossil fuels for many reasons, but fact of the matter is, there has never been an energy source with a higher energy density than petroleum. AND it's portable, too.

PS I also live 5 miles from a nuke plant, and never give it a second thought.

[BackInTex]

We need more nuclear power plants. And we need to start building them yesteday.

I agree 100% with this.

And most people don't realized that the U.S. HAS built a lot of nuclear power plants in the last 20 years. They've just put them all on ships and submarines.

[silverscreenselect]

Here are two examples of things people can do to cut gasoline consumption (tires, tune up) which doesn't even include stuff like carpooling or just driving less- and we have Republicans pooh-poohing them.

I find this confusing.

The Republicans are pooh poohing the idea for two reasons. First, because they have their own overriding agenda, to resume offshore drilling, and second, because they knew it would provoke exactly the reaction it did from Obama, who has no sense of humor (that's the arrogance factor).

Obama made an inartful attempt to summarize two points (tire inflation and tune-ups), which contribute to better gas mileage and was called down by the Republicans, who pointed out (correctly but incompletely) that tire inflation won't do that much. What he could and should have said was that tire inflation and tuneups, when added to other things like carpooling, avoiding overloading vehicles, driving 55, not using the air conditioner when unneeded, combining short trips and other gas savings tips, when added together add to a sizable savings for most people. He could have made a joke of it, by showing people a little speedometer and other things to make his point. Then, he could lead into his other points and contrast them with McCain's insistence on offshore drilling. But he's too haughty and arrogant to do that and it's costing him.

The Republicans have been able to transform this entire issue into a major campaign plus for them by distilling the two positions down to offshore drilling vs. inflating tires, and the Democrats continue to let them do that. Nancy Pelosi didn't help with her shutting down the House. As long as the Democrats don't come up with something that reframes the issue in their favor, it's going to cost them.

The reaction to the Hilton ad is interesting. McCain joked that it showed that even Paris Hilton has a better understanding of the energy crisis than Obama. Obama's spokesman basically declined any comment ("Whatever").

[SportsFan68]

Two questions that pop into my mind right away.

What ever happened to oil shale?
What about coal?

I also agree with tennisdude on nuclear. NIMBY is a lot less defensible when rolling blackouts begin.

Jeemie's right -- oil shale is insanely difficult to process. Ask anybody in Parachute, CO. If there is anybody still there . . . The oil's still there, all right, and I wonder if Bakken Formation efforts are going down the same road.

Coal lowers air quality. I just heard that the Desert Rock EIS should be ready in Spring 2009. Looks like I'll have to read it.

[Jeemie]

Two questions that pop into my mind right away.

What ever happened to oil shale?
What about coal?

I also agree with tennisdude on nuclear. NIMBY is a lot less defensible when rolling blackouts begin.

Jeemie's right -- oil shale is insanely difficult to process. Ask anybody in Parachute, CO. If there is anybody still there . . . The oil's still there, all right, and I wonder if Bakken Formation efforts are going down the same road.

Coal lowers air quality. I just heard that the Desert Rock EIS should be ready in Spring 2009. Looks like I'll have to read it.

The Bakken is not an oil shale formation- in that formation there is actually actually oil that happens to be trapped under a shale layer.

Still difficult to get at (requires horizontal drilling plus fracturing), but far easier than processing oil shale.

Living in Colorado, you know, then, that they've been talking about oil shale since the 1940s, and that a popular phrase when describing oil shale is "Oil shale, the fuel of the future...and it always will be".

[wbtravis007]

'gor said:

But politicians never want to present a solution this way, so they have you inflate your tires, just as we were stocking up on duct tape, saying No!, or wearing our WIN buttons to 'solve' the problem du jour.


I thinkl we should get out the WIN! buttons.

We're Inflating Now!



.

[earendel]

Doesn't this thread illustrate what the most viable course of action is?

Americans are looking for the quick fix. Of course we are not alone in this, but here is, and should be, our immediate focus. The problem with energy, and has been since the first gas 'crisis' is that there is no one simple solution.

But politicians never want to present a solution this way, so they have you inflate your tires, just as we were stocking up on duct tape, saying No!, or wearing our WIN buttons to 'solve' the problem du jour.

So, everyone is right. So much effort is expended on trying to see who is more right we only get anything done slowly. This approach equals failure.

What we need to do is, indeed, to inflate those tires and change those air filters. AND return to building nuclear power plants. I too live near a nuclear plant, one run by the feds, who, because of budget cuts, have to cut back on monitoring personnel. I still feel safe.

But as our fellow BB Billy Mays says, but wait, there's more. We need to open up the off shore reserves, as a stop gap. We need to increase r&d in oil shale development. We need to exploit our coal reserves, utilizing pollution control techniques already available. We need to encourage T Boon to build his windmills. We need to ignore the complaints of Nantucket residents about their view, and build the wind generations farm off shore. We need to explore more efficient means to harness solar. We need to move ethanol production away from corn, and toward switchgrass, so people won't be starving to death in those houses we are busy keeping warm.

AND more. We have passed the point where we can dismiss an option because it may be difficult to develop.


With so many fronts to move forward upon, it is apparent that the road to energy sufficiency is not going to be a smooth one. But it is a road we must travel. We need to focus on the more pressing issues, for, if we don't, it isn't going to matter if the oceans rise 4-5 inches from global warming.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I would add- the other thing we have to do is not reject an idea out of hand simply because a person of a different political persuasion than you came up with the idea.

And also- if we want a renewable energy base in the future, we should be wanting to develop the max amout of fossil fuels that we can because fossil fuels will be a crucial input into building that base. People complain about fossil fuels for many reason, but fact of the matter is, there has never been an energy source with a higher energy density than petroleum. AND it's portable, too.

And let me add that we may need to accept that the drive toward alternative energy may result in an increase in environmental degradation in the short run.

[mrkelley23]

I talked about this idea in this forum before:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/in ... 46498.html

It's interesting that the idea seems to be gaining momentum now. Yes, it's dangerous, and capital-intensive, but at least it's not completely unfeasible under current technologies (like oil shale and nuclear fusion).

[ne1410s]

Jeemie's right -- oil shale is insanely difficult to process.

Does this apply to Alberta's tar sands also?

[Jeemie]

Jeemie's right -- oil shale is insanely difficult to process.

Does this apply to Alberta's tar sands also?

Not quite the same.

The "oil" in oil sands is semi-liquid bitumen....which is like a heavy crude oil (refined bitumen is the residual fraction left over after fractional distillation of crude oil-it's essentially asphalt and mostly used to pave roads).

It still requires a large amount of energy and water to get the "oil" out...but nowhere near the amount for oil shales...because bitumen is not an oil "precursor" like kerogen is.

That's why tar sands' production is already occurring, but oil shales are still a dream.

[Jeemie]

I talked about this idea in this forum before:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/in ... 46498.html

It's interesting that the idea seems to be gaining momentum now. Yes, it's dangerous, and capital-intensive, but at least it's not completely unfeasible under current technologies (like oil shale and nuclear fusion).

I could see the main problem being what having massive solar farms s a power generating source would be- they would make interesting military targets.

[silvercamaro]

Darn it, I thought somebody else would have responded to this by now, so I wouldn't have to.

So until Big Oil uncaps all of their oil wells on the 60 million acres of land that they already have....

I keep hearing variations of this statement -- from candidate Barack Obama (D-Illinois), U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-New Hampshire), U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pennsylvania), U.S. Rep. Hilda Solis (D-California), NellyLunatic (D-WWTBAM Bored), and dozens of additional names I could Google up, but would rather not. From Nelly, it signifies that he's heard it often enough to believe that it's meaningful. From elected politicians who have staff members and speechwriters to research important issues, it signifies either a profound misunderstanding of the facts of oil leasing and drilling or an intentional effort to mislead a gullible public. (P.T. Barnum: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." In this case, I would prefer to substitute "information" for "intelligence.")

Oil companies don't ordinarily (except under very rare circumstances) own the land itself. They own long-term leases to mineral rights for land. Leases for mineral rights are purchased in large expanses, and much of the leasing took place decades ago. Because an oil company -- or anyone else -- owns these rights does not mean that the land has minerals under the surface or, if it does, that the minerals (or oil) can be extracted via any currently known method that would be economically feasible. Some areas that would or could be productive are being blocked by national and/or local political concerns and significant threats of legal action.

So what are the oil companies supposed to do? Drill exploratory wells willynilly across the country, including in heavily populated areas, at a cost of millions of dollars per dry hole? How many would be enough -- until the oil companies faced bankruptcy or left the U.S., or just until "not in my back yard" took on a literal and personal meaning for many individuals and families?

The entire "milliions of acres of land" argument is bullsh*t that has no relationship to finding more oil and gas. If I were Obama, I would fire the speechwriter who put those words into his mouth.



Note: I do not claim to be an expert on the petroleum industry. As the daughter of a petroleum engineer, however, I grew up learning -- whether I wanted to hear it or not -- about salt domes, shale formations, and dry holes, and the fact that oil leases usually don't mean diddley-squat to anybody except the lucky people who get a little bit of extra income out of the deal.

[earendel]

Darn it, I thought somebody else would have responded to this by now, so I wouldn't have to.

So until Big Oil uncaps all of their oil wells on the 60 million acres of land that they already have....

I keep hearing variations of this statement -- from candidate Barack Obama (D-Illinois), U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-New Hampshire), U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pennsylvania), U.S. Rep. Hilda Solis (D-California), NellyLunatic (D-WWTBAM Bored), and dozens of additional names I could Google up, but would rather not. From Nelly, it signifies that he's heard it often enough to believe that it's meaningful. From elected politicians who have staff members and speechwriters to research important issues, it signifies either a profound misunderstanding of the facts of oil leasing and drilling or an intentional effort to mislead a gullible public. (P.T. Barnum: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." In this case, I would prefer to substitute "information" for "intelligence.")

Oil companies don't ordinarily (except under very rare circumstances) own the land itself. They own long-term leases to mineral rights for land. Leases for mineral rights are purchased in large expanses, and much of the leasing took place decades ago. Because an oil company -- or anyone else -- owns these rights does not mean that the land has minerals under the surface or, if it does, that the minerals (or oil) can be extracted via any currently known method that would be economically feasible. Some areas that would or could be productive are being blocked by national and/or local political concerns and significant threats of legal action.

So what are the oil companies supposed to do? Drill exploratory wells willynilly across the country, including in heavily populated areas, at a cost of millions of dollars per dry hole? How many would be enough -- until the oil companies faced bankruptcy or left the U.S., or just until "not in my back yard" took on a literal and personal meaning for many individuals and families?

The entire "milliions of acres of land" argument is bullsh*t that has no relationship to finding more oil and gas. If I were Obama, I would fire the speechwriter who put those words into his mouth.



Note: I do not claim to be an expert on the petroleum industry. As the daughter of a petroleum engineer, however, I grew up learning -- whether I wanted to hear it or not -- about salt domes, shale formations, and dry holes, and the fact that oil leases usually don't mean diddley-squat to anybody except the lucky people who get a little bit of extra income out of the deal.

Drilling offshore has the same risks as drilling on already-leased land, so those who claim that oil companies should drill where they already have leases are not off base with their statements.

[wbtravis007]

I'm hoping that one of you Mr. or Miss Know-It-Alls can shed some light on something I've been wondering about but haven't heard discussed specifically.

Let me mention first that I don't have a dog in this hunt, so I really am just trying to get educated.

I've heard some of the proponents of lifting the Federal ban on off-shore drilling say that they would be in favor of "leaving it up to the states." I'm under the impression from something I heard or read that California (and perhaps others) would not be likely to permit it. If that's true, say, in the case of California, would anything change for it if the ban were to be lifted?

Two things, specifically, I'm wondering about: 1) What's the diffference, if any, in the territory that California would control without the Federal ban vs. what is covered currently under that ban; and 2) what, if anything, could California do to protect itself if Oregon were to choose to allow offshore drilling?

I figure somebody here will know this.

[silvercamaro]

Drilling offshore has the same risks as drilling on already-leased land, so those who claim that oil companies should drill where they already have leases are not off base with their statements.

I'm sorry, but I must be missing something. I don't understand what you're saying. Do you want more off-shore rigs?

[BackInTex]

Drilling offshore has the same risks as drilling on already-leased land, so those who claim that oil companies should drill where they already have leases are not off base with their statements.

I'm sorry, but I must be missing something. I don't understand what you're saying. Do you want more off-shore rigs?

What he is saying is that the risk of a dry-hole is the same on leases land as it is offshore. Not exactly true.

Much of the leased land not currenlty being drilled has already have much sesimic analyis done that provides a probability of success (and conversely a dry hole).

Much of the offshore unleased land has also been 'evaluated' and is much more likely to be a successful field.


Sort of like saying the oil companies have 64 leases, '0' and '00' on 32 separate roulette wheels already. Why do they need 36 new leases, 1 through 36 on another roulette wheel?

[earendel]

Drilling offshore has the same risks as drilling on already-leased land, so those who claim that oil companies should drill where they already have leases are not off base with their statements.

I'm sorry, but I must be missing something. I don't understand what you're saying. Do you want more off-shore rigs?

I'm saying that drilling is drilling and the risks are the same (vis-a-vis dry holes, etc.) no matter where the drilling takes place. My personal thought is that oil companies should be encouraged to drill more on the lands they already have under lease (and by "encouraged" I mean, given incentives/tax breaks/etc.) but I also think that there are places in the Outer Continental Shelf that could be explored for oil and drilled with minimum harm to the environment.

[silverscreenselect]

Oil companies don't ordinarily (except under very rare circumstances) own the land itself. They own long-term leases to mineral rights for land. Leases for mineral rights are purchased in large expanses, and much of the leasing took place decades ago. Because an oil company -- or anyone else -- owns these rights does not mean that the land has minerals under the surface or, if it does, that the minerals (or oil) can be extracted via any currently known method that would be economically feasible. Some areas that would or could be productive are being blocked by national and/or local political concerns and significant threats of legal action.

I'll grant you that if oil companies thought there was a sufficient probability of making a profit by drilling on existing land, they probably would do so. However, the fact that the current lease holders do not want to drill on their land doesn't mean that others might not want to. If the oil companies want to pick up new options on offshore oil or other land that is currently off limits, they should be willing to give up their leases and see if someone else is willing to roll the dice. Lots of our most profitable oil was discovered a century ago by people willing to take a chance, and in this environment, you'd be likely to see others try their luck as well.

[Jeemie]

Oil companies don't ordinarily (except under very rare circumstances) own the land itself. They own long-term leases to mineral rights for land. Leases for mineral rights are purchased in large expanses, and much of the leasing took place decades ago. Because an oil company -- or anyone else -- owns these rights does not mean that the land has minerals under the surface or, if it does, that the minerals (or oil) can be extracted via any currently known method that would be economically feasible. Some areas that would or could be productive are being blocked by national and/or local political concerns and significant threats of legal action.

I'll grant you that if oil companies thought there was a sufficient probability of making a profit by drilling on existing land, they probably would do so. However, the fact that the current lease holders do not want to drill on their land doesn't mean that others might not want to. If the oil companies want to pick up new options on offshore oil or other land that is currently off limits, they should be willing to give up their leases and see if someone else is willing to roll the dice. Lots of our most profitable oil was discovered a century ago by people willing to take a chance, and in this environment, you'd be likely to see others try their luck as well.

If I'm not mistaken, their rights expire after a certain amount of time if no productive wells are drilled.

And this has become politicized so badly that no one truly knows what the oil companies' plans are for those "68 million undrilled acres".

[silvercamaro]

I'm saying that drilling is drilling and the risks are the same (vis-a-vis dry holes, etc.) no matter where the drilling takes place. My personal thought is that oil companies should be encouraged to drill more on the lands they already have under lease (and by "encouraged" I mean, given incentives/tax breaks/etc.) but I also think that there are places in the Outer Continental Shelf that could be explored for oil and drilled with minimum harm to the environment.

Okay, thanks. The risks are not quite the same. If the average price of drilling an oil well on land is $2.5 million, the cost for an off-shore well is many times that amount. Not only is it necessary to build a multi-million-dollar platform from which to drill, but the crew must be transported to the platform (usually by helicopter), stay on site 24-hours a day, and paid accordingly. Furthermore, petroleum deposits are usually 500-1,000 feet deeper under the ocean floor than under solid land, which further adds to drilling costs. (I've seen the depth figured at $500 per foot and $200,000 per day, but I can't find any exact figures or estimates.)

I agree with you that there are places in the ocean where drilling likely would cause minimal damage. On the other hand, there are places on land where drilling inflicts very little environmental damage, other than the immediate well site, which may be less "damaged" than "unsightly."

[Bob Juch]

I talked about this idea in this forum before:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/in ... 46498.html

It's interesting that the idea seems to be gaining momentum now. Yes, it's dangerous, and capital-intensive, but at least it's not completely unfeasible under current technologies (like oil shale and nuclear fusion).

I could see the main problem being what having massive solar farms s a power generating source would be- they would make interesting military targets.

Not nearly as interesting as nuclear plants!

[mrkelley23]

I talked about this idea in this forum before:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/in ... 46498.html

It's interesting that the idea seems to be gaining momentum now. Yes, it's dangerous, and capital-intensive, but at least it's not completely unfeasible under current technologies (like oil shale and nuclear fusion).

I could see the main problem being what having massive solar farms s a power generating source would be- they would make interesting military targets.

As Bob said, I think nuclear generators would make much more inviting targets, especially with the possibility of auxiliary damage by release of contaminated material. But one could avoid this problem entirely by having the "farms" be smaller and widely distributed, so that taking out any one of them would not be more than an inconvenience.

[silvercamaro]

I'll grant you that if oil companies thought there was a sufficient probability of making a profit by drilling on existing land, they probably would do so. However, the fact that the current lease holders do not want to drill on their land doesn't mean that others might not want to. If the oil companies want to pick up new options on offshore oil or other land that is currently off limits, they should be willing to give up their leases and see if someone else is willing to roll the dice. Lots of our most profitable oil was discovered a century ago by people willing to take a chance, and in this environment, you'd be likely to see others try their luck as well.

I don't doubt that the oil companies would like to get out from under the financial obligations of 99-year leases on tracts of land that they have concluded are non-starters. I am surprised, however, that you -- a law school graduate, as I recall -- would overthrow the entire concept of contract law to ease the plight of these corporations and give the little guys a chance.

[cindy.wellman]

Darn it, I thought somebody else would have responded to this by now, so I wouldn't have to.

So until Big Oil uncaps all of their oil wells on the 60 million acres of land that they already have....

I keep hearing variations of this statement -- from candidate Barack Obama (D-Illinois), U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-New Hampshire), U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pennsylvania), U.S. Rep. Hilda Solis (D-California), NellyLunatic (D-WWTBAM Bored), and dozens of additional names I could Google up, but would rather not. From Nelly, it signifies that he's heard it often enough to believe that it's meaningful. From elected politicians who have staff members and speechwriters to research important issues, it signifies either a profound misunderstanding of the facts of oil leasing and drilling or an intentional effort to mislead a gullible public. (P.T. Barnum: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." In this case, I would prefer to substitute "information" for "intelligence.")

Oil companies don't ordinarily (except under very rare circumstances) own the land itself. They own long-term leases to mineral rights for land. Leases for mineral rights are purchased in large expanses, and much of the leasing took place decades ago. Because an oil company -- or anyone else -- owns these rights does not mean that the land has minerals under the surface or, if it does, that the minerals (or oil) can be extracted via any currently known method that would be economically feasible. Some areas that would or could be productive are being blocked by national and/or local political concerns and significant threats of legal action.

So what are the oil companies supposed to do? Drill exploratory wells willynilly across the country, including in heavily populated areas, at a cost of millions of dollars per dry hole? How many would be enough -- until the oil companies faced bankruptcy or left the U.S., or just until "not in my back yard" took on a literal and personal meaning for many individuals and families?

The entire "milliions of acres of land" argument is bullsh*t that has no relationship to finding more oil and gas. If I were Obama, I would fire the speechwriter who put those words into his mouth.



Note: I do not claim to be an expert on the petroleum industry. As the daughter of a petroleum engineer, however, I grew up learning -- whether I wanted to hear it or not -- about salt domes, shale formations, and dry holes, and the fact that oil leases usually don't mean diddley-squat to anybody except the lucky people who get a little bit of extra income out of the deal.

NellyLunatic (D-WWTBAM Bored)

Hee hee

[Jeemie]

It's also a myth the the GOP's sole agenda is more drilling.

The bill they were trying to get an up-and-down vote on was a package hammered out with a few Democratic representatives and contained incentives for energy efficiency and alternatives research.

Now, I haven't seen the entire bill, and in the past, the GOP has paid lip service without putting a whole bunch of money into alts research....but alts research is becoming a big business and attracting a lot of investment dollars, so I'm betting this new bill has more money in it.

But the long and short of it is, the bill Pelosi refused to let get voted on had more than just drilling in it.