Paris thanks 'white-haired dude' for McCain ad

[earendel]

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.)

The costs are higher for offshore drilling but the risk of a dry hole is still the same, all other things being equal.

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."

I agree, and that's why I think we should be drilling in both areas - on land and offshore.

[eyégor]

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.

The time has come and past where we should let a few wingnuts do our thinking for us while we hide down the spiderhole. Being a potential target is just another risk that needs to be assessed. It is not, nor should it be, an automatic veto to any project that could improve the general condition.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

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.

Oil Shale in the news

[ToLiveIsToFly]

[Jeemie]

Oh for the love of Pete...

OK...why don't you start by giving up your computer?

Damned waste of electricity.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

Oh for the love of Pete...

OK...why don't you start by giving up your computer?

Damned waste of electricity.

What computer? I get these posts up through the powers of my mind.