Offshore drilling Vs Conservation

Cool. Just curious if you were assigned to a carrier or different vessel. It's a confined environment, kind of hard to avoid the chemicals even if you were not directly working with them

As an example, JP4, JP8 and other military jet fuels have various anti-gel, anti-static, anti-smoke, etc additives blended in. These additives can have a pretty dramatic effect on human health if you're always exposed to them, say the flightline of a carrier

Especially before the early 1990's much different standards were applied to the military. Example, halogenated solvents were routinely used and rather casually dumped where convenient

A lot of current bases and FUDS (Formerly Used Defense Site) are pretty expensive CERCLA/SARA issues right now. Not only is the ground water contaminated at those sites, but a lot of servicemen ingested contaminated water. Many bases had their own well water system, which had a wide range of diesel range organics, residual range organics, halogens, etc etc

I'm going to assume you served on a vessel at sea. Just curious if the potable water system was flash distillation or reverse osmosis? Depending on what was being washed/dumped overboard, or the locale, the sea chest routinely picked up hydrocarbons and solvents that were then in the shipboard potable water system

Another surprising find was that the actual potable water tankage and bulkheads were primed and painted with LEAD based products! Um, whoops! You may be interested in this link

http://www-nehc.med.navy.mil/downloads/prevmed/waterproject.pdf

I am happy to hear you are ok health-wise though. However, if you suspect you have been exposed to any solvents, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, etc, now is the time to get checked.

 

UC Santa Barbara and Milton Love are doing continuous research on oil platforms off the California coast - largely funded by the US Dept of Energy. Love is the author of a recent book on rock fish (27 species). There is a stratification of sea life around each platform - surface, midlevel and bottom. The structures serve as vertical reefs and enhance productivity. The platforms work well in highly oxygenated, cold water down to point Conception (Santa Barbara). The Pacific Ocean warms southward and productivity drops off (warmer water, lower nutrient and oxygen levels).

When asked how long a oil rig platform can be expected to last, once abandoned. Answer: 450 years.

If platforms enhance net primary productivity, why don't we just build more - not for oil extraction, but as vertical reefs? Each platform costs hundreds of millions of dollars.

Fish appear to stick around platforms for about 7 years. It is unknown where they go after 7 years (documented by video via a small submarine and repeated, systematic visits).

Oil extraction - No. Platforms as vertical reefs - Yes. More platforms - No.

 

Although I think it will do little to help our oil dependence and/or prices, maybe we should go ahead and allow more drilling in offshore areas and ANWR, as long as we get more help with alternative energy sources. There are Americans suffering from high gas prices, but most of us are just tired of the fluctuation with an ever-increasing baseline. If we can keep progressing with solar, wind, better biomass, geothermal, hydro energies, and keep carmakers working for alternatives to the ICE and/or at least hybrids, maybe they won't even find any reason to drill in a few years.

As an aside, it sounds like a lot of the interest is in more Gulf drilling... seems kind of dumb. No new drilling where we're already at the mercy of hurricanes. New refineries should not be permitted in the Gulf area. Just like I hope in 10 years we are all not driving electric cars (preferring a mix of sources), I think we need to diversify our energy infrastructure too.

 

We are siting on an oil patch, our neighbors to the north are sending it south right through our state. I believe would build a refinery if it could pass EPA.

 

My point is platforms can have a positive benefit for various species of fish. This runs counter to the argument stated earlier that "they never have any environmental benefit." It seems you concur that they can have a positive environmental benefit.

Conserve? To be sure. But I would rather produce domestically than import since domestic production creates US jobs, reduces our trade deficit, and we send less money to petro-dictator-terrorists. In addition, we likely drill under much better environmental regulations here than in Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, etc. And also are shipping less oil on the high seas where it is subject to spillage and where it takes a lot of energy to transport. Given this, I really don't understand the reasons for not drilling. It seems to be a serious case of NIMBYism.

 

I had the best of both worlds . . . shore based aviation squadron which would go to sea on aircraft carrier deployments . . . USS Enterprise, USS America, USS Independence in my case.

I wasn't a jet mechanic (those who worked with the most chemicals), I was an aviation electrician. I did a stint as a Plane Captain, and worked on the flight deck extensively for one cruise.

That Navy report you linked . . . interesting reading . . but that was a bunch of:

"may" . . . as in . . . "there may be an associated risk of chemical contamination of the final drinking water product."

"possible" . . . as in . . . "Due to this fact, the risk of lead contamination of the water supply is possible.

"could" . . as in . . . "The possibility exists that the materials could be present in sufficiently high concentrations to result in unacceptable levels in the final product water."

Nowhere in that report did it state something which would make me feel the need to be a worry wart and "go get checked."

- - --
And how did this thread morph from Offshore drilling Vs Conservation and offshore oil and gas drilling was responsible for just 2% of the petroleum in North America's oceans . . . into whether or not I drank the water on aircraft carriers or rolled around in JP-5?

Yes, only 2%!!!!!

If we really want to clean up the oceans, go for our big sin and fight urban pollution runoff.

"Just in the Canadian Great Lakes region, urban runoff discharges annually in the order of 105 tonnes of suspended solids, 104 tonnes of chloride, 103 tonnes of oil and grease, and 102 to 103 tonnes of trace metals."
Urban Runoff

Yes, I'm sure the numbers are worse for US urban areas.

 

You also used various chemicals, such as solvents, sealers, etc. Any chance you worked around various radar systems? The impact may not be felt for 2-3 decades

Asbestos exposure "may" cause mesothelioma. Cigarette smoking "may" cause emphysema and lung cancer. 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo penta dioxin "may" cause chloracne, endometriosis, teratogenicity, hepatocarcinoma, etc.

Just because a person is exposed to asbestos, they are not "guaranteed" to develop a problem. A 2 pack a day smoker may live to 90 with no problems whatsoever. 2,3,7,8 T may even be the elixir of life for some people.

I'm actually a bit puzzled by your apparent flippant attitude towards possible exposure to various chemicals now listed under CERCLA/SARA. Certainly it's your choice.

Because I just couldn't resist, that's why. A person who has direct career experience with CERCLA/SARA remediation, especially at FUDS, will tell you it's far more important to worry about the chemical exposure, than to pretend it's not important

Of course, it was that rather casual "oh it won't hurt anybody if we dump pcb's, cadmium, pah's, etc down the drain" that had provided for a lot of my career income in the 2002-2004 period. Site remediation is so exotically expensive you wouldn't believe it

So that 2% is nothing to worry about, and we should just ignore it? Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons will cause direct human health effects when in low ppm concentrations, and it is thought to influence long-term human health in upper ppb concentrations. Various other chemicals, such as benzenes, pcb's, halogenated solvents, etc have similar issues

Remember that many of these compounds are not noticed when ingested, that is, there won't be any unusual taste or odor in well water even at dangerous levels. Once you notice an obvious taste/odor, you're really in trouble

See, we are in 100% agreement here. We need more of those whacky environmental laws to get this problem under control. Consider just the sludge from sewage treatment plants, a very interesting cocktail of DRO's, RRO's, GRO's, PAH's, heavy metals of all sorts, etc.

One interesting runoff danger is road salt applied in northern areas, where pulp and paper mills used mercury cells to produce chlorine for pulp bleaching. There is a lot of mercury in the downstream sediment. The road deicer salt tends to liberate some mercury every spring during the melt

I would rather be "safe instead of sorry" and try to avoid long-term problems. People always claim an area can be cleaned up. Sure, it can, given enough time, money, and effort.

A lot of the LRRS site cleanup I was involved with, the site may have cost under $5 million to build in the early 1960's. It may have cost $10 million to in excess of $100 million to remediate

I really shouldn't worry about it too much. As long as I make a damn good living off it, and I *did*, so what?

 

Worry? NO! . . . not when Mother Nature herself is polluting the oceans with 32 times more from NATURAL SEEPAGE!

Ignore it? NO! We should work hard to prevent spills . . . But, I don't think we should act like Luddites and refuse to do anything . . . no matter how small it may actually pollute in relation to the larger scheme of things.

I'm just wondering if you would get really pissed if the police wrote you a ticket for doing 66.3 in a 65 zone.
I bet you would be if you saw an 'urban runoff' car go zipping past at 79 while that cop lectured you on the hazards of speeding.

And I am also wondering if our sucking that oil out before Mother Nature has a chance to leak it is a good thing. Do we lower the pressure on underwater oil deposits and lessen the leakage that way too? Hmmmm.

I too would rather be safe instead of sorry . . . but I also don't care to live my life sufferin' from phobia after phobia.

You left off "future technological advances" from your "time, money, and effort" cleanup.

 

If I was an off shore driller how much money would I make from correctly inflated tyres? How much of that would I be able to spare to contribute to a friendly politician's election campaign?

 

All ships I know off (quite a few, but not all) use distillation units. Very critical is that the unit can not be operated unless the ship is 12-50 miles out depending on the port and location.... and that the water was clean no matter what. (Getting more than 50 miles away from land is not possible in some areas or situations.)
Well lead ships were very good about handling chemicals and water purity/sampling. Poorly lead ships are a different story. Fortunately, dumping of almost everything is quite limited and a lot of technologies are being installed to make dumping of anything other than "organic" material part of the past.

 

Off-shore drilling is just a mask for the real problem with oil prices--they have become too volatile because of speculation. Just today the futures price went up because of a threatening storm in the Gulf off Texas. Not a hurricane, mind you, but a tropical storm. It's nuts to have oil prices subjected to such whims. The economy depends on the price of oil. Nobody wants to invest in the stock market with oil prices so volatile.
That's why the market is floundering, along with the financial mess.

The solution to the energy problem has to be less oil, not more oil, because of Global Warming. That means all the energy alternatives, including safe nuclear. Off-shore drilling sounds like the Oil Lobby.

 

It's not just a matter of flipping a light switch. It will take many decades to flip an economy and infrastructure away from oil. Until then, we need more oil, not less. And more domestic oil would be better than more imported oil.

More nuclear? The Democrats are saying NO to more of that form of energy too.

 

Patrick, how do reduce our dependence on oil by using more of it? I'd say that we need to stabilize our consumption and then start to reduce it. Slowly at first, perhaps, but accelerating over time.

 

Don't you mean, 'how do we reduce our dependence on foreign oil . . . first?'

Remember Aleric's Pie in the Sky chart? . . .




. . . [which touts fuel cell vehicles ] . . .
even that doesn't wipe out our dependence on foreign oil.

tripp, stop being a demagog! Nowhere do I say, yet you insinuate, that I am calling for increasing consumption of oil. I want reduction of foreign oil imports. THAT is killing this country faster than pollution.

I am for increased domestic oil production AND developing and implementing other technologies as soon as possible to lower that dependence on foreign oil FIRST.

I am for massive increases in solar, hydro, geo-thermal, nuclear, wind, conservation, hybrid cars, battery electric cars, mass transportation . . . tax incentives, etc, etc.

It seems crazy to me for people to talk about reducing our use of oil without also concentrating on increasing domestic production in order to hasten a reduction of our dependence on FOREIGN oil.

Buy from them, but don't produce it ourselves? Asinine . . . pure and utter ASININE!!!!

Reduce demand! But reduce demand on foreign oil FIRST . . . don't tie our hands behind our backs.

 

This is going to be way off the subject but is hitting a nerve. It's a big part of why we get hit with being the largest consumer and isn't taken into effect when looking at the big picture. The Middle East region’s major oil producers are - Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, Oman and Qatar.

I find it kind of ironic that we use so much oil to protect these countries (the US military is our largest consumer of oil) yet they don't contribute for this protection and it doesn't count towards what they consume. They don't pay taxes on the exports being protected, not just in this part of the globe but other parts as well. So they buy a couple of billion dollars worth of military equipment a year. This pales in comparison to what it's costing us. Maybe they should pony up according to how much they export under our protection.

 

How do you do it... keep banging your head against the wall with these people?

 

Patrick, I wasn't attacking you or being snarky. I agree that offshore drilling can play a role in the economic impacts of high oil prices... but "It's not just a matter of flipping a light switch" it will take 10 years before we see a substantial flow from offishore and even then it won't be a silver bullet. Conservation is the fastest way to solve this problem. It's something that can be done now. There are no lead in times as with oil production and technology.

Case in point

Yet, what are the politicians mostly saying? They're talking about drilling offshore without also saying that we could have a more immediate and larger impact by conserving what we've already got. THAT is assinine. That's my point. The post I quoted said nowt about that. If you'd just expounded a little...

I agree that off setting imported oil with domestic oil is a good thing, for a lot of reasons. But that domestic production MUST be accompanied by a MASSIVE effort to reduce consumption through all means available. The additional oil won't last very long and will mainly be off setting domestic declines, ie we're treading water.

 

Ah Doberman... now you know how so many people feel about you.

 

thanks for the personal attack - i guess thats how you roll bro.

heard from CA people that they could get oil out of their waters in under three if not quicker. where do you get your facts? in fact they are pleading for drilling to stop the leaking of oil from underwater deposits - reduce the pressure.

again, why cant we do everything here, drill, research, conserve, build nuc power plants????