Gulf Oil Spill 2010

[bronconick]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

BP now admitted the topfill failed and the next plan to take 4-7 days is to cut the damaged pipe with robot subs and replace the top with a "containment valve"

 

[Priceless]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

Exxon Valdez occurred in a "relatively" contained area, and out of sight of the voting masses.

BP's Gulf disaster happened in wide open ocean, and might just wipe out much of the Gulf ecosystem before this is done. It's also highly visible.

I remember how Three Mile Island changed the debate.

This will, also.

I'm an environmentalist but I'm also a realist. Sadly, our society demands energy - preferably cheap. Oil provides that energy. "Clean" coal doesn't exist and alternatives are too expensive and won't meet our needs. Much like the federal government will spend itself into oblivion because, while we complain about spending we defeat any politician who dares consider touching Social Security or Defense, we will complain about finding new energy sources but continue to use the few we have until they are gone. Conservation is a dirty word and we'll never voluntarily change our lifestyles.

The question really is will the economy fail or will we run out of oil first? The answer is that they are tied together, and each day we put off doing anything about it, the closer we come to doomsday. What we're counting on is some scientist will discover some magical energy source and solve both problems. I wouldn't bet on that.

Oh, I'm also a pessimist.

 

[Patman]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

I remember how Three Mile Island changed the debate.

This will, also.

But will it do it for the better?

In light of "energy dependence" one would say that the lessons "learned" at Three Mile Island is hindering out current state of energy production in the United States.

edit: now I don't hold the same anticipation for this case. I will say that oil will be needed at some level and that we can't just abandoned it.... I've also heard that the reason they drill this far out is because of regulations that limit them to be that far away... but I don't know how much that is true.

Unfortunately, i don't see this as the great moment where we finally have an open discussion on the issue but rather it'll be another round of opportunistic demagoguery.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

Oh, I'm also a pessimist.

You're also a glutton.

 

[Farce Poobah]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

But will it do it for the better?

In light of "energy dependence" one would say that the lessons "learned" at Three Mile Island is hindering out current state of energy production in the United States.

edit: now I don't hold the same anticipation for this case. I will say that oil will be needed at some level and that we can't just abandoned it.... I've also heard that the reason they drill this far out is because of regulations that limit them to be that far away... but I don't know how much that is true.

Unfortunately, i don't see this as the great moment where we finally have an open discussion on the issue but rather it'll be another round of opportunistic demagoguery.

My crystal ball isn't that good, to say whether it will be for the better or not.

Just like TMI led to a lot of opportunistic demagoguery and led to more use of greenhouse gas producing fossil fuels, this may be what shifts the debate in favor of things like higher taxes on energy usage. (Which I would favor, provided it was combined with provisions to prevent regressive impacts.)

Given the current political leadership, we're likely to see policies governed by the heavy hand of Central Policy Planning.

Maybe oil at $200 a barrel will be enough to change behaviors...

 

[Patman]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

Maybe oil at $200 a barrel will be enough to change behaviors...

Then you and the rest of the "force $200 a barrel oil" crowd can go some place dark and cold. You aren't interrupting MY future for YOUR self-righteousness.

edit: why is it you guys see the solution as "$500 oil" and not "40 nuclear power plants"? To me it throws us right back into the whole issue i mentioned a few posts back on the omnipotence of government... you guys, ignorantly, believe that some solution will come from this forcing. I find this idea to be grotesquely stupid and in it you will cause a lot of consternation and unrest. You do not even comprehend the level of disruption you will cause in doing it... all you know is that some how it intrinsically morally right. To be honest, what I'd prefer to say is unfit for print.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

Then you and the rest of the "force $200 a barrel oil" crowd can go some place dark and cold. You aren't interrupting MY future for YOUR self-righteousness.

edit: why is it you guys see the solution as "$500 oil" and not "40 nuclear power plants"? To me it throws us right back into the whole issue i mentioned a few posts back on the omnipotence of government... you guys, ignorantly, believe that some solution will come from this forcing. I find this idea to be grotesquely stupid and in it you will cause a lot of consternation and unrest. You do not even comprehend the level of disruption you will cause in doing it... all you know is that some how it intrinsically morally right. To be honest, what I'd prefer to say is unfit for print.

Easy, killer - Farce Poobah said nothing about artificially manipulating the prices to force oil to $200/barrel. He just as easily could have been referring to the point in time when natural supply & pushes it there (and they will someday in the not terribly distant future).

 

[Farce Poobah]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

Easy, killer - Farce Poobah said nothing about artificially manipulating the prices to force oil to $200/barrel. He just as easily could have been referring to the point in time when natural supply & pushes it there (and they will someday in the not terribly distant future).

Thanks for clarifying my point.

I'll try again... The ecosystem in the Gulf of Mexico is about to experience dramatic change, in a very visible fashion. That will change attitudes about offshore drilling in the Gulf. Which in turn will change policy - not just in the US but globally - in ways that I can't predict. Which in turn tips the supply-demand balance towards $200 a barrel oil, sooner rather than later.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

Then you and the rest of the "force $200 a barrel oil" crowd can go some place dark and cold. You aren't interrupting MY future for YOUR self-righteousness.

edit: why is it you guys see the solution as "$500 oil" and not "40 nuclear power plants"? To me it throws us right back into the whole issue i mentioned a few posts back on the omnipotence of government... you guys, ignorantly, believe that some solution will come from this forcing. I find this idea to be grotesquely stupid and in it you will cause a lot of consternation and unrest. You do not even comprehend the level of disruption you will cause in doing it... all you know is that some how it intrinsically morally right. To be honest, what I'd prefer to say is unfit for print.

What I find funny is how Nevadans won't let us store some nuclear waste in a mountain in their state but it's ok with everyone that we completely destroy the Gulf of Mexico. After all, we need energy.

Amazing.

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

The question really is will the economy fail or will we run out of oil first? The answer is that they are tied together, and each day we put off doing anything about it, the closer we come to doomsday. What we're counting on is some scientist will discover some magical energy source and solve both problems. I wouldn't bet on that.

Oh, I'm also a pessimist.

We won't run out of oil, but if we did we would have to find something comparable to oil just to maintain our infrastructure and way of life. I don't see anyone here giving up anything that oil has given us; roads, cars, planes, buildings, or even the internet(s). Its easy to come here and say that oil companies are the bad guy, but last time I checked we are still guzzling oil at an alarming rate and that number is increasing every year. The demand fosters the efforts to supply our needs.

There will be no magic bullet to solve this. Oil is energy dense and relatively easy to get. Corn ethanol can't work on large scale, and you can run aviation/diesel engines on coal...not to mention coal is dirty as hell. The closest thing I can see is to look to where oil comes from; million year old algae. As someone who is working on just that, I can attest that the cost per barrel of such a substance is significantly more expensive at the present. Moreover , no proof on a large scale has been established to reliably produce the product. The good news is that testing has shown that "drop in" fuels derived from the organism perform as well as regular oil, so maybe just maybe there is a future outside of drilling.

Imagine if we could produce all oil for domestic transportation needs...

 

[blockski]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

Wel, many of us would aruge that we waste a great deal of oil. Changing our land use and transportation patterns would go a long way towards reducing that oil use and wouldn't reduce anyone's 'quality of life.'

As noted above, those changes will happen sooner or later with market forces punishing oil-dependent places when prices hit $200 per barrel.

Oil is far too valuable of a resource to use for, say, cars - where there are perfectly viable alternative energy options (do you really need a range of more than 40 miles when the vast, vast majority of trips are far less than that?) as well as conservation options (I ride trains, walk, and bike everywhere. That's because I live in a city with nice non-auto infrastructure - others can do the same). Oil's energy density really should be used for the modes that absolutely need it, like aviation.

The bottom line is that the easy oil is gone. The remaining oil will always be there, but it won't be cheap to extract. And it's not just a matter of cost, environmental costs like this spill are exactly the kinds of added costs we'll face.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

I'm waiting for some drunkn presenter on a nationally televised awards show to claim the president doesn't like rednecks!

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

do you really need a range of more than 40 miles when the vast, vast majority of trips are far less than that?

Yes. I do. Seriously. I drive 35 miles to work each day (I'm one of three people with 30+ mile commutes that I know of in our small company). I need at least 100 miles of gas to ensure I don't run out if say, I need to run an errand. Unless of course, I stop at a gas station. 40 miles is a tether that no one in fly-over country would put up with. Besides, what are we going to pull our boats with?

Second, what happens when an entire time zone gets home from work and plugs their car in? Bam, down goes the grid. To have electric cars for the masses, it's going to take an upgrade of monumental proportions.

 

[thebrain]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

Yes. I do. Seriously. I drive 35 miles to work each day (I'm one of three people with 30+ mile commutes that I know of in our small company). I need at least 100 miles of gas to ensure I don't run out if say, I need to run an errand. Unless of course, I stop at a gas station. 40 miles is a tether that no one in fly-over country would put up with. Besides, what are we going to pull our boats with?

Second, what happens when an entire time zone gets home from work and plugs their car in? Bam, down goes the grid. To have electric cars for the masses, it's going to take an upgrade of monumental proportions.

Remember he's in D.C. now so he doesn't get the rest of us....

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

To have electric cars for the masses, it's going to take lifestyle changes of monumental proportions.

FYP. Of course, lifestyle change is the third rail of energy and transportation policy. You'd have a better chance of getting Texans to quit watching football than you would convincing them that they don't actually need to commute 40 miles in an F-250, and that this represents a choice.

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

Yes. I do. Seriously. I drive 35 miles to work each day (I'm one of three people with 30+ mile commutes that I know of in our small company). I need at least 100 miles of gas to ensure I don't run out if say, I need to run an errand. Unless of course, I stop at a gas station. 40 miles is a tether that no one in fly-over country would put up with. Besides, what are we going to pull our boats with?

Second, what happens when an entire time zone gets home from work and plugs their car in? Bam, down goes the grid. To have electric cars for the masses, it's going to take an upgrade of monumental proportions.

I think the hybrid technologies are the future for cars, not pure electric. Not only for the reasons you mentioned, but also for the fact that battaries suck. The battary weight is 33% of the weight of the vehicle in the Tesla. Also, who wants to pay a 100k pricetag for something that will have hours of downtime in between charges?

If you are fortunate enough to live in an area where you can talk and exploit public transit..nice! But Oil is used for more than just that. Aviation and freight require the high energy density of oil in order to work, so we could never run a plane on a battary. You want your food to get into the city? you better hope some Diesel engine working hard to get that food too you, otherwise you'll get very hungary very quickly. Blockski needs to look beyond simple pedestrian travel considerations and realize that oil is what keeps people in the city from being hungry.

Face it, without oil we would need to invent it to maintain our current ways of life. The departure would not be a choice and would be a very, very painful process for everyone. It would be more painful than this BP oil spill..which is why we shall continue to drill as we have been. We have too!

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

FYP. Of course, lifestyle change is the third rail of energy and transportation policy. You'd have a better chance of getting Texans to quit watching football than you would convincing them that they don't actually need to commute 40 miles in an F-250, and that this represents a choice.

Telling people where they need to live or work? I don't see that working and that's probably not limited to texas. Sometimes it isn't a choice. If I buy a house down in Oakdale, I lose my job in a couple months and the economy doesn't turn around, I get financially raped and I suffer for years.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

Telling people where they need to live or work? I don't see that working and that's probably not limited to texas. Sometimes it isn't a choice. If I buy a house down in Oakdale, I lose my job in a couple months and the economy doesn't turn around, I get financially raped and I suffer for years.

Yeah but you dont have to drive a piece of crap mileage car...like say an F-250 That is what (I think) he was getting at. you may not have a choice where you live or work, but there are choices you can make that will make things easier.

 

[blockski]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

Yes. I do. Seriously. I drive 35 miles to work each day (I'm one of three people with 30+ mile commutes that I know of in our small company). I need at least 100 miles of gas to ensure I don't run out if say, I need to run an errand. Unless of course, I stop at a gas station. 40 miles is a tether that no one in fly-over country would put up with. Besides, what are we going to pull our boats with?

Second, what happens when an entire time zone gets home from work and plugs their car in? Bam, down goes the grid. To have electric cars for the masses, it's going to take an upgrade of monumental proportions.

FYP. Of course, lifestyle change is the third rail of energy and transportation policy. You'd have a better chance of getting Texans to quit watching football than you would convincing them that they don't actually need to commute 40 miles in an F-250, and that this represents a choice.

Exactly. Dxm, you've made a choice for your lifestyle and commute.

The simple reality is that driving and oil use have many costs, most of which have never been directly passed on to drivers. $200 per barrel oil would change that, and I'm sure it would encourage a lot of Americans to re-think the choices they've made on a personal level, and a lot of policy makers to re-think the choices they've made for transportation and infrastructure.

If you are fortunate enough to live in an area where you can talk and exploit public transit..nice! But Oil is used for more than just that. Aviation and freight require the high energy density of oil in order to work, so we could never run a plane on a battary. You want your food to get into the city? you better hope some Diesel engine working hard to get that food too you, otherwise you'll get very hungary very quickly. Blockski needs to look beyond simple pedestrian travel considerations and realize that oil is what keeps people in the city from being hungry.

This kinda misses the point, as oil isn't going to disappear, it will just get very expensive. And what is better overall, a grocery store in the city where patrons walk to and from the store, or one where they drive? The food will still get there. But wouldn't it be better if the Diesel was there for the kinds of trips that actually need it?

Face it, without oil we would need to invent it to maintain our current ways of life. The departure would not be a choice and would be a very, very painful process for everyone. It would be more painful than this BP oil spill..which is why we shall continue to drill as we have been. We have too!

Sure, it would be painful. But maybe not as painful as you think. Nearly 50% of trips in metro areas are less than 3 miles in total distance - 28% are less than 1 mile, yet 65% of those 1-mile-or-less trips are made via automobile.

This is not an efficient use of resources. Some simple retrofitting of the roadways to make walking and biking safe and enjoyable would go a long way to making other modes available for those trips. Likewise, those are low-hanging fruit - trips that can shift to other modes with little pain.

In short, no, we do not have to drill to keep up. Drilling won't matter much anyways, the cost of oil will still rise and those short car trips will still be unsustainable.

Telling people where they need to live or work? I don't see that working and that's probably not limited to texas. Sometimes it isn't a choice. If I buy a house down in Oakdale, I lose my job in a couple months and the economy doesn't turn around, I get financially raped and I suffer for years.

Well, this opens up a whole other set of issues - buying a house is also a choice. It's unfortunate that we hold it as the default in the US, because there are many cases where renting makes much more sense.

Nobody is telling anyone where to live, either. People will vote with their feet - the challenge is recognizing that the options they are picking from isn't some magical free market of housing stock and employment locations - those are the direct result of public policy choices (highway construction, zoning codes, housing finance regulations) over the last 60+ years that have explicitly given us the kind of landscape we have today.

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

This kinda misses the point, as oil isn't going to disappear, it will just get very expensive. And what is better overall, a grocery store in the city where patrons walk to and from the store, or one where they drive? The food will still get there. But wouldn't it be better if the Diesel was there for the kinds of trips that actually need it?

I have not run the numbers or done the research, but who is to say which of the following two situations is more efficient use of oil?

1- Consumers co-located to their produce. However, Diesel power is required to get the food there from decentralized locations.

2- People are required to drive to work, but are co-located ( give or take) much more advantageously than people in the city to their produce.

Either way, Oil products are being consumed. Which is better?? no idea off the top of my head...



Sure, it would be painful. But maybe not as painful as you think. Nearly 50% of trips in metro areas are less than 3 miles in total distance - 28% are less than 1 mile, yet 65% of those 1-mile-or-less trips are made via automobile.

are we talking about on a pedestrian level or an macro economic level? The number i have heard for domestic transportation needs requiring petrol products is 95% of the sector. A departure from oil would mean stuff doesn't move in the U.S.A which would severely mess up the economy.

On Sustainability, ask yourself this: if we were to lose power and roads...how long could you survive. How much food do you have and how could you get it with millions of other starving people nearby? How about access to clear drinking water? I contend that a quick departure from these necessities would not only be painful, it would be fatal for many. Sure you have a commute on foot, but while I drive to town for my work, I could grow all the food I need within walking distance. Despite my commutes, my lifestyle is much more sustainable than yours is presently in DC when you look at it that way.

I'll get off my doomsday soap box