This is where you are dead wrong. You use seismic boats to find where the oil is.  This has been done up and down both coasts. Then you drill an exploratory well, cement it, and then come back to it with a production platform in order to produce the well. The Deepwater Horizon was an exploratory drillship. It was in the final stage of exploration which is to cement the well. You have to penetrate a resevoir and actually "strike oil"  during the exploratory stage to know whether a specific resevoir has the necessary profit potential for a specific production project. Obama's moratorium was only for exploratory rigs which is what the Deepwater Horizon was, which would OBVIOUSLY be doing the same kind of things the Deepwater Horizon was doing. They will need to design and build a production platform for that particular well which will take several years. Simply look at the moritorium. It bans only exploration drilling and not production drilling which is reopening a well or maintenance.

 



This is true, you never know what game changers will come up leading up to an election. What is expected is the minority gains. I'm less optimistic than you though. I like mixed government but I don't think the reps will get either house unless there is a substantial game changer between now and Nov. The right will scream about the border and the left will scream about Bush and they will fill that in with the day to day nonsense right up through Nov.

DG I do agree with Smoothseas, the rig was drilling an exploratory well (not to be confused with exploring for oil, which I believe is the base of the disagreement here).  This well was to be capped for later use.

Agreed, but then you say:

Oil is never, in the foreseeable future, going away. Electric cars are going to take a long time to reach parity to the combustion engine. Even the combustion engines get better and better all the time. Electric cars (and industry in general) still require oil (grease, power steering fluid, transmission fluid, plastics, paints, etc.). When they can make an electric car (not a hybrid) travel cross country and an electric truck with the load carrying and towing capacity of a gas or diesel engine, then they will have something going on. 

We have (or could have) an abundance of other things you mention, natural gas, coal, and nuclear, but environmentalists block extraction of these at every turn. Additionally you have the "not in my backyard" crowd. People want the energy, they just don't want it produced near them or "it's too dirty". The AGW folks have a heart attack at the mention of coal, our most abundant fuel source.

Hydro - yeah that's a great source, too bad environmentalists don't want that either. It requires a little thing call a dam which could endanger some furry little animal or a fish. We (the US) are in the process of removing dams in the northwest so salmon can spawn. The chances of seeing anything like a new Hoover dam (built in the 30's) is slim because the same environmentalists that want us off oil also don't want to build dams.

Solar and wind - wonderful, however they are always going to have limitations until we can control the wind and weather. We are also seeing the NIMBY with these too. The same people that don't want to see an oil platform from the balcony of their Malibu Beach home, seems don't want to see a giant field of wind turbines ether. Environmentalists are up in arms over dead birds killed by rotors. Sunny Spain, is losing money hand over fist on their subsidized solar adventure.

Fission - Great when it can be developed many years from now. Though I suspect that will be NIMBY too.

Fuel cells- I love this technology... water as an emmission... who wouldn't? The problem right now is making the cell. It takes much more energy to produce the fuel for the cell than the cell delivers, which then goes back to the coal, nuclear, natural gas argument I stated above.

No we need to soldier on with oil for a time yet, before environmentalists eliminate the only current 100% reliable (due to location or access) source of energy. Yes lets develop the other sources, make them affordable and cleaner. Yes lets reduce oil usage. Just don't pop the balloon and then try to figure out a way to fly as you fall.

Energy rant over.

Again, that does not tell them what is there, only the potential that something is there.  That saves a lot of dry wells, but does nothing to indicate if it is a puddle of molasses or a good field that will pay off.

Actually, I voiced no optimism or pessimism on the outcome in November.  I do not trust the democrats to be legal, nor the republicans to fight hard enough.  So my "opinion" is that it is a crap shoot.  Which would make my voice about as optimistic as yours.  That does not mean I will not be happy if the republicans take over, I am just not going to bet the house yet.

Yes, and that is as far as Obama's lifting of the ban (which was already passed by congress in 08) went.  in other words, they could drill to their hearts content, but not put any into production.  That would have required another "decree".

Oh so you mean pessimistic about govt in general then?

Yep!

Obviously your schooling has failed in many areas, we already have several fission plants in this country. Fusion on the other hand, is still in the development phase.

Yeah that's what I meant. Your mom and dad's video game purchases for you must have been wise ones. Thanks, now go look up communism and capitalism, since I'm still waiting for you to explain why you believe they are the same.

Nitro, you pretty much said it for me (reply #17). Put up or shut up, but don't ask me to return to the Stone Age because you have some fantasy of bliss without fossil fuel. The only man-made fusion device yet to achieve ignition is the hydrogen bomb, but you can just take a 93 million mile jaunt and pick up a handful for yourself.

As long as people continue to vote along party lines instead of actually learning about and voting for individual candidates the cesspool will never be drained.

When people finally get wise (if ever) and simply refuse to re-elect anyone regardless of party, then a clear message will be sent to those newly elected to Congress.

Imagine a few election cycles where not one single incumbent gets re-elected. That would be a powerful message indeed.

I look forward to that day.

BT actually they have been able to achieve a controlled fusion (the Joint European Torus produced 16.1 megawatts of fusion power sustained for over 0.5 sec in 1997). Sustaining it is the problem. I hope they figure this one out because it will solve many problems but it still won't eliminate the need for oil.

 

I worked on operating FISSION reactor for over 25 years ... future development? FUSION, that I could accept here ...

How do you justify badmouthing others because they are willing to acknowledge the error you made ... so why the sarcasm?

I must have missed something above; I have to agree that the goals of Communism are virtually the same as for Capitalism; it is the methodology and the mindset that gives them any separation. But the goals are the same, just as it is for the world’s religions … complete and total subjugation of the as much of the world as possible. These entities EACH claim they and they alone are the truth and all others are wrong and inferior. Go figure! Not trying to get too deep here, not talking about morals or rightness (whatever that is); this is why I do my own research so that I can form my own opinions and not have them dictated to me.

 

I would say you have gone far afield of your original post.  But I will again correct something you are saying. Communism and Capitalism are not sentient organisms.  They are belief systems implemented by  man.  Those believers may - as you maintain - have the same goal, but the belief systems do not.

It is therefore incumbent on the believers to go about doing what you suggest.  However, while neither belief systems in theory have a singular head, the actual practice is that communism does, and capitalism does not.  It is therefore impossible for you to make the general statement you have given the history and actual implementation of the two systems.  in other words, you are wrong.

Capitalism does not attempt to subjugate the individual.  They attempt to monopolize markets. They care not about the rest of your life.  That some do care about the rest of your life is their mixing belief systems, not the belief systems itself.

Doc:

I do not UNDERSTAND why it is so difficult for someone to just ask for clarification. The current process seemingly on JU is to assume whatever you want and run it for what it is worth. I do not mind being corrected when I make an error, but there must be some way for you to be upfront with whatever is bothering you so that I can respond. As it is, I guess we are now suppose we to argue over the differences between communism and democracy … oops ...

I see I used the word capitalism, bummer … I would think I intended to use democracy but I have the feeling that would not have changed much anyway.  Sorry … I will agree subjugate was a strong word but could be discussed.

What original post are you talking about, that would help too … I couldn’t find it, but then it is usually easier to have it pointed out, just a thought?