Judge sets limits on executive power and ends gulf drilling moratorium.
Fear and hysteria can create opportunities and help accomplish political goals for those cynical enough to take advantage of them. Sometimes it takes the level head of an experienced jurist to resist the hype and emotion and remind everyone that we are a nation of laws and that rule by fiat is not acceptable.…
Article comments
26 - Baritone
THEY are likely wrong. But again, even if we drilled every pool of oil dry either on or off shore for the next 50 years, it would change nothing. We would still be dependent on oil, from whatever sources.
All this crap about "American" oil is just that - crap. There will be no advantage to us as a nation by pumping what some estimate to be no more than 2% of the world's oil reserves. The ONLY advantage is given to the oil companies.
Where was all this righteous concern for workers when all you Cons berated Obama for TARP and the bail outs? It was you who clamored for letting the banks, the investment firms and the auto makers fail. How many workers might that have affected? But now you seem to have big crocodile tears for Gulf oil workers. Sure, they're getting a raw deal, but there's plenty of that to go around.
soprano
alto
tenor
BARITONE
bass
27 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
They want that oil, but the fact is that they can access that same oil from wells drilled onshore if they were allowed to do so. This is what they have been doing in Alaska for years. You can drill onshore much more safely and have the pipe go underground for miles to reach offshore oil.
No, they canNOT "get that same oil from wells drilled onshore", Dave. It's obvious you neither really read my comments nor checked my references, because if you did, you'd have seen that the MMS stated that the deposits in shallower waters were diminishing, and that much larger deposits were in DEEPER waters further out to sea. Big Oil has many, many drilling leases in shallow water...but that's not where the oil is!
Furthermore, they can't get "that same oil" from onshore wells because - with the exception of national parks like ANWAR - they'd have to drill down and then sideways for a couple hundred miles or more...and Big Oil's not even going to attempt to do that.
Next time, please read my comments and references before you try to refute them.
28 - Glenn Contrarian
Andy -
They say there's enough oil under Montana to feed our need for oil for the next 2000 years! Why don't we go after it? Same reason we don't go after the oil off the coast of VA, because it might hurt some freaking tree frog somewhere!
Instead of making assumptions that it's us left-wing loonies that are stopping the extraction of oil from shale, how about actually RESEARCHING the problem?
Oh - I forgot - conservatives don't do that.
So just to make it REAL easy for you, here's a little research:
"World production of oil shale reached a peak of 46 million tonnes in 1980. Due to competition from cheap conventional petroleum in the 1980s, several investments became economically unfeasible. On 2 May 1982, known as "Black Sunday", Exxon canceled its US$5 billion Colony Shale Oil Project near Parachute, Colorado because of low oil-prices and increased expenses. Because of the losses in 1980s, companies were reluctant to make new invests in shale oil production."
So do you get it now, Andy? BIG OIL CHOSE TO STOP SHALE OIL PRODUCTION BECAUSE IT WASN'T MAKING ENOUGH MONEY! We liberals had nothing to do with it.
Now oil is finally expensive enough for shale oil production to be economically feasible...but it's not the liberals you have to convince. It's BIG OIL.
29 - Dave Nalle
Glenn, shall we just trade accusations, then? While I did read your link, you clearly didn't even read my post. As has been amply documented, it is entirely possible for an on-shore well to reach not just deposits near the shore and shallow, but also to oil which is located miles offshore and miles deep, and to do so more safely and less expensively than deep water drilling.
There's a well in England which has a 7 mile horizontal reach. They could easily drill farther than that because horizontal drilling is far less difficult than vertical drilling.
See this article.
Dave
30 - John Wilson
Obama drove a smart hard bargain with the BP to get a $20billion+ ANTE from BP with the money to be disbursed by his appointee. Also $100million up front compensation for oil workers idled by the moratorium.
Since oil is fungible and the markets are free and liquid, a back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that if the USA idled ALL it's oil production (which is about 1/3 of it's consumption) and maintained the same consumption (which is about 1/4 of world consumption) thus calculating that US production is about 1/12 or 8% of world oil production, assuming some symmetry of supply and demand curves around the equilibrium point, gas prices would go up about 8% or 24 cents per gallon for all consumers.
24cents to end our environmental hazards. Pretty cheap.
31 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
I've known about horizontal drilling for some time - but to drill a horizontal well seven miles (which is the current record holder) is one thing. Drilling a couple hundred miles horizontally is something else altogether. It's not nearly so simple as you seem to think it is.
First, there's the matter of degree - 7 miles versus 200 miles. The cost of such a drilling effort would be prohibitive, and I strongly doubt you'll find a single oil company that would even consider such a venture. Why? Contrary to what you claimed, horizontal drilling is MORE expensive than vertical drilling...although it is more efficient and can reach more oil. But most horizontal rigs are less than a mile long, and they're already seen as more expensive. Why, then, would any Big Oil CEO in his right mind want to drill sideways for two hundred miles? Unless he wants the board of directors to show him the door, that is.
And that's not the only cost-related challenge: According to the Wiki (which referenced a different oil company's site where I found the same quote verbatim), "for wells with an inclination of less than 40 degrees, tools to carry out adjustments or repair work can be lowered by gravity on cable into the hole. For higher inclinations (closer to the horizontal) , more expensive equipment has to be mobilized to push tools down the hole."
If it's more expensive to robotically (or hydraulically) push tools down a directional drilling site seven miles long, then how much more expensive would it be to push those same tools two hundred freaking miles? How would you power the robot? How are you going to extract that robot if (when) it breaks down? And if it's done with hydraulic or electric lines, what happens when the lines break? You know, it's not like just sending down a power cord or a hydraulic hose from the local Home Depot. And let's not forget the fiber-optic line that MUST go with it. I remember the Charlie-Fox we had on the Lincoln when we wired it with fiber-optic cable - the electronics guys were time and time again summoned to replace broken (or simply cracked) fiber-optic lines.
Feel free to go approach a horizontal drilling company with your idea, Dave...but don't be real hopeful about their response. I know enough about engineering to have a clue about what their responses might be.
Two hundred miles of fiber-optic lines and hydraulic or electric lines, Dave. All of it subject to wear-and-tear and lateral (length-wise) stress. There is one and only one flexible cord that would be strong enough to endure such a test for such a distance, and we haven't even developed it yet, though we're trying mightily. It's a practical cord made of buckminsterfullerene (buckyballs), and I'm sure you've heard of it since that's what our scientists hope to use to someday make a space elevator.
Dave, drilling sideways for two hundred miles - or even one hundred miles - sounds nice in theory, but no engineer in his right mind would even consider it.
32 - handyguy
The moratorium only affects 33 exploratory wells, and prevents new ones from being started. It's not permanent, just 6 months.
And there are over 3800 oil rigs in the Gulf. The president is not "shutting down an industry." [Although the industry, in its greed and recklessness, is arguably shutting itself down.]
The public supports the moratorium by a wide margin. Pro-corporate extremists have reacted predictably. They are dead wrong.
33 - Dan
I guess if the moratorium would've had such a negligable effect then the judge who decided against Obama needn't have worried about his $15,000 investment.
Reckon he's both stupid and crooked?
34 - Dave Nalle
Glenn, Deepwater Horizon is not 200 miles offshore or even 100 as you suggest. It's only 41 miles offshore. And evidence suggests that the same oil deposits could be accessed much closer in to shore.
The point is that there are other options available, but government policy has contributed to the introduction of greater risk, expense and difficulty. As someone pointed out earlier, if we were halfway sensible we'd be drilling for some of the enormous onshore oil deposits which are currently offlimits for entirely arbitrary reasons.
Dave
35 - Baritone
Again, all of our oil will make virtually no difference to us at the gas pump, regardless of whether it comes from standard on shore wells, shallow or deep water off shore wells, oil shale mining or whatever. All our oil will produce is larger profits for the oil companies and perhaps more permanantly damaging pollution to our land, our shorelines and our waterways. But who gives a shit when money is at stake?
I've heard it said that the areas around where the Exxon Valdis spill took place still have oil seeping up through the sands.
B
36 - Silas Kain
As gasoline nears $3 per gallon again, one must wonder if things would be different if every dollar spent in defending oil producers was paid through taxes and levies on petroleum. Gasoline is costing us about $15 per gallon, folks. We don't see it at the pumps, but we're feeling it in the economy. It's time for TRUTH in taxation as well as representation. If a member of Congress has "incumbent" next to their name -- they MUST go, period.
37 - Glenn Contrarian
Okay, Dave - 'only' 41 miles.
Do you understand why SEVEN miles was hailed as a great achievement in directional drilling? Mostly because of the very same engineering issues I raised.
I don't know how much experience you have with piping...but I spent about eight years total in the engine room, and I DO know a bit about piping. You see, we used pipes anywhere from miniscule gage tubing all the way up to the injection system for the main condenser - which is about 4 feet wide IIRC.
Again, you seemed to think it was a simple matter to extend from 7 miles to 41 miles - and you know what? It CAN be done...but the company doing the drilling and laying the piping is going to encounter the same challenges I listed above, and drilling the well would - repeat, would - become a money pit. They simply wouldn't make enough money on it to justify the effort.
But no drilling company would attempt this because their engineers already know all this, Dave.
Your assumption that if we can do 7 miles, then 41 miles shouldn't be too difficult...is like the gambler who won a thousand dollars and just knows that if he doubles down two or three more times, he can pay off the mortgage. Like your assumption, it's possible...but extremely unlikely (and certainly economically unfeasible).
38 - Glenn Contrarian
And Dave -
This is one of those times when you should sit back and consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, on this particular issue you do not know whereof you speak.
There's nothing wrong with being wrong...unless you insist on remaining wrong when someone shows you your error.
39 - Dan
"There's nothing wrong with being wrong...unless you insist on remaining wrong when someone shows you your error."---Glenn Contrarian
That would have been a refreshing tact for you to take Glenn, when you found out that Obama's idiotic moratorium would have shut down operations on 33 current drilling platforms.
40 - Dr Dreadful
As gasoline nears $3 per gallon again
Nears?
Here in California it's been above $3 for over a year.
41 - Glenn Contrarian
Dan -
you'd have a point - except for the fact that the moratorium would leave over 3500 wells in operation. In fact, there are over four thousand offshore wells in American waters...and the moratorium would've covered exactly 33 of those wells.
This is yet another example of the conservatives blowing things WAY out of proportion just to score political points.
42 - Baritone
So, in Dave's perfect world, we should turn all of our beaches into horozontal drilling oil rigs so we can reach out with our tendrils under the deep blue to suck out that golden crude.
B
43 - Dan
Glen, while it's good that you now acknowledge 33 current wells and all the supporting services of regional gulf businesses that would be, and already have been affected, you should also understand that many more deep water wells would have come on line in 6 months. Instead the rigs costing up to a half million a day would have been moved out of the gulf well beyond the 6 month arbitrary naval gazing exercise.
You should read the judges decision. the plaintiffs are all supporting business employing 11,875 people from the region. More than 150,000 others would be "directly" affected. A majority of the administrations hand picked experts were compelled to make a statement saying their findings were "misrepresented" by Obama's interior Secretary.
A better example of "blowing things WAY out of proportion just to score political points" would be this notion that a judges personal investment of 15000 measly dollars would be an ethical hurdle. I would think it would be hard to find a judge that did not have an investment in oil. A diverse portfolio always includes oil stocks. I own several mutual funds and they all include energy stocks related to oil.
Why would anyone even think that his decision would be positive or negative for his stock. It's ridiculous. If his decision moves his paltry 15k investment 3% he wins or loses 450 bucks. He probably pisses that away on golf in one weekend.
44 - Scott
Glenn,
I have been reading your arguments, you do realize that even if the moratorium affects only 33 wells, that up to 46,000 workers are still affected. Is 46K workers just a drop in the bucket? According to all the hype and media, they have already pinpointed the storm of events that caused the failure. If they know what went wrong, why is it going to take over 9 months for them to go over their procedures in the MMS?
Only Republicans, right wingers and Libertarians drill, process and use oil, right? The only reason the judge ruled for business is because he had stock in oil related companies...right?
It could NEVER have come about because of a President overstepping his authority....right?