Jump to content

President Obama/DeepWater Exploration


Clyde
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was listening to the former CEO of Shell saying that the moratorium put in place as a result of the disaster in the Gulf is going to have a major impact on gas prices both short-term and long-term. I've heard others express similar beliefs.

 

However, the rhetoric doesn't seem to match up with what I read.

 

Who wants to shed some light on my confusion? What's fact and what's either ignorance or politics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Obama administration wants gas prices here to be at European levels within a couple of years.. Just one step to help get them there...

 

What does the administration get out of this? Just curious. Another $71K in campaign contributions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does the administration get out of this? Just curious. Another $71K in campaign contributions?
I've no idea.. I guess it's just to try to wean us off fossil fuels... The higher the price the less we'll buy according to their logic... Stupid I know.. But that's what they said..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Obama administration wants gas prices here to be at European levels within a couple of years.. Just one step to help get them there...

 

How does this moratorium do that?

 

How has this administration changed from President Bush's in regards to exploration? Salazar seems to be an oil guy.

 

Everything I've read makes it seem like nothing has changed as a result of the election YET all I hear is that it has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was listening to the former CEO of Shell saying that the moratorium put in place as a result of the disaster in the Gulf is going to have a major impact on gas prices both short-term and long-term. I've heard others express similar beliefs.

 

However, the rhetoric doesn't seem to match up with what I read.

 

Who wants to shed some light on my confusion? What's fact and what's either ignorance or politics?

 

That may depend on what you're reading? NY Times and the other liberal, dying rags tend to spout the "company line", which is to support the moratorium, saying it will have little effect on gas prices? The truth should be obvious, that eventually lack exploration will affect prices negatively.

 

More importantly, putting 10's of thousands of people out of work in this economy would seem even more ridiculous?? And it's ALL been about politics for years and years!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does this moratorium do that?

 

How has this administration changed from President Bush's in regards to exploration? Salazar seems to be an oil guy.

 

Everything I've read makes it seem like nothing has changed as a result of the election YET all I hear is that it has.

 

I guess I'm confused, the moratorium is a change isn't it? The effect of that is what he's talking about and I don't see how that won't increase gas prices in the future. Before that obviously little had changed and I believe current prices reflect that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've no idea.. I guess it's just to try to wean us off fossil fuels... The higher the price the less we'll buy according to their logic... Stupid I know.. But that's what they said..

 

Well, there's one idea I can go along with.

 

Go nuclear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there's one idea I can go along with.

 

Go nuclear.

Will I tend to agree let's look at the other side. The biggest disaster you can imagine with oil gives us a coast line that is covered with 10W40. The biggest disaster you can imagine with nuclear would give us...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will I tend to agree let's look at the other side. The biggest disaster you can imagine with oil gives us a coast line that is covered with 10W40. The biggest disaster you can imagine with nuclear would give us...

 

The biggest disaster I can imagine with oil, given our current state of dependence, is that it's gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will I tend to agree let's look at the other side. The biggest disaster you can imagine with oil gives us a coast line that is covered with 10W40. The biggest disaster you can imagine with nuclear would give us...

 

Given the fact that nuclear disasters on U.S. soil have been minimal and the worst of the lot released radiation measured in millirads which was right about the amount of background radiation we receive in a year anyway (you know from all those wonderful technological devices we love so much) I think it is safe to say it has a better track record than oil. IN FACT. I seem to recall posting something a few months ago that showed in a 30 year span nuclear was actually kinder to the environment than any other method of power generation.

 

I know you are probably thinking Chernobyl when nuclear comes up but the fact of the matter is that it was Soviet technology and Soviet methods of manpower/staffing which left a civil engineer in charge of a nuclear plant. On top of the fact that the Soviets were notorious for having minimal safety standards on everything they did.

 

On top of all that there are types of reactors out there now that instead of melting down if the go critical can just go inert. No steam no nothing to cause a pressure buildup. Nuclear is the only answer if we want to use "clean" energy for the future.

 

I am more for that than I am weaning our transportation off of oil. As far as I am concerned all the coal going to power plants could be diverted to coal gassification plants to then be turned into fuel for our vehicles among other useful side products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah here we are:

Considering the fact that "Three Mile Island" was an overblown incident that was nowhere near as dangerous as this particular spill I don't feel I like the comparison. Especially since the amount of radiation released in Three Mile was measured in millirems. Most people had no more radiation affect them than a chest x-ray and a few had about the same amount that you get from background radiation in a year.

 

Americans act like Three Mile is equal to Chernobyl. That is fallacious as can be. To compare the American and Soviet nuclear programs in terms of safety is intellectually dishonest to say the least. Old reactors with engineers who have no background in nuclear power is nothing like what we had here. There is a reason why the entire facility at Three Mile wasn't encased in a thick concrete tomb.

 

This incident with the oil industry is far worse than ANY American nuclear accident.

 

Frankly if this gets us thinking nuclear again I will be a happy camper because the "green" energy ideas that people keep prattling on about are not ready for prime time and they do not have the on demand capabilities due to battery limitations that nuclear does. Especially considering you could put PBMRs in old coal plants and they would be even safer than the coal plants.

 

From 1969-1996 nuclear caused fewer fatalities than any other power generation form in use as per "Paul Scherrer Institut, November 1998, Severe Accidents in the Energy Sector"

 

 

Given the absurd abhorrence for nuclear power here I would suspect that it hasn't changed much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the fact that nuclear disasters on U.S. soil have been minimal and the worst of the lot released radiation measured in millirads which was right about the amount of background radiation we receive in a year anyway (you know from all those wonderful technological devices we love so much) I think it is safe to say it has a better track record than oil. IN FACT. I seem to recall posting something a few months ago that showed in a 30 year span nuclear was actually kinder to the environment than any other method of power generation.

 

I know you are probably thinking Chernobyl when nuclear comes up but the fact of the matter is that it was Soviet technology and Soviet methods of manpower/staffing which left a civil engineer in charge of a nuclear plant. On top of the fact that the Soviets were notorious for having minimal safety standards on everything they did.

 

On top of all that there are types of reactors out there now that instead of melting down if the go critical can just go inert. No steam no nothing to cause a pressure buildup. Nuclear is the only answer if we want to use "clean" energy for the future.

 

I am more for that than I am weaning our transportation off of oil. As far as I am concerned all the coal going to power plants could be diverted to coal gassification plants to then be turned into fuel for our vehicles among other useful side products.

 

Ah here we are:

 

I agree entirely. Most people don't even realize that the Chernobyl reactor didn't even have a containment building around it, much less that there was no nuclear engineer in charge. It's like allowing a dentist do your brain surgery. Nuclear energy is safe, efficient and produces very little pollution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree entirely. Most people don't even realize that the Chernobyl reactor didn't even have a containment building around it, much less that there was no nuclear engineer in charge. It's like allowing a dentist do your brain surgery. Nuclear energy is safe, efficient and produces very little pollution.
Agreed..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.