usairways_vote_NO
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2002
- Messages
- 1,882
- Reaction score
- 57
PineyBob said:
What about the transport of oil? How do minimize the damage or accidents?
Crude Oil And Its Effect On Us Airways
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
What about the transport of oil? How do minimize the damage or accidents?
jimntx
Veteran
PineyBob said:
It isn't the drilling itself that is the problem--old or new technique. It's the spills that don't get reported and the discharge of waste drilling mud (highly toxic) into local streams or poured out on the ground and then 20 years later "discovered" and the oil company is going to feel so very badly about it, but after all, "the drilling contractor we hired did the dirty deed, and, well, they went out of business 2 years ago, don't you know. Sorry. We promise not to do it again."
That oil that is supposedly off the coast of California and the west coast of Florida would be a lot more accessible and less expensive to produce. After all, deep water drilling is something we've been doing for years. Oh, forgot, no rich Republicans' view will be spoiled by ANWR drilling. What's a few thousand wild animals when weighed against protecting the unspoiled view of the homes above the beach in Santa Barbara or the waterfront homes in Ft. Myers?
Cynical? Moi? How dare you!
usairways_vote_NO
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2002
- Messages
- 1,882
- Reaction score
- 57
Not in my front or back yard
jimntx
Veteran
I beg to differ, UVN. Unless you have given lots and lots of money to the boys in Washington, and I mean recently (how many tables did you sponsor at the Inaugural gala?), they will drill through your living room floor if they need to. It's called eminent domain, and it's invoked anytime pesky little people try to claim silly things like Constitutional rights for themselves or defenseless wild animals. 
:down:
It's called eminent domain, and it's invoked anytime pesky little people try to claim silly things like Constitutional rights for themselves or defenseless wild animals. :down: usairways_vote_NO
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2002
- Messages
- 1,882
- Reaction score
- 57
They can go through my living room but not my yard. 
RowUnderDCA
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 2,123
- Reaction score
- 1
jimntx is going to the top of a very short list of posters I might actually want to meet.
RowUnderDCA said:
Folks:
What really needs to happen is for someone to find
a way to "Wal Mart TM" the energy industry. A large
corporation needs to negotiate lower procurement costs
for bulk oil and refined petroleum products and then re-sell
it at a lower price over an extended period of time.
This would force other energy providers to lower their
prices, thereby creating competition and downward
pressure on prices. Maybe Wal Mart TM could use their
superior negotiating skills to work out a private deal
with the former Soviet Union or another large Middle
Eastern oil producer and bypass OPEC and their
insane policies. They could also use some of their
profits to buy several oil refineries in the U.S. and
produce refined petroleum products more cheaply
than the current scumbags. It would be HUGE if
something like this happened and OPEC and the
big oil companies were brought to their knees.
jimntx
Veteran
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
SpinDoc, tain't gonna happen. No one wants to be the low cost provider of petroleum products. When there are untold riches to be made with very little effort or expense (relative to the profits gained), why would any company want to cut the prices just for the good of society and to be the volume leader?
Look, I worked for Texaco for 16 years. Back in the late 80's when those of us in the industry were moaning that "we might survive if we can just get the price of crude up to $20/bbl", Texaco was the 3rd largest oil company. And to put that in perspective, we were about 1/3 the size of Exxon in revenues which was and is the largest oil company. At that time, Texaco had annual revenues of $34 billion/year.
When they talk in B schools about barriers to entry into a market/industry, one of the major barriers is cost of entry. In today's world, you are not going to get anyone trying to break into the oil business in a big way. The costs are enormous.
The risks are even higher. Remember the Baltimore Canyon exploration off the coast of New Jersey back in the 80's and early 90's? Texaco alone invested something close to a billion dollars in exploration there. Never produced a single barrel of oil IIRC.
Someone (might be you) has been preaching on these boards about we need to build more refineries in this country. Well, if anyone had the money to do it, it would be the existing major oil companies, and none of them is stepping up to the plate. You know why. They are all just cowering in their boardrooms and hoping that the Bush-Cheney-Gonzales "axis of evil" 😛 can find a loophole in the 22nd Amendment so that Bush can be President-for-Life. Maybe that way they will never have to clean up the environmental disasters called their existing refineries.
And, even if someone were willing to spend the millions of dollars necessary to build a refinery. This ain't like Extreme Makeover Home Edition. A new refinery would take years to come on-line--just like the vaunted ANWR production. By then it's going to be too late for some in the airline industry.
By the way, click here
for another view of the ANWR issue. Everyone "thinks" that there is a lot of oil there, but no one knows for sure until the drilling actually starts. If we could be sure what was under a particular piece of real estate, there would never be any dry holes. Ask any oil man what is the percentage of dry holes to productive holes. I have a friend in Houston who is a very successful independent petroleum geologist. I can't tell you how many times over the years he has described the frustration of sitting in a chigger-infested field watching nothing but salt water pour out of a "sure thing" hole in the ground.
I know it's hard, but you and I (and all other Americans) are just going to have to give up our Sherman tank-size SUVs, and learn to live with houses heated to 50 degrees in the winter and cooled down to 80 degrees in the summer, and ride public transportation, or we are always going to have a petroleum products crisis of one type or another. Or, we could just be grateful that we don't have all the above in this paragraph, and ALSO pay the equivalent of $7.00/gal for gas like Europeans do and have done for years.
SpinDoc, tain't gonna happen. No one wants to be the low cost provider of petroleum products. When there are untold riches to be made with very little effort or expense (relative to the profits gained), why would any company want to cut the prices just for the good of society and to be the volume leader?
Look, I worked for Texaco for 16 years. Back in the late 80's when those of us in the industry were moaning that "we might survive if we can just get the price of crude up to $20/bbl", Texaco was the 3rd largest oil company. And to put that in perspective, we were about 1/3 the size of Exxon in revenues which was and is the largest oil company. At that time, Texaco had annual revenues of $34 billion/year.
When they talk in B schools about barriers to entry into a market/industry, one of the major barriers is cost of entry. In today's world, you are not going to get anyone trying to break into the oil business in a big way. The costs are enormous.
The risks are even higher. Remember the Baltimore Canyon exploration off the coast of New Jersey back in the 80's and early 90's? Texaco alone invested something close to a billion dollars in exploration there. Never produced a single barrel of oil IIRC.
Someone (might be you) has been preaching on these boards about we need to build more refineries in this country. Well, if anyone had the money to do it, it would be the existing major oil companies, and none of them is stepping up to the plate. You know why. They are all just cowering in their boardrooms and hoping that the Bush-Cheney-Gonzales "axis of evil" 😛 can find a loophole in the 22nd Amendment so that Bush can be President-for-Life. Maybe that way they will never have to clean up the environmental disasters called their existing refineries.
And, even if someone were willing to spend the millions of dollars necessary to build a refinery. This ain't like Extreme Makeover Home Edition. A new refinery would take years to come on-line--just like the vaunted ANWR production. By then it's going to be too late for some in the airline industry.
By the way, click here
for another view of the ANWR issue. Everyone "thinks" that there is a lot of oil there, but no one knows for sure until the drilling actually starts. If we could be sure what was under a particular piece of real estate, there would never be any dry holes. Ask any oil man what is the percentage of dry holes to productive holes. I have a friend in Houston who is a very successful independent petroleum geologist. I can't tell you how many times over the years he has described the frustration of sitting in a chigger-infested field watching nothing but salt water pour out of a "sure thing" hole in the ground.
I know it's hard, but you and I (and all other Americans) are just going to have to give up our Sherman tank-size SUVs, and learn to live with houses heated to 50 degrees in the winter and cooled down to 80 degrees in the summer, and ride public transportation, or we are always going to have a petroleum products crisis of one type or another. Or, we could just be grateful that we don't have all the above in this paragraph, and ALSO pay the equivalent of $7.00/gal for gas like Europeans do and have done for years.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
The reason why Alaska is much more attractive is because Alaskans would get a cut of what is produced. No one in California or the Gulf (exc. for oil co. stockholders) will get anything no matter how much oil exists there.
jimntx
Veteran
Well the "free marketeers" (aka Bush-Cheney supporters) should object strenously to that. After all, that is obviously making Alaskans parasites dependent upon government largesse. (You do know that the North Slope money goes to the Alaska state government first, don't you? The state government is the one dividing up the profits, not the oil companies.)
Why should we be preaching individual responsibility for ALL Americans vis-a-vis their retirement and giving just Alaskans a government handout at the same time?
And, if the oil companies have to bear all the risk for cost of drilling in the ANWR, then under our capitalist system, they and their stockholders should get every dime of the profits. How dare those Alaskans store our oil under their wildlife refuge!
Why should we be preaching individual responsibility for ALL Americans vis-a-vis their retirement and giving just Alaskans a government handout at the same time?
And, if the oil companies have to bear all the risk for cost of drilling in the ANWR, then under our capitalist system, they and their stockholders should get every dime of the profits. How dare those Alaskans store our oil under their wildlife refuge!
jimntx
Veteran
Well, it looks possible that we are off to another record week...
At 0931 ET, oil up $0.17 at $56.89/bbl.
At 0931 ET, oil up $0.17 at $56.89/bbl.
ahh that makes me feel so much better......... :down:
AND WHY DO THE EURO'S PAY SO MUCH FOR GAS??
because they don't have the underground distribution network USA does..... THEY TRUCK IT... so i guess we should pay the same price as them,eh?? :down:
jimntx
Veteran
delldude said:
Hey, DUDE. The Europeans pay a lot for gas because their governments are determined that the citizens will conserve. Taxes are high on both automobiles and the fuel to operate them. Use of public transportation and fuel-efficient cars are encouraged.
Until oil was discovered in the North Sea, Europe had to import every drop of oil they consumed. It has always been expensive in Europe. Unlike politicians in the U.S. who only look to the next election and are not willing to make the politically hard decisions, the Europeans know that the North Sea fields will not last forever. They understand that at some point in the future, the majority of crude oil supplies will have to be imported once again.
There is no real long-term solution to the U.S. dependence on imported oil other than conservation and a drastic change to our lifestyles in the U.S.
Yes, we could build more refineries, but where. No one wants one in their backyard. The public is getting hip to those nervous-making little statistics, such as Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange region (aka the Golden Triangle) in Texas has the highest concentration of petrochemical plants and refineries in the world. Same region also has the highest per capita rate of cancer in the U.S. Coincidence, you say? Ok, then you won't mind if a refinery is built next to your house for your children and grandchildren to breath in the fumes everyday for years on end. And, don't think that the fumes can be totally contained. Well, they can, but then the cost of operating the refinery would make the finished product unaffordable.
Yes, there is a LOT of oil still under the ground in the U.S. Most of it is unrecoverable. Profligate pumping and refining when underground pressure was high has prematurely terminated a number of fields. If there was a way to recover that oil at a reasonable cost (i.e., less than importation), it would be done. The oil companies have tried any number of technologies--steam injection, re-insertion of salt water, etc--to restore some depleted fields. None, so far, have produced enough oil to make it a paying operation on a large scale.
P.S. Transportation of crude is not an issue in Europe. The Europeans put the refineries as close to the North Sea fields as possible to minimize the amount of pipeline that had to be laid.
Transportation of refined product is not that big a piece of the cost in Europe or the U.S. Particularly in Europe. Remember, all of Great Britain is about the size of the state of Alabama. Relative to the size of the U.S., none of the other EU countries is much bigger.
NeedForSpeed
Senior
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2005
- Messages
- 339
- Reaction score
- 0
OH, those DOGGONE Republicans!! They are SOOOO mean, aren't they! :down: :down:jimntx said:That oil that is supposedly off the coast of California and the west coast of Florida would be a lot more accessible and less expensive to produce. After all, deep water drilling is something we've been doing for years. Oh, forgot, no rich Republicans' view will be spoiled by ANWR drilling. What's a few thousand wild animals when weighed against protecting the unspoiled view of the homes above the beach in Santa Barbara or the waterfront homes in Ft. Myers?
Cynical? Moi? How dare you!
[post="256987"][/post]
If you live in Florida, as I do, you would know that the PROPOSED drilling in the Gulf is more than 100 miles offshore from any coastline. Hardly close enough to obscure the "view" of rich Republicans'. Nice try, but again, IF you lived here, you would also know that from Naples, north through Tampa, there are more millionaire DEMORATS living in those seaside mansions, destroying ecologically sensitive beach areas, not to mention the WILDLIFE!!. Along with their mansions, they build huge pools that put a strain on the already tight water supply that is always a problem in Florida. Now you can worry about the thousands of wild animals in Alaska, and blame it all on the Republicans all you want, But, your a hypocrit, tree hugger, and DUMBORAT who should get your facts straight.
jimntx
Veteran
And, you're telling me that all those rich Democrats elected Shrub's baby brother governor? And, it is Jeb himself who has been working to prevent the Florida off-shore drilling. Last I heard, he is rich, but not a Democrat.
Oh, the offshore drilling blocks that Jeb has seen to it have a leasing moratorium on them, are within sight of the beaches. You get your facts straight. Do you think I don't stay in contact with friends in the oil business? Even as they shovel money to big brother, they are all puzzled by the hypocrisy of the Bush brothers. Drilling off Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama is ok. Drilling off Florida is not. Why?
Oh, the offshore drilling blocks that Jeb has seen to it have a leasing moratorium on them, are within sight of the beaches. You get your facts straight. Do you think I don't stay in contact with friends in the oil business? Even as they shovel money to big brother, they are all puzzled by the hypocrisy of the Bush brothers. Drilling off Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama is ok. Drilling off Florida is not. Why?
