Va's Offshore Drilling

[ebsi2001]

Va wants to commence Offshore Drilling...

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/local/cumberland/story/6923162p-6786489c.html

This is definitely NOT A GOOD IDEA !!!

[LongIslandPiney]

How about mandating all new cars use alternative fuels? And phasing out huge SUVs. What do you need a ton of metal for if you're only using it to go shopping and shuttle the kids around? Perhaps a new "steel credit", give up those big SUVs and get paid for their melt down value.
There should be a moratorium on any drilling. Hydrogen, biodiesel, fuel cells, ethanol...there are so many alternatives to fossil fuel!!

[ebsi2001]

How about mandating all new cars use alternative fuels? And phasing out huge SUVs. What do you need a ton of metal for if you're only using it to go shopping and shuttle the kids around? Perhaps a new "steel credit", give up those big SUVs and get paid for their melt down value.
There should be a moratorium on any drilling. Hydrogen, biodiesel, fuel cells, ethanol...there are so many alternatives to fossil fuel!!

L--IP,

Mandating anything is a two--edged sword: You might NOT like what has been "foisted--off" on you...

HDTV, which was "mandated" by "Bilk" Linten and his trusty sidekick, Al, "I invented the INternat" Gore, is/was totally unnecessary, although the FCC profited from it in a big way. For the "little guy," though it means, as of 17 FEB 2009, when analog TV signals will no longer be sent, he will have to rent a set--top receiver box, buy a new TV or go without... In any case, the user will pay higher cable/Dish rates. Who profits? Not the US worker: TVs haven't been made in the US for years!

Does this "nicompoopery" benefit the environment? No, it's detrimental in many ways!

Yes, it would be nice if all new cars ran on alternative fuels, if those "monster SUVs" would disappear; but such concepts/ideas/mandates are not always practical, and might, in some cases, be a "hardship" on some families in certain regions of the US.

Banning "Monster Trucks," and those jacked--up, pick--ups, stretch limos and "vanity HumVees;" and limiting the horsepower on passenger vehicles might, however, be a starting place...

ebsi

P.S.: An update on Va's quest to drill offshore...

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/top_story/story/6931913p-6795030c.html

[kingofthepines]

let them drill.

[RednekF350]

I am with Kingofthepines.
The USA needs to drill and develop more domestic sources of crude that will decrease our dependency on sand-blasted countries ruled by turban wearing tyrants.
You can talk all you want about alternative fuels but the demand for oil isn't going away in my lifetime or my kids' kids' lifetime.
The alternative fuels will continue to develop and become more accepted over time but that time is a long time.
Scott

[bruset]

HDTV, which was "mandated" by "Bilk" Linten and his trusty sidekick, Al, "I invented the INternat" Gore, is/was totally unnecessary, although the FCC profited from it in a big way. For the "little guy," though it means, as of 17 FEB 2009, when analog TV signals will no longer be sent, he will have to rent a set--top receiver box, buy a new TV or go without... In any case, the user will pay higher cable/Dish rates. Who profits? Not the US worker: TVs haven't been made in the US for years!


Switching to HDTV frees up a bunch of spectrum that can be used for other things - emergency communications, more cell frequencies, etc. Stuff that will ultimately benefit the consumer.

Most people already have a set-top box. Anybody who has digital cable or satellite does.

But yeah, TV's and most consumer electronics aren't made in the US anymore. But HDTV was at least invented here - Zenith came up with the draft specs.

[Badfish740]

The alternative fuels will continue to develop and become more accepted over time but that time is a long time.

Alternative fuels are already here-there just isn't enough will to use them. There's really no research to be done on ethanol or biodiesel-its fuel, it burns in a combustion engine, etc... Brazil has managed to get ethanol production down to a science. The plants that produce the ethanol (from sugarcane) are run by producing electricity from burning the waste stalks and leaves. The heat produces steam to drive turbine/generators that produce more electricity than the plant itself uses.

People talk a lot about the fact that the U.S. hasn't built a new oil refinery in over 30 years. Screw building a new refinery-I'd rather see a state of the art ethanol or biodiesel production facility. There's also coal gasification which can produce diesel fuel, natural gas, etc... This country has more than enough coal reserves that are untapped because straight burning of most types of soft coal isn't allowed anymore.

The fact is that energy lobbies, oil companies, etc...don't want it to happen. You can't blame them, but that just the way it is. You do everything you can to lobby the government to protect your investment. It's also pretty clear that conservatives have successfully painted anyone who supports any energy source that isn't made of dead dinosaurs as a liberal-America-hating-tree-hugging-whathaveyou. God forbid you talk about gas mileage or energy conservation. I remember when Sean Hannity used to tout the fact that SUVs were good for America after 9/11 :rolleyes: why that was I never really figured out.

The argument in Congress is that "alternative fuels are too risky, experimental, blah blah blah." The argument the right makes is that anyone who doesn't like oil is a namby pamby baby who isn't tough enough to drill for it. Bulls---.

[ebsi2001]

Switching to HDTV frees up a bunch of spectrum that can be used for other things - emergency communications, more cell frequencies, etc. Stuff that will ultimately benefit the consumer.

Come-On, Ben, give it a rest! The FCC has already sold, or is actively taking bids on the freed-up bandwidth to the TV Moguls. They are fighting over the "spoils" like the "hyenas" they are...

Will the "consumer" benefit? Not likely. Your "local cable provider" --- in most of S.J. it's the despotic "Comcast Crooks" (look at your cable bill) --- decides what your cable channel line--up will be.

I like to watch the New York parades: Thanksgiving, New Year's Day, St. Patrick's Day and the Steuben Day Parade. Instead, Comcast has us programmed into "Geraldo" or some bald--headed, black, "Bozo," who has a degree in "mouth." We don't watch "Judge Judy" --- or any of the others; not interested in sitcoms, game shows or "contests;" don't speak much Spanish, Esperanto, Swahili, Urdu or Farsi; have too much arthritis to do ballroom dancing; are absolutely not interested in NIN or whomever is making a deafening racket; and aside from baseball or "winter games," we are NOT interested in basketball, football, soccer, ice hooey, athlete's foot or bungee jumping. We've already seen most "new" movies on TV more times than we can count...

As life progresses, our interests change, but the "Comcast Crooks" mandate what they want us to watch (and pay them much, too much) for...

Do we need more cell phone frequencies? NO! We do, however, need an excellent, fibre--optic, land line system, with hook--up possibilities to the Internet and a "cable system provider" that will let us choose what we wish to view (and only pay for what we view); and more people using land lines, NOT cellular services.

Most people already have a set-top box. Anybody who has digital cable or satellite does.

We don't. We were happy to get rid of the old, set--top box, which an older cable provider (no longer in business --- too much "crookery"!) charged us a monthly fee for --- for decades. In retrospect, a new TV would have been cheaper, but the old set worked just fine, it just wasn't "cable ready"... Sound familiar?

"HDTV Ready" means you will have to buy, rent, borrow or steal a set--top box for that new "digital wonder" you've bought, because when the TV stations stop broadcasting analog signals on 17 FEB 2009 (mandated by "law," Colon Powell's son, "Bilk Linton" and his trusty side--kick, Al "I invented the Internet!" Gore), you, too, will need to be able to receive the digital signals...

Anyone I've spoken with has had BIG problems with the "Dish." The signal quality is evidently a problem, contingent on interference from the very changeable weather --- and from "salt build--up" from off--shore breezes. Most people with the "Dish" will not only need a new set--top box, they will require a new "Dish" as well...

As of last week, purportedly, only 30 mio. households in the US had a new "HDTV" TV, whether or not it could actually receive HDTV signals.

But yeah, TV's and most consumer electronics aren't made in the US anymore. But HDTV was at least invented here - Zenith came up with the draft specs.

VCRs and the microwave oven ("Radar Range," for us "old timers") were invented in the US, too... Who made them? The Japanese, of course! They also waged a bitter war over the VCR format. A lot of people got "burnt."

When the US wanted to use a special "coating" (That's "paint," son!) they had developed for use on the inside of the ovens, on the exterior of the "Stealth Bomber," Japan would not let them do so, because it was a "military application."

Guess who makes most of our "chips" (not the potato kind)? We no longer have a viable "heavy industry," most of the steel we use is imported (at "dumping prices"), and we are the only industrialized nation in the "Western World" that does not have a workable, comprehensive, healthcare plan for its citizenry... :bang:

[ebsi2001]

Alternative fuels are already here-there just isn't enough will to use them. There's really no research to be done on ethanol or biodiesel-its fuel, it burns in a combustion engine, etc... Brazil has managed to get ethanol production down to a science. <SNIP>

People talk a lot about the fact that the U.S. hasn't built a new oil refinery in over 30 years. Screw building a new refinery-I'd rather see a state of the art ethanol or biodiesel production facility. There's also coal gasification which can produce diesel fuel, natural gas, etc... This country has more than enough coal reserves that are untapped because straight burning of most types of soft coal isn't allowed anymore. <SNIP>

The argument in Congress is that "alternative fuels are too risky, experimental, blah blah blah." <SNIP> Bulls---.

Right--on, Badfish!

"Big Oil" is "old technology." The world's oil resources are "bottoming out."

S.A., which was supposed to be sitting on a vast, underground, pool of oil, contracted the Bechtel Corp. to build (and "mothball") "turn--key" nuclear power plants (and manufacturing facilities) back in the 80s.

Recently, I read that their supply is not as vast as it was purported to be... I guess they had already "read the handwriting on the wall" in the 80s...

I remember when Sean Hannity used to tout the fact that SUVs were good for America after 9/11 :rolleyes: why that was I never really figured out.

...and "oat bran," and trans--fat margarine is "good" for you, too!:jeffd:

ebsi

[piker56]

Some food for thought:

Ethanol has about 2/3 of the BTU content of gas, so fuel economy is lower. Also, 1 acre of corn (most ethanol in the US is distilled from corn) can produce about 300 gallons of ethanol. We use about 200 billion gallons of gas in the US per year. I didn't do the math, but I think we would probably need to import corn instead of oil in order for ethanol to significantly reduce our oil imports.

[pinelandpaddler]

let them drill.

Right on. I like to sniff gas. Drill away.

[Badfish740]

Ethanol has about 2/3 of the BTU content of gas, so fuel economy is lower.

True, but E85 mixtures do improve mileage.

Also, 1 acre of corn (most ethanol in the US is distilled from corn) can produce about 300 gallons of ethanol. We use about 200 billion gallons of gas in the US per year.

That's why we should pursue switchgrass and sugarcane as sources for ethanol as well as corn. Not to mention the fact that we should up biodiesel production as well as encourage the production of more diesel passenger vehicles.

I didn't do the math, but I think we would probably need to import corn instead of oil in order for ethanol to significantly reduce our oil imports.

Would we really though? Right now we pay farmers hundreds of millions per year in subsidies NOT to grow corn and leave hundreds of thousands of acres fallow. The reasoning behind it all is that if every farmer used every last square inch of land to grown corn (or any other crop for that matter), the price would drop so low that it would be impossible to turn a profit. Also, even though we severely restrict corn production we still enough left over to flood the world market to the point that most nations cannot compete with our prices.

Of course this is overly simplistic, but what if we were to create so much demand for corn, sugarcane, and switchgrass through ethanol production that we could eliminate subsidies? The theory being that demand would always be high enough (not hard to do in a country that is as fuel hungry as this one) to support reasonable prices even at full production rates. The same would apply for biodiesel.

Now, this would not totally satisfy our energy needs, but it would more than likely replace MOST of the foreign oil imports we currently need. I would imagine that any oil we would need beyond the biofuels would come from the places it already does such as Alaska, California, Texas, Oklahoma, The Gulf of Mexico, etc... We could certainly supplement that with imports from friendly nations such as Canada and various locations around the North Sea.

How about THAT as a way to tell OPEC to go screw themselves? I mean, I admit its not as rough and tough as bulldozing ANWR or trying to install a democracy in an Arab nation that clearly doesn't want one, and its not nearly as messy, but hey, I like it. :guinness:

The other side of the coin is that fossil fuels are just easy and familiar-people like that they're used to. Using biofuels isn't much different. It still comes out of a pump and burns in a conventional engine, so I think its viable. One thing I'd like to see more of is use of geothermal heat and cooling as well as solar in homes. I plan to install both in the first home I build. I'd like to be totally off-grid, which probably isn't possible, but it would be close.

Geothermal has gotten to the point where it is affordable and now nearly commonplace in new homes. There's no maintenance and best of all no monthly bill! Solar is the same deal...plus there are a TON of tax incentives out there to offset the installation costs. Not to mention the fact that solar panels made today are much smaller and discrete. If you design your roof accordingly they'll never been seen from the ground. Just think of how much more energy independent we'd be if even HALF the homes in the U.S. were no longer using heating oil or natural gas for heat, and were getting 75% of their electricity from the sun.

Point is you just have to want change, some people don't...

[bruset]

I like to watch the New York parades: Thanksgiving, New Year's Day, St. Patrick's Day and the Steuben Day Parade. Instead, Comcast has us programmed into "Geraldo" or some bald--headed, black, "Bozo," who has a degree in "mouth." We don't watch "Judge Judy" --- or any of the others; not interested in sitcoms, game shows or "contests;" don't speak much Spanish, Esperanto, Swahili, Urdu or Farsi; have too much arthritis to do ballroom dancing; are absolutely not interested in NIN or whomever is making a deafening racket; and aside from baseball or "winter games," we are NOT interested in basketball, football, soccer, ice hooey, athlete's foot or bungee jumping. We've already seen most "new" movies on TV more times than we can count...

So then use OTA high def. I think all new high def sets have a built in tuner. (Mine does and it's 3 years old.) Comcast doesn't determine what content is carried over local channels (who broadcast your parades) anyway. Don't want Comcast? Then you can get satellite or OTA high def. The consumer has plenty of choices.


Do we need more cell phone frequencies? NO! We do, however, need an excellent, fibre--optic, land line system, with hook--up possibilities to the Internet and a "cable system provider" that will let us choose what we wish to view (and only pay for what we view); and more people using land lines, NOT cellular services.

Land lines are awful. It's expensive infrastructure to keep running, not portable, doesn't scale well. As far as fibre - most of the telecom infrastructure has switched over to fibre. It's really only the last mile that's copper, and given that there is plenty of bandwidth capacity over copper to the premises (you can do gigabit over copper) there really is no reason to go fibre to the premises. The only reason why you see Verizon dropping fibre to the premises as opposed to copper is that it's new build stuff, and why not run fibre? It does have the benefit of being more future proof than copper.

We don't. We were happy to get rid of the old, set--top box, which an older cable provider (no longer in business --- too much "crookery"!) charged us a monthly fee for --- for decades. In retrospect, a new TV would have been cheaper, but the old set worked just fine, it just wasn't "cable ready"... Sound familiar?


Well, soon enough you'll have cable card, and you won't need to rent a set top box. As for grandma's 1974 Zenith console, you'll have to get a set top box (which will be heavily subsidized by the gov't) for OTA high def.


Anyone I've spoken with has had BIG problems with the "Dish." The signal quality is evidently a problem, contingent on interference from the very changeable weather --- and from "salt build--up" from off--shore breezes. Most people with the "Dish" will not only need a new set--top box, they will require a new "Dish" as well...


I had Dish Network for 3 years. I switched to Comcast because their high def content was cheaper, and in fact I have two premium channels, two boxes (both PVR's), and high def for what I paid for basic service with Dish Network.

I didn't have any problems with reception, even in the worst of weather. It all depends on how good of a job the installer did.


As of last week, purportedly, only 30 mio. households in the US had a new "HDTV" TV, whether or not it could actually receive HDTV signals.


How many of those people are using OTA for TV reception anyway? Most people have cable or satellite and will be unaffected by the change.

VCRs and the microwave oven ("Radar Range," for us "old timers") were invented in the US, too... Who made them? The Japanese, of course! They also waged a bitter war over the VCR format. A lot of people got "burnt."

I had an Amana Radar Range. Even had wood grain sides.

Blame Sony for the Beta debacle. But up until the mid 90s you could still buy Beta tape, and Beta VCR's. The VHS format won only because Sony tried to be proprietary with their design. What does any of this have to do with HDTV anyway?

Guess who makes most of our "chips" (not the potato kind)? We no longer have a viable "heavy industry," most of the steel we use is imported (at "dumping prices"), and we are the only industrialized nation in the "Western World" that does not have a workable, comprehensive, healthcare plan for its citizenry... :bang:

Korea makes most of our semiconductors. And good luck with that organ transplant in Canada. :)

[piker56]

[quote=Badfish740;28232]True, but E85 mixtures do improve mileage.


Actually the figure I qouted was for E85, it has about 65% of the fuel economy of gasoline. On the plus side it burns much cleaner and is higher in octane.

I tried to post some info earlier about geothermal hvac and photovoltaics systems, as the company I work for has designed systems for both, but I got bumped. There are plusses and minuses for both systems. If you are interested, I'll post some info later.

[ebsi2001]

Right on. I like to sniff gas. Drill away.

OK, then: Take a DEEP breath, and tour Secaucus! :mrgreen:

ebsi

[ebsi2001]

Some food for thought:

Ethanol has about 2/3 of the BTU content of gas, so fuel economy is lower. <SNIP> I think we would probably need to import corn instead of oil... <SNIP> .

One form of alternative energy or another sould NOT be viewed as an "all or nothing" situation. Years ago, while a member of the German Alternative Energy Forum, I proposed that farmers be permitted to grow as many/as much starch--producing crops as they were able. Those crops that made it to market would be used for "foodstuffs." Simarlarly, those crops that were unsuitable for use as foodstuffs, and/ or rotated, "surplus" stores would be mashed and converted into ethanol. The fermentation/conversion would take place on a regional basis, (in the US, primarily in the Midwest); and the farmers would be the primary recipients of the gasohol. The gasohol fuel would be colored, and its primary use would be in farm equipment, which would be manufactured to burn that type of fuel efficiently. Sould an excess of gasohol exist, it would be used to run "official" State and/or county/township vehicles, where possible.

ebsi

[ebsi2001]

let them drill.

Offshore Oil Drilling
Still not the answer
Published: Friday, November 17, 2006

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/opinion/editorials/story/6941383p-6804001c.html

The United States has had a moratorium on new offshore oil and gas drilling for 24 years. And in most, if not all, of those years, supporters of coastal drilling have launched attempts to bypass or end the moratorium.

Which is why you have read this editorial before.

At the moment, the House and Senate are in a standoff. The House has passed a bill that would allow coastal drilling unless a state objects. The measure also would significantly increase the states' shares of the royalties collected by the federal government from offshore wells. The Senate has passed a far more limited bill that would leave the current moratorium mostly in place except for some areas in the Gulf of Mexico.

Meanwhile, the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service is holding hearings on its own plan to drill for oil and gas off Virginia, among other coastal areas, based on the assumption the moratorium will be lifted. Hearings were held this week in Atlantic City.

Last week's elections should make any large-scale changes in offshore drilling unlikely. Incoming House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is opposed to any lifting of the drilling ban. But first, the current Congress must resist any pressure from the oil industry to act on this important issue in the lame-duck session.
The plan to drill off Virginia — which has the support of that state's legislature — highlights the problems with any piecemeal approach to offshore drilling: The proposed lease site is but 75 miles from the tip of Cape May. And as Rep. James Saxton, R-3rd, noted, “The ocean has no boundaries.”

New Jersey's entire congressional delegation is opposed to the plan to drill off Virginia, citing the obvious effects a spill could have on New Jersey's $30-billion-a-year tourism industry. Proponents say the likelihood of any spill is so remote as to be irrelevant.

Yes. And space shuttles do not blow up. Twice.

The risk inherent in offshore drilling is obvious. A single spill could be devastating to New Jersey. But even more importantly, the way to substantively address this nation's dependence on foreign oil is not by incurring a new risk that provides only temporary relief. The long-term approach must involve conservation, better — mandated — fuel efficiency and a strenuous national campaign, akin to the space race, to develop alternative energy sources like wind power.

If only the nation addressed those measures with the same energy and persistence of those who relentlessly pursue more offshore oil and gas drilling ...

[kingofthepines]

yap yap yap yap yap. let em drill

[Badfish740]

yap yap yap yap yap. let em drill

I hear we need a new airport, lets bulldoze the Pines!!! While we're at it, the Grand Canyon would make a damn good reservior, they DO need a lot of water out West. Let somebody else screw up thier coastline. In the '80s you had to wade through syringes and poop to go surfcasting for stripers. I don't want to have to deal with oil slicks now.

[ebsi2001]

I hear we need a new airport, lets bulldoze the Pines!!! While we're at it, the Grand Canyon would make a damn good reservior, they DO need a lot of water out West. Let somebody else screw up thier coastline. In the '80s you had to wade through syringes and poop to go surfcasting for stripers. I don't want to have to deal with oil slicks now.

I guess "kingofthepines" feels he isn't paying enough taxes. When NJs tourism 30 mio. dollar "industry" takes a "hit" from the rampant pollution, I'm sure he'll be the first to step--up to the "plate" and make--up the difference of $ 29,999,999.99! :mrgreen:

ebsi

[kingofthepines]

the only pollution I see is from worry warts and fussbudgets. :)

[pinelandpaddler]

yap yap yap yap yap. let em drill

the only pollution I see is from worry warts and fussbudgets.

Way to take the discussion to the next level. :)

[ebsi2001]

Way to take the discussion to the next level. :)

"Up" :) or "down" :( ??? :mrgreen:

ebsi

[pinelandpaddler]

Nice one, Ebsi. :)

[Badfish740]

I don't get it. We all agree that America needs to become independent of foreign oil, why is it that conservatives will rally for that cause but will only support domestic drilling? The reason is that part of the new ideaology of conservatism is to put your blinders on and pursue your cause with complete and total tunnel vision. Its no different than the Rumsfeld school of thought when it came to Iraq.

Honestly though, what is so awful about paying an American farmer to grow fuel? I thought the Republican party was the party of red-state-down-home-heartland-America? President Bush puts on his cowboy hat and revs up his chainsaw for the TV cameras when he's in Crawford, but I don't see him at Farm Aid.

Once again, in the eyes of a conservative if you're a Democrat and you support any type of energy that doesn't come from underneath the ground, you're "soft." Yep, that's us, just a bunch of pot smoking dreamers...

[BEHR655]

I don't get it. We all agree that America needs to become independent of foreign oil, why is it that conservatives will rally for that cause but will only support domestic drilling?

Maybe it's because if we were to rely solely on corn for fuel we would not be able to afford corn on the cob. :(

Steve

[Badfish740]

I seriously doubt that if we utilized corn, switchgrass, soybeans, and sugarcane along with domestic oil and gasified coal that we'd have to worry about the price of corn on the cob skyrocketing anytime soon. I think the misconception here is that anyone who advocates biofuels also advocates stopping all fossil fuel activities. Not true. I'm not proposing that we tear down every oil rig and use ethanol and biodiesel exclusively. I'd just rather avoid exploration in any new areas.

[pinelandpaddler]

Once again, in the eyes of a conservative if you're a Democrat and you support any type of energy that doesn't come from underneath the ground, you're "soft." Yep, that's us, just a bunch of pot smoking dreamers...

yap yap yap yap yap. Don't you have babies to kill and joints to smoke?

[foofoo]

i herd a radio show years ago that said if they reached an amount per barrel(i think like 60$ a barrel) that oil shale was a viable way to get the fuel. we have a huge supply of that stuff they said. it has reached that amount but i bet if they could do it someone wouldnt be making the same kind of money so i guess we will never see it.

[Badfish740]

Supposedly there is some work being done with the shale sands up in Canada but right now its a net energy problem. It takes more energy to get the oil out of the sands than it produces. In any event if they can make that work, more power to them. I'm not really concerned about preserving tar pits!