Large Scale Central

To all who think I only want to drill for oil

General Discussion
#1

I have no aversion to wind power, I just do not think it is the answer, for the reasons I have stated. It will take a huge infrastructure to back it up, whether it be fossil, nuclear or hydro. The wind only blows 35% of the time, on average, in any one place. Besides, the Greens and the Nimbys won’t allow it to be built. If it can be built where the wind is more reliable, then go for it. I am not sure that “Tornado Alley” is the right place, as has been advocated by some. The cost of replacing the turbines might get to be excessive.

Ditto for solar. Greens and Nimbys are a problem. We can try to ignore them, but as long as they have access to federal judges appointed by Jimmy and Bubba, they will continue to be a problem.

LNG or CNG, whatever the current acronym is, is a viable fuel, too. It has been pointed out to me that LNG and CNG are not the same thing, that LNG is Liquid Natural Gas and CNG is Compressed Natural Gas. OK, but what happens when you compress natural gas enough? It liquifies! QED. :smiley:

Fuel Cells are a viable solution, once the bugs are worked out. The problem is infrastructure. In order for Detroit to build them, the infrastructure has to be in place, In order for the infrastructure to be built, the cars have to be on the road. Additionally, fuel cells emit one of the major greenhouse gasses as exhaust, (water vapor). Catch 22.

Since we haven’t had an energy policy in for ever, the only viable answer is to utilize our coal and oil, while these and other technologies are developed. This fracas in Georgia has shown everyone with half a brain that we will have to depend on ourselves for our energy needs. Depending on others is suicide. The Greens and the Nimbys will have to stand down. Coal can be had right now. Nuclear will take a few years, less if we collectively tell the greens to go pack sand. New oil can start flowing in as little as 1-2 years, not the 10 that some would have us believe. We have the technology and ethics to do all this safely and green. Can you say the same for elsewhere? Nancy is not trying to save the planet when she refuses to have a vote on the subject. She is trying to preserve her power.

The reason I became so vociferous is because it seemed as if everyone was saying we don’t need oil, these new technologies will suffice.

I disagree. Loudly!

Maybe someday we can do without oil and coal, but not today.

PS: Paris Hilton has a more cogent energy policy than anyone I’ve heard yet!

#2
Steve Featherkile said:
.....................

PS: Paris Hilton has a more cogent energy policy than anyone I’ve heard yet!


Yep and she’s blonde. What’s the matter with those dudes?

#3

I heard somewhere that North America (yes, including the Canucks) is sitting on top of 500 years supply of coal.
Those bunny and tree huggers won’t let us open pit mine. That’s the most economical and safest way to mine it.
Right now I’m too old to really give a crap, in the twilight of my years, but if I were in my 20’s and just starting out, I’d say F%$#$% the huggers and lets dig!

#4
Steve Featherkile said:
...Besides, the Greens and the Nimbys won't allow it to be built. If it can be built where the wind is more reliable, then go for it. I am not sure that "Tornado Alley" is the right place, as has been advocated by some. The cost of replacing the turbines might get to be excessive...
Not saying I disagree with anything else you say but if you think "they" won't allow it to be built you need to visit south-western Minnesota. They can't build them fast enough, giant 'pin-wheels' cover the horizon. They are building high tension power lines and sub-stations to carry all the juice.

The Buffalo Ridge in Southwest Minnesota is the best location for wind development in the state and is, at present, home to the largest wind farm in the world.

I can say this…they are not the prettiest things, and so far I have not succeeded in bolting one to the roof of my car! Drill away!

#5

They are building the wind mills all over the Columbia Basin, especially around Vantage, and Ellensburg, Wa. The ridges are covered with them.
Also saw a whole bunch in Oregon while passing thru the northeast side on I-84 last month.
They are equipped with govenors that only allow them to turn a certain rpm, even if winds are 100 mph.

#6

Morning Bell: Unintended Consequences of Wind Energy
Unintended consequences of the federal government’s energy policy are nothing new. Think about ethanol. The United States is now committed to using 9 billion gallons of ethanol in 2008, which will rise to 36 billion by 2022. No one thought it would be responsible for pushing 30 million people into poverty. No one thought of the adverse effects ethanol policy would have on the environment.

Now, Americans are quite literally feeling the unintended consequences of wind energy. While wind is often touted as a green, renewable source of energy, Dr. Nina Pierpont of Malone, N.Y., asserts that wind has its downsides, too. She calls it wind turbine syndrome. According to Pierpont’s medical research:

[L]ow-frequency noise and vibration generated by wind machines can have an effect on the inner ear, triggering headaches; difficulty sleeping; tinnitus, or ringing in the ears; learning and mood disorders; panic attacks; irritability; disruption of equilibrium, concentration and memory; and childhood behavior problems.

Is this a legitimate threat? Maybe. Her message hardly seems politically motivated. In her testimony, Pierpont says she’s an advocate of renewable fuels. Sure enough, as soon as the people drove away from the wind turbines, the symptoms ceased. In fact, eight of the 10 families in Pierpont’s study moved out of their homes. While she doesn’t claim that these effects happen to everyone living near wind turbines, it’s something to consider if the country decides to take on massive wind projects.

These problems aren’t unique to the wind industry; the solar panel industry has had its troubles as well. For instance, Solar Inc., the world’s largest solar company, recently told investors that its largest market, the European Union, may ban its solar panels because they contain toxic cadmium telluride.

But generally, it’s the nuclear industry that’s fending off claims that its energy is harmful to human health. Just a few days ago, actor Alec Baldwin wrote a piece called “The Misperception of Nuclear Power,” claiming that nuclear poses a significant health risk.

He said, “[…] no level of exposure to ambient radiation produced every day at utility sites is healthy for humans, particularly pregnant women and young children.” It’s true that nuclear power plants emit radiation, but there’s a good chance one will intake more radiation from smoking a pack of cigarettes than living near a nuclear power plant. This chart is quite telling of how dangerous a nuclear power plant really is. In truth, the radiation from nuclear power plants is well under the legal safety limits set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and there is no scientific evidence that local populations have been ill-affected from commercial nuclear power plants.

The reality is that all three of these clean sources of energy could have a role to play in America’s energy profile. The central criteria should be that they are safe, affordable and able to compete without any subsidies, mandates or other federal handouts from government.

They all have their upsides and downsides…

#7

Palin’s Gas Pipeline Isn’t Hot Air By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, August 15, 2008 4:20 PM PT Energy: As congressional Democrats dither on a vote for oil drilling, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has pushed through a gas pipeline project to bring new supply and price relief to the lower 48. On Aug. 1, the same day the call for a vote on drilling began on the House floor, the Alaska state Senate approved a package of measures to license a new natural gas pipeline. House Bill 3001 lets Palin award the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act license to TransCanada Alaska, a pipeline builder that cast a winning bid of five. The legislature had been trying for 30 years to authorize something like this and, up until now, had blown it. Palin got it through. Getting it off the ground, the state says, will be the biggest construction project in U.S. history. Palin considers the $26 billion project her biggest accomplishment as governor. “It was not easy,” she told IBD. “Alaska has been hoping and dreaming for a natural gas pipeline for decades. What it took was getting off the dime and creating a competitive market in Alaska.” The 1,715-mile gas line would stretch from Alaska’s North Slope to Fairbanks and down to Alberta, Canada. Then it would take existing gas lines to Idaho. In 10 years, Palin says, the lower 48 states would receive 4.5 million cubic feet of natural gas a day. By 2030, according to Energy Department estimates, Alaska’s annual natgas production would quintuple to 2 trillion cubic feet. Minus a pipeline, Alaska’s abundant gas largely ends up pumped back into the ground to be used to pressurize oil fields and aid in extraction. With oil production in Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay region declining and Congress continuing to drag its feet on new oil drilling, one of the few things Alaska can do is sell some of the gas now. The new supply could bring price relief to anyone who uses home heating, electricity, farm fertilizers or manufactured goods in the U.S. “Not only is this economical for all players involved; it’s wildly needed,” said Palin. The pipeline does spark controversy. Two of Alaska’s biggest three oil producers, BP and ConocoPhillips, think the state is too involved. They are working on a gas line project of their own called Denali. At first glance, it would seem the more gas lines, the merrier. But neither Palin nor BP/ConocoPhillips thinks more than one multibillion dollar gas line will be profitable, based on what’s known of Alaska’s resources. So both sides think the projects may eventually merge. BP/Conoco argues that its gas line will be more efficient, but Palin’s project has something a little different — political viability, something that could smooth the path to production at a time when activist lawsuits and protests gum up production as badly as Congress does. Although a package of state goodies demanded by various constituencies could add costs, it also could be a trade-off to actually getting the project off the ground. Palin justified it this way: "We wanted this in a competitive environment and asked companies what they could offer Alaska. Alaska is going to lay down the law (and) say, ‘If you want to build this line, here is what Alaska must have: protection for the environment, in-state use of resources, jobs for Alaskans.’ " The job isn’t done, but Palin isn’t going on vacation. “We still have so much to do — to break ground, to build,” she said. “We’ll keep ramping up oil production, educating Congress to allow ANWR to be tapped and to prove we can ethically and responsibly drill so Alaska can produce for everyone. Alaska should be the head, not the tail, to the energy solution.” Small wonder, then, that Alaska has one popular governor. If only congressional Democrats could also get off the dime.

(http://www.ibdeditorials.com/images/editimg/issues03081808.gif)

#8

Ken,
This is certainly good news about the natural gas pipeline. Imagine that. They are currently pumping the gas back into the ground. Gas that could power our vehicles and heat our homes.
As for the wind blowing 35% of the time…it doesn’t matter. The Dept. of Energy says we can produce 20% of our electricity in the Midwest “wind corridor”. This figure does not include other parts of the country that are also suitable for wind power.
Sure we need to drill for more domestic oil. But it will not be enough to wean us from the Middle East oil. We need to look at all our natural resources and utilize them all.
If we could cut our oil imports by 30-40%, we would probably see oil under $30 a barrel again.
The fuel from food was an enormous mistake. However, we now have the technology to make ethanol from garbage. Unfortunately the first refinery will not be online until 2011.
If we can also utilize algae maybe we can get back to feeding people.
Ralph

#9

“If we can also utilize algae maybe we can get back to feeding people.” - Ralph

Ralph, have you quit eating? Dude, that ain’t healthy. Get a burger or something.

#10

They’re already making ethanol from garbage. Most landfills produce ethanol…and we have plenty of them around.

#11

We’ve had solar panels on the roof for nearly 30 years now, which means we have no water heating bills for more than half the year. The calcium whatever-it-is hasn’t gotten us yet, but I’ll get a sign made warning the neighbours to beware!

Point taken about noisy wind farms. Western Australia is lucky. We have plenty of God-forsaken windy places to erect them, and they’re a useful supplement to coal-generated power.

We can’t do without coal and gas right now. However, we’d better be thinking about alternative energy sources immediately, if not sooner, or we’re not doing our grandkids any favours.

We just had an off-peak meter installed. If we use electricity prior to 7:00 AM or after 9:00 AM, we pay about 1/3 the normal tariff. I reckon we’ll recoup the installation costs in < 3 years, but that’s because we’re early risers.

#12

I’ve been thinking that we need to get AK NG through Canada to the lower 48 for years. Never mentioned it thinking that the environmentalists, nimbys and liberals had strangled, stabbed, garroted, poisoned, drowned, electrocuted, blackjacked, pounded a stake throught its heart and threw it off a moving vehicle.

Thank God Governor Palin has the common sense, guts and drive to persue this.

From the map it looks like it will follow the ALCAN Highway.

Sincerely,

Joe Satnik

#13
Joe Satnik said:
I've been thinking that we need to get AK NG through Canada to the lower 48 for years. Never mentioned it thinking that the environmentalists, nimbys and liberals had strangled, stabbed, garroted, poisoned, drowned, electrocuted, blackjacked, pounded a stake throught its heart and threw it off a moving vehicle.

Thank God Governor Palin has the common sense, guts and drive to persue this.

From the map it looks like it will follow the ALCAN Highway.

Sincerely,

Joe Satnik


That’s OK Joe, we learned a thing or two from yous guys.

There is talk of slapping a 150% transfer toll on any NG coming out of AK - and the market value to be determined by the Canadian NG producers. That will level the playing field in one fell swoop!

Not to mention that any of the construction and maintainance materials will have to be sourced in Canada, at least 66% of crews need to be hired from the native population of the territory affected by the construction.
Remedial actions being carried out to restore the landscape to its original state within 200m left and right of the pipeline. Leaves you with a maintenance corridor of 400m or 1/4mile which will be tightly controlled.

To ensure conformance there will be a refundable deposit of the projected value of transferred NG during a 10year period, due on commencement of construction.

Now there will be no “strangled, stabbed, garroted, poisoned, drowned, electrocuted, blackjacked, pounded a stake” etc. side shows , it will be strictly tightly stipulated rules which will be followed to the “T” with no excuses and/or escapes.

Good thing I’m not in charge of these matters, eh?!? :wink: :slight_smile: :wink: :lol:

#14

HJ,

I never claimed or thought the pipeline, its maintenence or the transfers would be free.

I’m not sure how you would tax something 150% of its market value.

Now coming through the AB pipelines, Cangas, price $1.

Now coming through the AB pipelines, Algas, price $2.50.

“Producers determine the market value.” How can that be? The producers and consumers determine the market value, with some influences by the commodity speculators.

Perhaps there is a lesson in the (skewed) domestic sugar vs. world sugar market prices.

Care to elaborate on the lessons learned?

Joe Satnik

#15
Joe Satnik said:
HJ,

…

Care to elaborate on the lessons learned?

Joe Satnik


The lesson: When dealing with the USA jack the price high, chances are better to get a reasonably fair deal that way. And make absolutely sure that the dispute resolution mechanism is iron clad!

All the Canadians need remember:

Softwood Lumber Agreement

#16

Maybe if we here in the lower 48 have to pay the Canadians that much tax to get our Gas here, maybe should tax all of them coming here for medical treatment and what ever else they come here for! Also, tax the hell out to the BC truckers that drive like deamons! I like about $ 5000.00 a head! I have found that if you need to get to Seattle fast from Portland, just follow a BC trucker, if you can keep up!

HJ, if I were in charge, if would bloody fine - no off-shore drilling - no gas or diesel sales - until they wake up! OH, so you all know, I was there when the “spill” took place, just to give the real story it was a ‘blow out’ around the hole casing that was only 250 feet long due to a bean counter who said that was all that the regulations called for!!! The Petrolium Engineer/ Geologist said 750 feet was required due the nature of the sea bed layers! The bean counter saved few dollars and cost the company and the state (that us) a few millons of dollars, and I’ll bet he kept his job as well!!

Paul

#17
Steve Featherkile said:
I have no aversion to wind power, I just do not think it is the answer, for the reasons I have stated. It will take a huge infrastructure to back it up, whether it be fossil, nuclear or hydro. The wind only blows 35% of the time, on average, in any one place. Besides, the Greens and the Nimbys won't allow it to be built. If it can be built where the wind is more reliable, then go for it. I am not sure that "Tornado Alley" is the right place, as has been advocated by some. The cost of replacing the turbines might get to be excessive.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here Steve. You don't think wind power is the answer, but the reason for not building it is because of the Greens and Nimbys. Does that mean you and the Greens and Nimbys are actually agreeing??
Steve Featherkile said:
Ditto for solar. Greens and Nimbys are a problem.
It seems that the Greens and Nimbys are anything but a problem. They are providing an extremely convenient scapegoat for not doing anything that might interfere with big oil profits.
Steve Featherkile said:
Fuel Cells are a viable solution, once the bugs are worked out. The problem is infrastructure. In order for Detroit to build them, the infrastructure has to be in place, In order for the infrastructure to be built, the cars have to be on the road. Additionally, fuel cells emit one of the major greenhouse gasses as exhaust, (water vapor). Catch 22.
The same could be said of gasoline, as well as CNG, LNG, LPG and propane. Things were pretty limited until the infrastructure came about. But it seemed to develop relatively quickly.

My view, and it is directed at all of us, not just Steve, is that there is a another angle on the energy debate that seems never to be considered in North America. A few questions:
1 - Why does my neighbour drive a 3/4 ton 4x4 to the grocery store to by a litre of milk? The store is 200 metres away.
2 - Why do people here say a Jeep Cherokee is too small?
3 - Why are American buildings so hot in the winter?
4 - Why do office towers leave all their lights on at night?
5 - Why are some billboards lit up with 5kW or more of lights at night.
6 - Why are there trucks driving continuousoly up and down The Strip in Las Veags carrying nothing other than billboards? One was for a “Gentleman’s Club” with the intriguing phone number of 696 9696.
7 - Why would a person pull a full-size pick-up truck behind a motorhome?
8 - Why do people habitually use the hot tap to wash their hands even in summer?
9 - Why have I never seem a Chev Suburban or Ford Behemoth with more than 4 people in it?

Perhaps if we in North America were to realise that our energy gluttony is of our own making, then we might go a long way toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

#18
Ken Brunt said:
They're already making ethanol from garbage. Most landfills produce ethanol...........and we have plenty of them around.
I think what they are doing is methanol.........natural gas. Ralph
#19
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Joe Satnik said:
I've been thinking that we need to get AK NG through Canada to the lower 48 for years. Never mentioned it thinking that the environmentalists, nimbys and liberals had strangled, stabbed, garroted, poisoned, drowned, electrocuted, blackjacked, pounded a stake throught its heart and threw it off a moving vehicle.

Thank God Governor Palin has the common sense, guts and drive to persue this.

From the map it looks like it will follow the ALCAN Highway.

Sincerely,

Joe Satnik


That’s OK Joe, we learned a thing or two from yous guys.

There is talk of slapping a 150% transfer toll on any NG coming out of AK - and the market value to be determined by the Canadian NG producers. That will level the playing field in one fell swoop!

Not to mention that any of the construction and maintainance materials will have to be sourced in Canada, at least 66% of crews need to be hired from the native population of the territory affected by the construction.
Remedial actions being carried out to restore the landscape to its original state within 200m left and right of the pipeline. Leaves you with a maintenance corridor of 400m or 1/4mile which will be tightly controlled.

To ensure conformance there will be a refundable deposit of the projected value of transferred NG during a 10year period, due on commencement of construction.

Now there will be no “strangled, stabbed, garroted, poisoned, drowned, electrocuted, blackjacked, pounded a stake” etc. side shows , it will be strictly tightly stipulated rules which will be followed to the “T” with no excuses and/or escapes.

Good thing I’m not in charge of these matters, eh?!? :wink: :slight_smile: :wink: :lol:


There is talk ?
Maybe I misunderstand NAFTA.
Yes HJ, good thing your not in charge.
We buy much of what Canada produces. Biting the hand that feeds you is not good for business.
Ralph

#20

Ralph,

Funny, funny, funny … never mentioned who did the talking, did I? :lol: :lol:

BTW we gladly sell to the USA, we’d like it even better when it’s fair trade instead of USA fashion “free trade”.