that is what she is getting at though. If there were no environmentalists this would have never happened.
That I agree with. The headlines and excerpts given in some articles indicate to the casual reader that environmentalists actually did something to cause the rig to explode.
i feel the same way about jesse jackson and al sharpton, so i call black folks "*******". edit: dang i got censored. i dropped the n-bomb.
I would agree with that eventually. But I would imagine deep water drilling just got a bit more expensive after this. If given a choice to find oil and keep it cheap, I think on land and shallow water is an obvious choice.
This. LaSalle: Let's look at it from a different perspective: First: Let's say you have 2 different weed hookups, one is around the corner from your house and one is 50 miles away. Both with the same stuff, both people are cool, both sell to you for the same price, and neither delivers.. Which one are you gonna go see first when you run out? The guy around the corner, of course.. It's closer, less driving which means less chance of getting busted, yadda yadda yadda. Next: The block away "Mr. Nice Guy" stops selling because the rest of the neighborhood realized what he's up to and they don't want that "dangerous" element there. As a result, you have to go to the 50 mile away "Mr. Nice Guy" to get hooked up. Then, on your way home you get pulled over and busted... These things can happen... If you're going to sit there and tell me that you wouldn't at least once say to yourself, "Damn, had I still been going just around the corner I probably wouldn't have gotten popped!", I'd say "You lie!!". :wave: Now, I'm not saying that Palin's right, nor would I vote for her if she ran for office. I am however agreeing with The Dude. Given the choice of land/shallow water to deep water drilling the oil companies would go after the shallow water and land stuff first since it's MUCH easier to extract and damage control is much easier when you can get to the well you're trying to cap. They do not have that choice, however. Yeah yeah yeah, I know, you'd never deal with someone that didn't deliver, you grow your own, you never run out, and you'd never live in that type of neighborhood... Did I cover all the bases? :yelwink2:
Prove a negative? No, first you must at least try to prove that Palin is correct if you are going to support her. Good luck with that. Did deep-water drilling start after the ANWR drilling ban? Is there some plan to stop drilling in deep water if the ANWR ban is lifted? Nope. There is simply no connection. Make one if you can. BP has a long history on the north slope and in the Gulf as do the other major oil companies. The people who buy Palin's song and dance are some pretty dim bulbs. You said that " the wacky enviros are having their way on land and not at sea." I asked you for an example and I'm still waiting . . .
That is true but obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with environmentalists. It's a cost/price economic formula. That same formula says that oil is profitable enough at the current price to enable us to go after harder-to-get oil. And with Peak oil coming the companies know that they cannot simply wait until every barrel of shallow oil is gone to start drilling deeper. Nonsense, we are drilling all over the country on land and all throughout the Texas and Louisiana continental shelves in shallow water. We are drilling overseas, too. We have a major wildlife preserve on very sensitive tundra that we restrict drilling on. It's not that it can't be drilled, but that it doesn't have to be drilled right now. It's expensive to drill there and there are problems just as serious as drilling in deep water--like drilling rigs on the Arctic ice cap. Technology is improving so that we can get this oil with a smaller environmental footprint. It doesn't hurt to let it improve some more. We need to be reserving some of this oil for the future, as well. Let the middle east deplete themselves now while the oil is still relatively cheap. In 50 years when it is really expensive, we can still have some domestic reserves for ourselves and not be dependent on a tanker pipeline to the middle east.
I do not have to prove anything to anyone. Also, I have not pledged my support of anyone. You are the one who wanted proof of something. So, you prove something first if you feel it is important. But you won't. And never will. You will wait FOREVER for that example of such from me because you are unworthy of such due to your callous methods of back-handed insults. Now start typing your response about how I can't provide an example because there isn't one. Its what you and others do, day in and day out. For your type, this post of yours is the same daily dance but to a different tune. Shallow and predictable. Rather than focus on an issue and have a productive discussion, you resort to posts such as the one above. There are several posters within this thread that I suggest you take heed of. They're willing to have a discussion without trite responses. 'Have a Nice Day.
Not disputing that, I agree that they will go after it wherever it is but I can tell you with great certainty that they would rather drill where it's easier to get to. My boss was in the oilfields for just about his whole career, and his son is as well. That is not to say they aren't constantly experimenting with deep wells.But shallow water/land extraction makes it faster get it into production, which as we all know translates to money for less effort and cost. Maybe that was a poor choice of words on my part. Yes, the technology is improving. I know of at least one company right now that is experimenting with drilling as far as 45,000 feet down. One of the biggest factors right now is the hardware they use won't stand up to that. For instance, the reinforced instrument cables they send down hole break under their own weight at those lengths, not to mention the harsh environments they have to deal with down there (H2S and whatnot) corrode them after 1-2 uses. These cables cost enormous amounts of money each and don't stand up to the task. The company we're developing for pays roughly $5 a foot for the "armor wire" they use to reinforce the cables, and to make one cable it takes about 150,000 feet. Hell, they have enough trouble making them without breakage, let alone getting use out of them. The problem is, when you make the reinforcement wire at that high of a tensile strength, it gets brittle and loses torsion properties.. So when they strand it to make a cable, it breaks. Also, when they hot-dip it with Zinc for corrosion protection, the tensile strength is lost. If you add more shielding wire, the weight increases causing more breaks... etc. Fortunately for me, this little problem they have in the industry is a source of income for the company I work for, since we're trying to solve this problem for them. That's a whole other thread though. I've said this for a long time. Why use up ours when we can buy theirs? The problem is, it's costing us way too much money, especially with the amount of spending that is occurring present day. We've got enough that we could cut down the amount we buy from the middle east by opening some of our reserves. Also, as the technology continues to improve, they will find ways to get more out of these wells and even get some back into production that aren't right now.. There's a lot more oil in this rock we call a planet than a lot of people would have us think. The problem is, we can't get to a lot of it yet. Just my .02 of course. :thumb:
