Very well said Phin. Thank you for sharing your perspective and your efforts to emphasize the importance of this matter and encourage those of us who care enough to take part in the process to give thought to it and stay informed.
Key West 1520
70 Yami
She’s little, but she’s pretty, skinny and fast.
quote:
Originally posted by skinneejBelieve it or not, my vote is to keep buying oil from the middle east… WHAT DID HE JUST SAY??? Yes, let’s buy every last drop of it with our fiat currency until they run completely dry. Once they run out of oil, we will never hear from the middle east again. They will turn into Africa…
Bottom line, oil is CHEAP now compared to what it will be in 50 years. We absolutely do NOT want the middle east to be the only purveyor of oil 50 years from now. We want them to be sucked dry by then, buying our oil at 2065 prices. Let’s save our **** for a rainy day and buy it from them at today’s prices…
I too feel we should be buying every drop of oil we can from other countries and saving ours.
We need to do like China and focus on Brazil’s crude as well as the middle east.
Russia has tons of oil in Siberia that they are sitting on, wonder if they would sell us some?
What I could agree with is putting the infrastructure in place off shore, but don’t tap it until we have no choice but to harvest it.
Cookie cutter design Nuclear Plants is the way to go. 20+ years to get one up and running is ridiculous.
You won’t see alternative energy take the place of carbon energy until the price (per kW, mW, barrel, BTU, etc.) of alternative energy and carbon energy approach one another and their demand curves literally cross one another
This is consistent with what I have heard in the past. Petroleum is still the most economical way to produce energy.
13ft Whaler with 25hp Johnson
If you’re lucky enough to be fishing, you’re lucky enough.
Got an article for you, SkinneeJ:
http://www.iea.org/publications/insights/coalvsgas_final_web.pdf
Luke 8:22-25
Great discussion. A fundamental problem we have in this country is a lack of a long term energy policy. Much like the Fed., there is a need for a long range policy that has a strategic plan to manage all these resources in a responsible, sustainable way that does not change every four years. We have to take the politics out of it and balance these initiatives to capture technological advances and transition as demand, viability and availability warrant. Nobody wants any of this in their ‘back yard’ so planned and responsible development need to be better managed long term and beyond the whim of a political party.
220 Outrage
250 Verado
quote:Can you give me the cliff's notes? I thought we were talking about oil and I think this is talking about natural gas (which I unfortunately have a lot of money invested in and it's been pretty flat for longer than I would like right now).
Originally posted by PhinGot an article for you, SkinneeJ:
http://www.iea.org/publications/insights/coalvsgas_final_web.pdf
http://www.sustainablefishing.org/
www.joinrfa.com
Luke 8:22-25
quote:Maybe we do have a long term policy, but it's not shared as a matter of national security. Maybe there is a reason we make it so difficult to drill here... We can't just come out and announce that we are trying to milk the Middle East dry of their oil. Fossil fuel is a zero sum game. One day it is going to run out, and the last country that has the last drop will be the dominant world power. In the game of Monopoly, the people who sell their property first always lose.
Originally posted by chasvalveGreat discussion. A fundamental problem we have in this country is a lack of a long term energy policy. Much like the Fed., there is a need for a long range policy that has a strategic plan to manage all these resources in a responsible, sustainable way that does not change every four years. We have to take the politics out of it and balance these initiatives to capture technological advances and transition as demand, viability and availability warrant. Nobody wants any of this in their ‘back yard’ so planned and responsible development need to be better managed long term and beyond the whim of a political party.
220 Outrage
250 Verado
The US does not have an energy policy beyond what the electorate wants to push during their terms in office. And why we see dramatic shifts in emphasis when different parties get into office. This is not intended to be a political statement for any party as an energy policy would address a long term strategy much like the Federal Reserve addresses monetary policy over the long term.
220 Outrage
250 Verado
quote:Ummmm, the Federal Reserve has probably caused many of the issues in our country. It's a fiat monetary system that was created by banks in secrecy and is something our forefathers warned us about. The federal reserve is not a government agency. It's a private cartel of big banks that have special government privileges and protection. Your statement above is equivalent to saying "Let OPEC control our national energy policy".
Originally posted by chasvalveThe US does not have an energy policy beyond what the electorate wants to push during their terms in office. And why we see dramatic shifts in emphasis when different parties get into office. This is not intended to be a political statement for any party as an energy policy would address a long term strategy much like the Federal Reserve addresses monetary policy over the long term.
220 Outrage
250 Verado
quote:
Originally posted by skinneejquote:Can you give me the cliff's notes? I thought we were talking about oil and I think this is talking about natural gas (which I unfortunately have a lot of money invested in and it's been pretty flat for longer than I would like right now).
Originally posted by PhinGot an article for you, SkinneeJ:
http://www.iea.org/publications/insights/coalvsgas_final_web.pdf
http://www.sustainablefishing.org/
www.joinrfa.com
Luke 8:22-25
Natural Gas is the pot-o-gold off our coast; not oil.
Helpful in framing our/your opinions on the exploration and consequent reactions to keep that in mind.
In other words, what’s coming isn’t exactly what we see in the Gulf. It will be significantly different, and the market (and political) forces are also going to be a little different. Natural gas is more regional, among other things, as the article analyzes.
The executive summary is on/around page 4 of the document. No need for Clif’s notes.
What I have discovered is that some of the major environmental orgs LIKE natural gas in that it is cleaner for power plants than burning coal. Those folks hate nuclear power and coal, therefore, they like natural gas- just not when methane leaks. They’re worried about climate change remember?
And climate change has been influencing this President’s Administration greatly. See http://www.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■-podesta-white-house-warned-about-ocean-preserve-expansion-to/?intcmp=latestnews for an example of how climate change is now being used as basis for closing the ocean
Good info on land-based natural gas drilling:
Luke 8:22-25
OCEANA and Coastal Conservation League are having a panel discussion on oil and gas exploration and southeastern fisheries tomorrow night.
6:30-8 pm
International Longshoremen’s Association Hall
1142 Morrison Drive, Charleston, SC 29403
Go see what is being said by these people if you get a chance. Not sure if there will be opportunity for public questioning or input, but it never hurts to try.
Luke 8:22-25
I have just seen this thread, and there are a number of good points related to fishing. However, we do not live on the ocean, we live on land. You do have to look at the political agenda going on here to really understand the facts.
Most of this ideology has come about post Fukishima (the nuke plants that suffered in Japan following the tsumani and earthquake). The socialist political agenda is to replace nuclear power with “green” power however inefficient it may be. The other fact that needs to be understood is all of this is going to be passed along to the public.
The best case in point is to look at California’s f&%$ up power system, their political scheming and “de-regulation” of electricity. The socialist agenda is strong at work pushing the win Utd farms off on the people of the state wether they like it or not. Look at the utility rates in the state and see how much they have risen over the past 8 years and you can also research to see what the projected cost will be over the next 5 years.
This cost and plan, is manuevering its way throughout the country, because of the schemes at the center of this political wheel. Ultimately as we all end up paying astronomical electrical bills, and being myred in poverty, the socialists will have achieved their polictal agenda and made everyone equal (except themselve of course).
Do some research and see what it taking place in the utility arena especially out west and you cen see what direction we are being driven in. Coal plants are being shutdown because of ‘pollution’. Nuke plants are being shutdown because the government is driving them our of existence due to modifications and thus becoming unprofitable and there are no new plants being built (with the exception of two, but lets see if they ever go online). So what will that leave us with? Inefficient wind and solar power, and nobody want to look at the bird fallout over the wind farms.
Sea Hunt BX22 Br
WS Tarpon 140
NEWS RELEASE
New Report Finds SC Poised to Benefit Big from Offshore Resource Development
Columbia, S.C. - Today, Palmetto Policy Forum (PPF) released a new report titled SC’s Offshore Opportunity: Economic & Environmental Impacts of Atlantic Energy Exploration.
On July 18, 2014 the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), a division of the U.S. Department of the Interior, announced that it would allow for modern surveys of the Mid- and South-Atlantic coast to update 40-year old data on offshore petroleum resources. This type of advanced seismic mapping will yield a far more accurate picture of offshore oil and natural gas reserves than what is currently available. The BOEM announcement could present significant opportunity for South Carolina, perhaps as soon as 2018.
Forum President Ellen Weaver said, “Palmetto Policy Forum exists to offer well-researched information for South Carolina citizens and decision-makers. Our new report balances both possible economic and environmental impacts and concludes that South Carolina could be the 2nd biggest state beneficiary of a potential Atlantic-based energy production boom. It’s hard to overstate the tremendous opportunity this presents for our State.” Key report findings include:
At peak production in 2035, capital investment could reach $2.7 billion annually with up to nearly 46,000 new jobs
Lease and royalty payments to the state could exceed $1 billion dollars in 2035 with $163 million generated in state and local taxes.
Accounting for the cost of carbon impacts and the unlikely event of a spill, the ratio of benefits to costs is 2:1.
As home to major manufacturers like BMW, Honda, Daimler, Boeing, Bosch and others, the structure of South Carolina's economy is likely to foster the development of oilfield equipment manufacturing as well as other supplies for the energy industry. South Carolina's manufacturing workforce would also be an attractive factor in decisions to build or expand this manufI work in the electrical industry for one of our states’ power producers, and I can attest to some of the comments shared on this on this thread. The EPA and our government is hard at work, demanding more and more from power producers, at the consumer’s expense. This is why SC and a handful of other states are in a lawsuit with the EPA over a new bill trying to get passed. You have not seen high power bills yet if this truck load of beauracratic crap makes it into law.
Everything’s being pushed towards alternative energy and “cleaner” hydrocarbon energy.
No doubt about it.
Luke 8:22-25
Green power programs are nothing but EPA “brownie points” for power producers. Its like shooting a BB at a freight train. They are inefficient and extremely expensive programs with costs handed down to the consumer.
quote:
Originally posted by CaptBryanGreen power programs are nothing but EPA “brownie points” for power producers. Its like shooting a BB at a freight train. They are inefficient and extremely expensive programs with costs handed down to the consumer.
Remember that a lot of the contractors who work for your company are the same ones working on some of those green programs. It’s just extra money for them, and they aren’t going to oppose it UNLESS your company bows up and says- you make it cost more for us, and we won’t award you whatever contracts anymore. That isn’t going to happen though. Your guys will just go to the PSC and pass the costs onto us sheeple.
[:0]
Hopefully not… but you know what I mean?
SC actually is pretty good to your industry compared to our neighboring states. For example, we don’t have an alternative energy standard. We have a law that says your employers does not have to buy alternative energy unless the cost is below min. base load costs for the plant otherwise. Pretty much means the state doesn’t want energy to cost more than it ought to.
The feds on the other hand…
Like I said above and earlier though, a lot of this EPA stuff is being driven not by enviro’s but by the people who make money off it. They got lots of this nice pork for themselves in the stimulus acts especially. Biomass, wind development, etc. The enviro’s just sweep up the political credit once it all settles on the floor after the dust ups. Enviro’s have no problem playing the role of strawman or actual bad guy in any of this… it actually brings in more money for them to appear as such.
Liquified natural gas is coming and so is coal—>natural gas power I believe. That’s where these efforts to get natural gas off our coast are coming from IMO.
I agree whole-heartedly. We fully understand it all comes down to the dollar. What we have any heartburn with, would be the EPA not crediting any strides we have made towards cleaner energy and being better environmental stewards. The bill I was referring to would not take into account all the solar and landfill gas based energy sources we have already brought online which have lowered our carbon footprint. They are proposing a new bill which reduces our carbon emissions astronomically thus putting more “alternate sources” of energy online to reduce the amount of coal we have to burn. We are CURRENTLY well under the carbon limit now, but will not be for long if this bill gets approved.
Natural gas is a viable option to reduce carbon emissions and seems to be the new buzz word for mass producing electricity… however, SC is not equipped with the infrastructure needed to supply gas units. The only major gas line large enough to supply large gas units is located along the I-85 corridor. Hence the idea of drilling offshore.
I agree that we want to make and distribute the lowest cost electricity to the consumer. The EPA is making it harder and more expensive to do so.