Coastal Drilling - For or Against?

As skunky says, increasing supply doesn't do anything to prices in the near-term. Without more ways to refine the oil into gasoline (and that costs $$$$$), we won't see prices fall. If you want to make a real difference, decrease demand -- ie- find ways to stop burning so much oil. That can happen immediately, where increasing supply will take years, and then, is still only limited. Renewable sources and free sources seem much more versatile.

As skunky says, increasing supply doesn't do anything to prices in the near-term. Without more ways to refine the oil into gasoline (and that costs $$$$$), we won't see prices fall. If you want to make a real difference, decrease demand -- ie- find ways to stop burning so much oil. That can happen immediately, where increasing supply will take years, and then, is still only limited. Renewable sources and free sources seem much more versatile.

I have no issue with decreasing demand so long as the government does not mandate it.

BTW, some great photos you have posted.

traderx, we agree in that I, too, don't think the gov't needs to start mandating cuts. That is just wrong. It is we individuals who need to take action on finding ways to decrease our consumption, and when we do, the demand can change immediately.

I think the $4 - $5 a gallon gas is "mandating" cuts in demand just fine without government help!

It is unfortunately hurting some folks who can't afford the increased costs, but IMO there are worse things than people buying cars with better mileage, reducing their commute distances, using public or alternate transportation, and being conscious of a need to conserve.

The environment might actually be improved if we allowed drilling for oil at a good distance out and prohibited any more destruction of the shoreline by condos, extensive parking lots, sewage spills, stormwater runoff, traffic, etc. More locals might also earn a living wage. If we aren't going to drill within 100 miles, we shouldn't excavate sand either within that range to use for beach restoration. We are already causing more environmental harm to our beaches by scraping, seawalls than would probably ever be caused by oil development. Ships transporting the oil from foreign countries sail by and who knows what they spill along the way.

dunelaker, I don't follow you on linking the drilling for oil to the idea of prohibiting condos, parking lots, sewage spills, stormwater runoff, traffic, etc. Are you saying that if we drill for oil, we will prohibit such activity on the shore?

I think she's saying all those activities are just as harmful as offshore drilling could be, so it could be environmentally neutral if we stopped those and started drilling.

I thought she was saying that it would be better (not neutral) for the environment to drill because a prohibition would occur on parking lots, condos, seawalls, scraping, etc. I don't believe in switching out bad for bad, and calling it even.

Hey, no. If we had drilled for oil instead of developing houses, condos, etc. along the shore, IMO, our shoreline would be in better shape today. We'd probably still have miles of huge sanddunes, less stormwater runoff, etc. The oil companies have been much better stewards than many of the condo developers. Some developers here have a corporate understanding of the environment, others do not, and have not, over the years. Millions of tax dollars would not have been spent pushing sand around or trying to save houses that will eventually fall into the Gulf. At this point, we could have oil drilling and it would have the potential of not causing any more harm to the environment and probably less than the building we are currently in the process of doing. If we drilled the oil ourselves, the transportation could be much cleaner than the current shipping in of over 60% foreign oil.

I understand your explanation. Thanks. The only thing is that we cannot go back in time and not build and develop.

We could not build seawalls. We could build back. We could not rebuild houses that fall into the Gulf in the same spot. We could move them back. The Apalachicola Lighthouse on Little St. George Island fell into the Gulf. There is an effort to gather bricks, etc. and rebuild in much farther inland. This is also happening in other locations along the coast. Such a tough issue to discuss. I wish we would conserve more oil, find alternative fuels etc. But, if environmentalists had spent more time stopping the excessive building along our shores instead of focusing so much on ANWR the last 20 years, we'd have an overall better environment. America's coastline has been ravaged right under our noses. Builders and developers have been, and probably continue to be, more harmful to the environment than most oil companies. Their profits haven't been anything to sneeze at either. The tourist and development lobby is very strong in Florida. I wonder if their efforts to stop drilling isn't really about their high profits and not really about the environment. That's about all I've got to say. Think I'll go to a happy birthday thread.

I understand your explanation. Thanks. The only thing is that we cannot go back in time and not build and develop.

If we could, I think we should add Coastal Dune Lakes into the non-buildable areas too as they are at risk from storm surge as much as some of the gulf-front properties. For example, here is the storm surge expectations for Eastern Lake from the Walton County GIS.



Look at the eastern side of the lake. In a Category Three, all areas shown in light green, dark green and yellow are estimated to be impacted. :shock: If you look on the western side, it is only the beachfront.

Cool map!

I question the "surge" locations though, as they don't correlate to the flood zones/elevations that I remember when I was looking at property in the Western area. There's stuff that's red in areas so low most of it is liquid right now.

Cool map!

I question the "surge" locations though, as they don't correlate to the flood zones/elevations that I remember when I was looking at property in the Western area. There's stuff that's red in areas so low most of it is liquid right now.

It's actually based on elevations, but I would agree that a model is only as good as the data you put into it. Keep in mind that it's also based on the inland limits of storm surge coming through the small area around the Eastern lake outfall. It doesn't take into consideration currently wet areas, only areas that will be more wet from storm surge.

Certainly something to think about. The Walton GIS doesn't quite match with what happened during the last several Cat. 3 through and near here though. Really depends on the elevation of the lot and certainly how far back and up one built. The bridge also causes a back up. The new bike bridge could potentially make for a worse environmental event. One day, perhaps, all the bridges and their causeways will be removed from all the dune lakes along 30A. Span bridges would allow the water to flow more naturally up into the north end. The Western side during the last several storms has suffered more than the Eastern side, except up and around some of the canals. All the docks and debris really smashed the west side and the east side was left largely unscathed. So, we have to take the GIS with a grain of salt. But, oops, we're supposed to be taking about oil.

Just imagine at $140 or $200 per barrel.

If/when it goes to 200, I'm buying a horse.

Come to think of it, I could stop cutting the grass as well.. :scratch:

better also get yourself a mule with which to plow your field to grown your hay, oats and corn for the horse. You might also have to quit your day job to farm, so that you can "fuel" your horse.

better also get yourself a mule with which to plow your field to grown your hay, oats and corn for the horse. You might also have to quit your day job to farm, so that you can "fuel" your horse.

lol. I don't think I'd have to quit my day job after saving that much money on speeding tickets, red light cameras, INSURANCE, tags, tires, AL DOT fees, etc...

That dang horse would eat like a king.

As skunky says, increasing supply doesn't do anything to prices in the near-term. Without more ways to refine the oil into gasoline (and that costs $$$$$), we won't see prices fall. If you want to make a real difference, decrease demand -- ie- find ways to stop burning so much oil. That can happen immediately, where increasing supply will take years, and then, is still only limited. Renewable sources and free sources seem much more versatile.

It only takes one to get the ball rolling...

http://gas2.org/2008/06/04/new-south-dakota-oil-refinery-one-step-closer-to-reality/

I have a stupid question. When an oil well is "dry", does it leave a big empty hole underground or does it fill back up with something else?

i remember reading that they pump it full of water to make the oil rise to the top to squeak out every bit of oil, but I don't know if that is true for each well, or each company.

I have a stupid question. When an oil well is "dry", does it leave a big empty hole underground or does it fill back up with something else?

here ya go ll. i googled it for ya. is this the answer you're looking for?

During the drill a well completion form must be filled out and submitted to the state recording all the pertinent data including the well depth and the result. If the well is a dry hole a plugging and filling form must be completed indicating how the hole was plugged. This allows us to drill another well within the 400 foot spacing normally required between producing wells.

more info here:

http://www.mammothresource.com/oil_101.htm

I used to work the oil fields of ND in a previous life.
There are two difinitions of a dry well.
The first one is when a well is drilled intending to become an oil well and they do not discover enough oil to make it economically feasible to bring it to the surface, this is called a dry hole and it is usually just capped off and abandoned.

The second one is after a well has been producing, sometimes for many years and the amount of oil declines to the point of the previous definition. Sometimes they do insert water, CO2 and other ideas to increase the pressure in the well, the permeability of the rock the oil is located in, etc in an effort to increase production.

It's all about money. There are literally thousands of oil wells in the US that have never been put into production because the cost to process the oil remains higher than they can sell it for. I'll bet there are a bunch of US oil companies looking real hard at all those wells as their time is coming up with the current price of oil.

Do a google on South Dakota and refinery and you'll see that they are pushing for a refinery closer to all those wells out in the badlands.

Someone was telling me there are a bunch of LA oil wells that they stopped using because of cost. Apparently the magic number for those wells was $80 barrel, so I am guessing that the oil companies will be reopening some.

Don't know if it's true, but I was told back then that there is more oil under the Dakotas and Montana than the state of Texas. The stuff they were pumping up out there was a yellow color instead of black. Had lots of Hydrogen Sulfide in it as well. Just a few parts per billion and you were dead. Killed lots of people in the late 70's and early 80's.
I actually got to work with the Boots and Coots people on the Stengem blowout back in 1983.