[Ludi]

I've been a petroleum geologist for almost 30 yrs. Ludi, what are you doing?

Not much. Gardening, posting a bit here at PO.com.

Am I getting in the way of your drilling?

[Ludi]

Message to Snik from my husband:



"I'm f**cking sick of the oilman's sense of entitlement to other people's land."




So I guess he might be getting in the way of your drilling.

[Homesteader]

All I have to say is JUST GET THE HECK OUT OF OUR WAY!. That's all we are asking.

That is sad and repugnant on so many levels.

[MrBean]

You seem hell bent to discredit me and don't even know what I am about.

You don't make a distinction between your self and "whay you are about" and some of the ideas you believe in and speak about?

I don't feel any need to discredit you as "you" - I like you as "you", goddammit, why else would I even bother! I just think that there is plenty of room for criticism in some of the ideas you spread, as well as in the style.

Reducing the existing population is not an attempt to avoid a die-off by other means.

The whole goal is to try and reduce the decimation that a die-off has upon the carrying capacity.

I understand that goal wich you have stated clearly enough. What I'm saying and now repeat is that ist it's still just a numbers game, trying to beat nature - without any real knowledge how benign or merciless Mama Earth is. Science does not know and has no way of knowing (as any philosopher of science worth his coin can tell you about limits of scientific epistemology), science divides undivisible wholes into two, observer and observed, and by relying on analysis alone looses understanding of undivided wholes and holy.

All I know is that if you treat Mama Earth well - and yourself and thy neighbour too as part of her - she responds kindly, and if you treat her bad, you are just hurting yourself. There is no division, it's a hologram, we are.

The goal of "helping" nature by reducing our numbers (before we can do more damage on numerical scale and so helping also more of our numbers survive) may seem noble at first, but it's not radical enough, it still repeats the assumption that we are somehow above nature, "supernatural", treating nature as object of human subject.
That is what 'civilization' is short for, putting man above nature, reflected in languages of civilizations, so shouldn't we accept the lesson of failure of civilization and learn from it instead of repeating this hubris of 'man above nature' ad nauseam?

[Ludi]

The goal of "helping" nature by reducing our numbers (before we can do more damage on numerical scale and so helping also more of our numbers survive) may seem noble at first, but it's not radical enough, it still repeats the assumption that we are somehow above nature, "supernatural", treating nature as object of human subject.
That is what 'civilization' is short for, putting man above nature, reflected in languages of civilizations, so shouldn't we accept the lesson of failure of civilization and learn from it instead of repeating this hubris of 'man above nature' ad nauseam?

So are you saying, it is putting ourselves above nature to try to limit our numbers through birth control?


Just trying to understand what you're actually saying here....

[MonteQuest]

The goal of "helping" nature by reducing our numbers (before we can do more damage on numerical scale and so helping also more of our numbers survive) may seem noble at first, but it's not radical enough, it still repeats the assumption that we are somehow above nature, "supernatural", treating nature as object of human subject.

So, mankind shouldn't limit his numbers as it is an affront to nature?

[BigTex]

Will drilling alone solve this problem? No. But why would we leave those reserves in the ground? For what purpose? They are doing no one any good underground.

To return to the OP, in reading this thread the post above jumped out at me and I think it warrants a little attention.

It is possible that all of the captured carbon represented in fossil fuel deposits contributed to the earth being habitable for humans in the first place. When all of that carbon is re-deposited in the atmosphere, I wonder if the earth will be as friendly a habitat for humans as it was prior to our discovery of fossil fuels.

To Snik's point about people in the energy business being big, smart and rugged, I wonder if he is referring to the 60 year olds or the 30 year olds? I thought there was a huge shortage of the big and rugged drilling types.

I thought there was also a shortage of drilling equipment due to many years of under-investment in energy infrastructure.

So let's say that the drillers got the green light to do their best (or their worst, as Churchill might say) on the U.S. coasts. Are we talking about a bunch of 60 year olds with rusty rigs out there? Where will the additional infrastructure and expertise come from, since presumably all of the currently available bandwidth is being utilized?

Has anyone been to a Texas beach near offshore rigs? It's amazing to see the things that wash ashore. You definitely want to keep your shoes on.

Maybe, just maybe, our problem is not too little oil but too much consumption.

As Aaron said, the solution to crack addiction is not more crack.

What is the purpose of this proposed drilling? So that we can find ourselves in exactly the same position, except maybe five or ten years farther into our unsustainable lifestyle?

It seems like we have been drilling for oil like crazy for 100 years and it has gotten us to a place we have less oil than ever based upon supply relative to demand. If the plan thus far has created the current conditions, maybe a plan more creative than "let's do the same thing we've always done, just MORE" ought to be developed.

[Ludi]

What is the purpose of this proposed drilling? So that we can find ourselves in exactly the same position, except maybe five or ten years farther into our unsustainable lifestyle?

Snik made that very clear. So we can commute to our jobs affordably.

Back on track here. Whether we're all going to die from a terrible disease, or starve to death or whatever, we'll still want to be able to drive to work over the next few decades without having to mortgage our homes to do it.

[MonteQuest]

It's the same old song. It should be a Member Quote.

We want to focus on short-term, short-sighted, selfish technofix solutions that allows us, (those living right now) to avoid "unpleasant" changes, with no lasting solutions for those generations to follow.

[MonteQuest]

"We wouldn't be having the problems that we're having today in terms of supply if we'd opened up a lot of areas that have been in moratorium.”

Oh yeah?

In 2006, the Interior Department estimated that the Outer Continental Shelf could hold 115.4 billion barrels. However, it also estimated that recoverable reserves off U.S. coasts in areas now banned from production probably hold only about 19 billion barrels.

19 billion barrels is enough to provide about 920 days, or about 2.5 years, of current U.S. consumption of 21 mbpd.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior advisor to McCain’s campaign, acknowledged in a conference call to reporters that new offshore drilling would have no immediate effect on supplies or prices.

[Snik]

Message to Snik from my husband:



"I'm f**cking sick of the oilman's sense of entitlement to other people's land."




So I guess he might be getting in the way of your drilling.

He needs a petroleum exploration 101 course if he thinks there is any "entitlement". Most people who own land and the minerals under it have huge smiles on their faces when they see us coming. That's because they know somebody is going to possibly spend millions of dollars to try to make them rich, and they don't have to spend a penny. That just happened on a well we drilled a few months ago. The landowners first check was about $500,000. That was for one month. He had to spend $0 to get that. The same goes for the American people when oil and gas is produced on federal minerals....they get a significant cut off the top with no outlay.

Entitlement, no. Mutually beneficial relationship, yes.

[Ludi]

He needs a petroleum exploration 101 course if he thinks there is any "entitlement".

Then who are you talking about getting in the way of your drilling? If all these folks want you drilling, why are you demanding folks get the heck out of your way?

You don't make any sense.

[Snik]

He needs a petroleum exploration 101 course if he thinks there is any "entitlement".

Then who are you talking about getting in the way of your drilling? If all these folks want you drilling, why are you demanding folks get the heck out of your way?

You don't make any sense.

I think you've forgotten what the thread is about. The people that are in the way are those that don't want our federal mineral wealth developed because of a misguided fear of environmental catastrophe caused by that development. That wealth is owned by all of the people of the United States, and all of the polls I've seen recently indicate that the majority of people want those minerals developed.

Personally, I couldn't care less. I love high oil prices and would just as soon those areas not be developed. However, I can step outside of my own personal desires, and see what is better for the country. It is my opinion that developing ANWR, offshore, and other off-limits areas is good for the people of this country.

[Ludi]

The people that are in the way are those that don't want our federal mineral wealth developed because of a misguided fear of environmental catastrophe caused by that development.

If you don't feel entitled to drill there, why are you apparently upset that some people don't want you to drill? You seemed pretty upset about it, with the bold allcaps. "Get the heck out of the way" sounds like someone who feels entitled to do something and thinks no one should stand in his way.

[Snik]

Like I said, I couldn't care less. You are misreading the intent of the post. I was simply trying to illustrate the positive "we can do it" attitude that people in this business have. We aren't the type to throw up our hands in surrender simply because a problem is difficult. Quite the opposite. It was meant to say more like "Get out of our way, and we'll show you what we can do". Perhaps I mis phrased it. Read the rest of the post again and see if you don't get a different slant with that in mind. However, if there is some preexisting anger toward oil companies in general (for whatever reason), that probably jaded your, and/or your husbands view of it to begin with.

[seahorse]

snik,

All in good time. You know as well as I that, when PO sets in, really sets in, and people realize that buying hybrids and gardening just won't do the trick, everything will be drilled, every piece of coal that can be mined and converted via CTL will be mined, every nuke plant will be built. Maslow's hierchy of hunger trumps all. People just aren't hungry yet. All in good time.

[Snik]

snik,

All in good time. You know as well as I that, when PO sets in, really sets in, and people realize that buying hybrids and gardening just won't do the trick, everything will be drilled, every piece of coal that can be mined and converted via CTL will be mined, every nuke plant will be built. Maslow's hierchy of hunger trumps all. People just aren't hungry yet. All in good time.

I guess not. Maybe when they pull up to the pump and there is no gasoline at any price it will sink in.

[Snik]

To Snik's point about people in the energy business being big, smart and rugged, I wonder if he is referring to the 60 year olds or the 30 year olds? I thought there was a huge shortage of the big and rugged drilling types.

I thought there was also a shortage of drilling equipment due to many years of under-investment in energy infrastructure.

I believe this is what I said "boldest, most innovative, most technologically advanced". Not sure how you got big, smart, and rugged out of that. Yes, there is a shortage of all of the above. However, bigger reservoirs get higher priority.

So let's say that the drillers got the green light to do their best (or their worst, as Churchill might say) on the U.S. coasts. Are we talking about a bunch of 60 year olds with rusty rigs out there? Where will the additional infrastructure and expertise come from, since presumably all of the currently available bandwidth is being utilized?

There probably will be some 60 yr olds involved, but not rusty rigs.

Has anyone been to a Texas beach near offshore rigs? It's amazing to see the things that wash ashore. You definitely want to keep your shoes on.

Actually I have. Just last weekend I was down at Surfside. I quite often go to Port Aransas, and South Padre. You see a few things now and then just as you do on any beach, and, yes, I've been to the Caribbean, Hawaii, and others so I do have something to compare it to. It's been pretty well documented that the shipping industry is responsible for far more of the pollution in those coastal waters than the drilling platforms. Those are the ships you want more of rather than drilling here.

Maybe, just maybe, our problem is not too little oil but too much consumption.

Need to work on both the supply side and the consumption side. Don't you think working both sides of the equation would get it done faster, rather than just one?

As Aaron said, the solution to crack addiction is not more crack.

Cute, but hardly relevant.

What is the purpose of this proposed drilling? So that we can find ourselves in exactly the same position, except maybe five or ten years farther into our unsustainable lifestyle?

No, our lifestyles still need to change. If others on this site that feel the way you do are correct, this extra supply won't bring back any kind of price structure that will encourage the gluttony of the past anyway.

It seems like we have been drilling for oil like crazy for 100 years and it has gotten us to a place we have less oil than ever based upon supply relative to demand. If the plan thus far has created the current conditions, maybe a plan more creative than "let's do the same thing we've always done, just MORE" ought to be developed.

So, we shouldn't have been drilling for oil all this time? Hmmm....I'm not sure what your lifestyle is like, but if it is anything like most Americans, you have a car, microwave, air conditioned house, TV, obviously a computer, have taken a plane somewhere, gone to a grocery store that has everything you need every time you go, etc., etc. Without oil none of that would exist. Some people on this site believe that would have been better, but here we are. Sure, we need to do a better job of conserving, but to just stop drilling is insane. It's going to be hard enough as it is without compounding the problem by intentionally reducing the supply.

[BigTex]

I'll bet Snik would have made a great Indian fighter.

"Saddle-up boys, it's Injun killin' time. Maybe one day someone can explain to me how those dirty stinkin' redskins got their hands on such sweet and useful land in the first place. They just need to pack up their pottery and tee-pees and GET OUT OF THE WAY. We got some progress to make and some civilization to spread."

For a person who makes their living drilling for oil, I would not expect them to speak ill of it. I don't fault anyone for making a living and for making a good living if they can. But sometimes what's good for a person or for an industry may not be good for us as a species.

The point of natural resources is not necessarily to harvest them and consume them as quickly as possible. This gold rush mentality to drill for oil as fast as we can is probably not the best approach to some of the longer range problems we are facing.

But I would not expect a person who is making a fortune from drilling for oil right now to agree with me. And that just makes the problem of making smart long-term decisions that much more challenging--the profit is very diffused compared to the concentrated profits available right now by extracting oil from certain locations.

The energy industry is not in business to preserve the environment or to ensure the long-term sustainability of the human species on this planet. They are in business to extract fossil fuels from the earth in a profitable manner. Expecting more from them is probably not realistic or useful.

[MonteQuest]

Are you saying that this captured carbon was in the atmosphere previously?

Duh????