Lexus IS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,143 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This is a link to an article that describes a Texas beach as "pristine". The reason they lie and tell you its "pristine" is because we're drilling for oil on it.

I don't know if you've ever been to a Texas beach, but its about as far from "pristine" as you can get, Unless pristine means "sandy with bags of medical waste, tarballs and jellyfish rotting all over the place".

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=354917
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,074 Posts
so does that mean you are only full of shit 5% of the time? The whole thing is a bunch of crap, but if the environmentalists can convince the public that the big evil oil companies are out to destroy the environment, the public backlast will probably slow down the oil development. I can't wait to see the backlash against environmentalists when energy prices go through the roof because of all of their restrictions.

Speaking of the damn sea turtles, I was plugging and abandoning a well last year, and i had to send a "turtle watcher" out to the rig for a day to watch for 24 hours for turtles to make sure we weren't going to hurt any of them when we blasted the wellhead. I would have been pissed if he saw any and we had to shut down because of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,143 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Thats funny, we were doing a P&A on a well too and had two turtle watch guys on the boat (one for each side :) ). We also had to call a helicopter out to survey the area for 30 minutes to look for sea life.

Idiotic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,579 Posts
The idea that domestic environmental regulation is going to be the primary cause of higher domestic energy costs is folly. The greatest threat to future energy costs in this country is Mr. Bush's desire to wage war on Iraq.

There are extremists on both sides of most environmental issues. I submit that anti-environmental (ie "pro-business") extremists still hold sway in this country. In protecting our environment, we have come a long way. In spite of the media reports of Endangered Specie outrages, we still have a long way to go.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,143 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Well an argument can be made, more specifically in this case and that of ANWAR, that our dependence on foreign oil puts us at uneccessary risk of foreign manipulation of our energy supply/cost.

Like XC said, we'll see how much people care about sea turtles when they're paying $1.80 a gallon for gas in their SUV. I remember this happening a few years ago and people were almost rioting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,579 Posts
Ruiner said:
Like XC said, we'll see how much people care about sea turtles when they're paying $1.80 a gallon for gas in their SUV. I remember this happening a few years ago and people were almost rioting.
Americans certainly have untold billions of dollars invested in hardware that requires the perpetuity of gas below world prices. Dat is fer sure.

What price would gas have to be at before domestic reserves could be tapped and still turn a profit? I don't think the turtle-lovers need worry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,143 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
To be honest, CRB, I'm not really sure. XC might have a better idea. I just feel its pathetic that we import 60% of our oil from potential adversaries while overlooking production in our country that creates jobs, doesn't finance terrorism, reduces our dependency on foreign countries and probably pollutes a hell of a lot less than people think. People forget that there is little industrial "footprint" when wells are drilled and produced. What pollutes is the refining process, but we're doing that anyway to the imported oil. We saw offshore Spain last week what happens when you have to transport oil halfway around the globe. I'm not sure how big this field in Texas is, but by (admittingly) the more optimistic estimates of ANWAR production we could produce the equivalent of the oil we import from Saudi Arabia (or Iraq pre-gulf war) for 20-30 years. Thats incredible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,074 Posts
CRB said:
Ruiner said:
Like XC said, we'll see how much people care about sea turtles when they're paying $1.80 a gallon for gas in their SUV. I remember this happening a few years ago and people were almost rioting.
Americans certainly have untold billions of dollars invested in hardware that requires the perpetuity of gas below world prices. Dat is fer sure.

What price would gas have to be at before domestic reserves could be tapped and still turn a profit? I don't think the turtle-lovers need worry.
As I sit here typing this, I'm on a drilling rig in 8000 feet of water about 100 miles from the coast in the gulf of mexico. When you mention "world prices" I'm assuming your referring to the substantially higher prices of gasoline in other parts of the world specifically Europe. The market crude oil price is more or less the same worldwide, but the europeans tax the hell out of of the gasoline. That is why you see the discrepancy in prices. It isn't like our government is subsidizing the $4.00/gallon gas you might find in other countries. Those kind of energy prices would never fly here in the US, and the tyrannical taxes were one of the fundamental causes of the American Revolution.

One point that people tend to either forget or neglect is that our society and culture is fundamentally different than the European cultures. People here depend on the vehicles to take family vacations to Disneyland and Disneyworld or to visit Mt. Rushmore. Our suburban lifestyle....big houses and yards, living away from the city is much different than the European lifestyle. We need vehicles to get to and from work because it really isn't feasible to build cost effective mass transit systems beyond a densely populated urban center out into suburbia. I dont' think you'll find too many people who would give up driving their car for a mass transit system unless there were economic or other (commute time) advantages.

Typically most domestic oil and gas producers can break even with oil prices between $15-$18/bbl, and natural gas around $2/mcf.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
8,107 Posts
Americans don't need Ford Excursions to drive to work, or take their kids to soccer games, that's ridiculous. It's pure self indulgence with no regard for the environment or social responsibility. And if the people don't want public transportation, why do the oil and auto companies pay boatloads of money to kill off any legislation that will fund public transportation?
Oil may be plentiful now, but how about in 100 years? It's a matter of time before we deplete it all. And what is the cost in American lives for our oil-driven policies toward Saudi Arabia? Without US dependence on the Saudis for their oil, we wouldn't support their corrupt oppressive government, and we might not have had 9/11. Oh, but gas is cheap, whoopee!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
XCstud said:
Those kind of energy prices would never fly here in the US, and the tyrannical taxes were one of the fundamental causes of the American Revolution.

One point that people tend to either forget or neglect is that our society and culture is fundamentally different than the European cultures. People here depend on the vehicles to take family vacations to Disneyland and Disneyworld or to visit Mt. Rushmore. Our suburban lifestyle....big houses and yards, living away from the city is much different than the European lifestyle. We need vehicles to get to and from work because it really isn't feasible to build cost effective mass transit systems beyond a densely populated urban center out into suburbia. I dont' think you'll find too many people who would give up driving their car for a mass transit system unless there were economic or other (commute time) advantages.
You may think that tyrannical taxes on gasoline is bad... but lets see what it does... weens people off foreign dependance (which in turn funds enemies and potential enemies), forces automotive companies to construct higher fuel efficient automobiles (US went down in average mpg this year while Europe increased average mpg), creates multiple densely populated urban centers (good or bad depending on your views, but mass transit is possible)... then the people who decide to live out in suburbia bitch about how traffic is so bad, well, highways are not a mass transit system nor were they originally designed to be.

Oil is a finite resource. But hey, let's design our cities to be sparcely populated so that in the future it will be 100x costly to change. Hell, when we run of oil, we can just use up another resource. It doesn't matter if i'm wasteful, i'll just dump my 0.X (0.0X?) tons of trash each year with my 8mpg excursion each year to be hauled off to some 3rd world country.

Oil is a finite resource. We do not use it just for transportation but it is very important in the creation of plastics. But hey! We are probably about 100-150 years off, no worries for me. I'll leave the worrying to my great-great-grandchildren.

errr, oops, i went off on a tangent.. don't get me wrong, i'm not some tree hugging hippie :D but people need to quit being selfish and think about others for once. I've already been run off the road by an expedition, 3 suburbans, and 2 excursions (4 of those vehicles were operated by one person). Is our strategy to run out the oil in the M.E.? They don't have much else of a export...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,143 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Food for thought: Most of us are single males below the age of 25 and we drive a car that gets 18mpg. Don't think you're any better than someone who has a 10mpg excursion but drives around 4 people in it. Most of you only drive around four people in you car when you go to the club on the weekend. True the IS gets better gas mileage but we traded looks and performance for fuel economy.

I'm not an environmentalist in the traditional sense. I'll be the first to admit this country hasn't had a sensible energy policy in years. But the goal we should strive to reach is to let the American people and the market set our energy costs, not the government (taxes).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,250 Posts
my car gets almost 29 :D

anyhow, i thought we were much closer to exhausting the world's supply of oil than 100 years? if they figure out an environmentally safe way to harvest hydrogen that will probably be the next solution to our fuel problem yes?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,143 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
mrclam said:
my car gets almost 29 :D

anyhow, i thought we were much closer to exhausting the world's supply of oil than 100 years? if they figure out an environmentally safe way to harvest hydrogen that will probably be the next solution to our fuel problem yes?
The answer to how much oil is left is "no one knows". Thats why I'm fed up with environmentalism. A lot of is based in what-ifs. They've been saying we would run out of oil in 30 years for the past 50 years.

My take on it is that as long as human beings, on a massive 6 billion person plus scale, continue to convert energy, we will always have problems. They won't teach you that in environmental school. The problem isn't oil, persay, its the fact that we're conducting chemical reactions on a global scale. I promise you, if we start converting Hydrogen and oxygen to water at the scale at which we convert hydrocarbons to co2 etc, we will still have global environmental problems. Water vapor is one of the worst greenhouse gasses known.

Competition for resources has been a source of conflict in this world from day one. Fifty years from now we'll be fighting wars with China on the moon for control of helium-3 resources. It will never stop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,250 Posts
Ruiner said:
My take on it is that as long as human beings, on a massive 6 billion person plus scale, continue to convert energy, we will always have problems. They won't teach you that in environmental school. The problem isn't oil, persay, its the fact that we're conducting chemical reactions on a global scale. I promise you, if we start converting Hydrogen and oxygen to water at the scale at which we convert hydrocarbons to co2 etc, we will still have global environmental problems. Water vapor is one of the worst greenhouse gasses known.
this is a good point, i hadn't thought of it before. i suppose we will have to wait for fusion to be developed ;)
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
8,107 Posts
The way the environmental battle goes is this: 10 scientists say we have global warming, 1 says we don't. Then people like you say "Nobody knows". The scientific community is in agreement on global warming, minus a few scientists who are funded by big oil and the auto lobby. I challenge you to find one scientist who's not funded by oil to say "global warming is a fantasy".
Yes, our oil production is increased by new techniques of finding and extracting it. Things like pumping water into wells to force more oil out. However the reason oil companies must come up with new techniques to extract oil is because the easily extracted oil is disappearing.

Ruiner said:
The answer to how much oil is left is "no one knows". Thats why I'm fed up with environmentalism. A lot of is based in what-ifs. They've been saying we would run out of oil in 30 years for the past 50 years.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
8,107 Posts
Best use of hydrogen is in fuel cells. The byproduct of fuel cells is heat and liquid water, both of which have uses. Hydrogen is usually extracted from natural gas, not water - and natural gas is just like oil, non-renawable - only it's much cleaner.
I think the bigger problem in this country is the national power grid - which is incredibly inefficient (less than half the efficiency of the engine in an Excursion) - and it derives its electricity from dirty coal burning plants.


Ruiner said:
I promise you, if we start converting Hydrogen and oxygen to water at the scale at which we convert hydrocarbons to co2 etc, we will still have global environmental problems. Water vapor is one of the worst greenhouse gasses known.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,074 Posts
ckolsen said:
The way the environmental battle goes is this: 10 scientists say we have global warming, 1 says we don't. Then people like you say "Nobody knows". The scientific community is in agreement on global warming, minus a few scientists who are funded by big oil and the auto lobby. I challenge you to find one scientist who's not funded by oil to say "global warming is a fantasy".
Yes, our oil production is increased by new techniques of finding and extracting it. Things like pumping water into wells to force more oil out. However the reason oil companies must come up with new techniques to extract oil is because the easily extracted oil is disappearing.

Ruiner said:
The answer to how much oil is left is "no one knows". Thats why I'm fed up with environmentalism. A lot of is based in what-ifs. They've been saying we would run out of oil in 30 years for the past 50 years.
Ok, here are my thoughts on why global warming is well overhyped and more or less media hyped sham. You won't find anyone who is truly unbiased on the issue and it is easy to use certain scientific studies and ignore others when it is convenient to prove your point. I won't argue that over the past few years there may have been an increase in temperatures, but if you look at the past 100 years, is it significant relative to all of history? Climate change has fluctuated greatly over the past millions of years according to scientific research. We have had ice ages, and we have had periods of increased temperatures, and mankind didn't have a damn thing to do with those. Here is an interesting comment on the UN's climate change panel.

Another case in point was last year's final report of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which predicted the Earth's temperatures will warm disastrously over the next century. But two extremely significant, but politically inconvenient, phrases were simply expunged from the final report:

"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases," read one. "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic (related to human activity) causes."
Another possible theory on temperature increases has do do with the development of our urban jungles. With all the asphalt and concrete and activity in cities, the temperatures in the cities and the lower atmosphere around them show an increase in temperature, yet the same temperature increases haven't been seen in the upper atmosphere.

If you want to enact big emmisions reductions laws, prepare for a huge economic recession like one never seen in recent times. Prices will go up, industrial manufacturing will shut down and times like this make me wish that Gore had been elected so he could enact these "reforms" and people would finally see what a big mistake the Kyoto treaty is.

Are you guys willing to give up your cars to drive an environmentally friendly 4 cylinder toyota echo or take mass transit to save the environment? I think it is hypocritical that we have such high fuel standards for cars causing them to be smaller and lighter, yet trucks have a different set of standards. I think if people are going to buy trucks, they should show that they actually have a need for them.

Nuclear power plants create clean, massive amounts of power, but all the environmentalists are so scared of radioactive waste and they use these stall tactics to keep it from being properly disposed of and scare tactics, that I doubt we will see many if any new nuclear power plants. People want cheap energy, but they also have the NIMB syndrome and you can't have both.

ckolsen said:
Yes, our oil production is increased by new techniques of finding and extracting it. Things like pumping water into wells to force more oil out. However the reason oil companies must come up with new techniques to extract oil is because the easily extracted oil is disappearing.
bingo. we are well beyond just pumping water into wells. Our wonderful free market system inspires and creates new technology as it is needed. There are trillions of barrels of oil throughout the earth, but at this time we don't have the technology to extract it in an economically efficient manner. As prices rise or new technology becomes available, more of this oil will be available to us. We have also made huge strides in extracting oil with minimal environmental impact as well.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
8,107 Posts
I agree with some of that - but keep in mind that good scientists rarely say "we're totally sure" - science doesn't work that way, there is always doubt. Anti-environment types seize on that doubt to say there is no problem. But there is more than ample evidence that the last 50 years the earth's average temps have increased far greater than at any time in the Earth's history. Yes, we've had temp increase in the past, but they take 10,000 years, not 100 years. A good portion of the earth's coral reefs are being killed off by El Ninos which have lethal high temperatures. Oh sure, a natural phenomenon you'll say. But these reefs have survived hundreds of El Ninos in the past, yet recent ones are killing them because the average ocean temperatures have rised drastically, turning what would normally be a surviveable El Nino into a lethal one. Maybe you don't care about tree frogs, I don't - but I do care about Coral reefs. Not only are they great for divers, they are a critical part of the ocean's ecosystem. If they all die off, the fish could die off, and then we are fucked.

As for oil - if there is so much oil, why are oil companies scouring every corner of the world to find it? And don't count on technology to find a way to extract oil from shale (much of the earth's remaining oil is in shale) - that may not be economically feasible, or even possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,579 Posts
As the average size of vehicles gets larger in this country, the "responsible" people who drive economical cars like the Toyota Echo are at greater risk when accidents do occur. Most of the standardized crash tests are done with the car being tested in motion. (The side impact is an exception, I believe.) When an Echo crashes into a fixed barrier at thirty-miles per hour, it is deforming from its own momentum and gets very good ratings by most standards.

However, have that same Echo crash into some moving mega-ute and I don't think it will fair all that well. I had responsible in quotes above because while those green machines may be economically and environmentally responsible, the driver is putting themselves and any passengers at risk. I think that driving an economy special could be considered irresponsible when considered in this way.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
About this Discussion
33 Replies
12 Participants
ckolsen
Lexus IS Forum
Community dedicated to Lexus IS Enthusiasts. Come in and enjoy our articles, galleries and information on aftermarket parts for the IS300, IS250, IS350.
Full Forum Listing
Top