PDA

View Full Version : US Oil Shortage, NOT!



Sid_Vicious
07-01-2008, 09:10 PM
A Christian missionary, inside the Alaskan oil fields during the 1970's, oil to supplu the USA for 200 years. Do not watch this if you don't want to be mad and sad all at the same time.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147

hondo
07-02-2008, 01:19 PM
Sid, I had already put this link on the "Ethanol isn't the answer" thread.

mike60
07-02-2008, 11:00 PM
Our immediate problem is that it takes between eight and ten years for the oil to
reach the market. Anyway most of the oil from the Alaska pipeline is shipped to Japan
not the USA. The shortage is phony and the oil barons slow down the refineries and
jack the prices because they can. The president of Chevron said on TV that the price in California was high because the consumers will pay whatever is asked and just eat it. A rare moment of honesty. Remember that there are numerous refineries in California and the highest prices in the USA. Logical?


mike60 hitchhiking to the gas station

pooltchr
07-03-2008, 04:26 AM
Oil prices in California are higher because they require their own special blend of gas in order to meet environmental restrictions. IOW, they asked for more expensive gas, and they got it.
Steve

nAz
07-03-2008, 08:23 AM
from what i understand the oil that we use for gasoline is made of Lite Sweet Crude, (not as bad for the environment) not the heavy crude which we have a lot of (but harder to refine) and trades for a lot less.
140+ per Barrel compare 115? per Barrel.

Sid_Vicious
07-03-2008, 08:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Our immediate problem is that it takes between eight and ten years for the oil to
reach the market. Anyway most of the oil from the Alaska pipeline is shipped to Japan
not the USA. The shortage is phony and the oil barons slow down the refineries and
jack the prices because they can. The president of Chevron said on TV that the price in California was high because the consumers will pay whatever is asked and just eat it. A rare moment of honesty. Remember that there are numerous refineries in California and the highest prices in the USA. Logical?


mike60 hitchhiking to the gas station</div></div>

"Our immediate problem is that it takes between eight and ten years for the oil to
reach the market"

In this case with the possibly largest field in the world found on that island in Alaska, piped and ready to turn a valve, what you said is not true. Even if the infrastructure wasn't there, just the knowledge and the well in place, left non operational, while at the same time Mr. Bush pushes for more exploration,,,well that is pure, visable BS. We have oil NOW, quick and ready for the US, and plenty of it...sid

mike60
07-03-2008, 03:06 PM
Where may i read about "that island in Alaska, piped and ready to turn a valve,"?

mike60 wanting to learn

Sid_Vicious
07-03-2008, 05:13 PM
Watch the video in it's entirety. It's all there. sid

pooltchr
07-03-2008, 07:38 PM
As I recall, the reason we made Alaska a state was because of all the natural resources (including oil) that it had. The trans-Alaska pipeline can easily move the oil. Congress just keeps holding it up!

On a related note, I read something the other day where, I think it was South Dakota, there are about 200 new millionaires each year because of the drilling going on for shale oil. The environmentalists don't seem to concerned about that!

Steve

mike60
07-03-2008, 07:59 PM
This comes from: http://skepchick.org/skepticsguide/index.php?topic=11308.0

Your Mr. Williams is a well know fraud.
Mr. Williams is the victim of very cruel practical jokes, or he is twisting the truth to sell more books.

In this post, I will only respond to the first five minutes of the video linked in the original post.
*
Falsehood:
#1.* Mr. Williams claims: "The governor of Alaska stated on the Bill Maher TV show Real Time on March the 18th, 2005 there is potentially enough crude oil on the north slope of Alaska to supply the entire United States of America for 200 years. He is correct"*
The transcripts from the Bill Maher don't show Gov. Murkowski saying anything like that. Gov. Murkowski said: "But this is a lot of oil, potentially, up there (ANWR). Alaska has been producing about 25% of the total crude oil produced in the United States for the last almost 30 years. If there's an abundance of oil in Anwar, it could be as much as what we have import from Saudi Arabia in 25 years. So this could be a very big thing.

#2.* He then claims PEAK Oil is a misnomer and sites massive oil discoveries in super deep Russian wells called "Kola SG3".* His errors are that he mistakenly uses the word "Kola SG3" as a term referring to a group of deep hole wells. The Kola SG3 is not a group of wells. It is the number designation referring to boreholes branching from a central hole.* The Kola being the central hole and SG3 being the deepest of the branches.

#3.* He claims the "Kola" wells were "just" drilled. Since his quote from the Governor of Alaska was dated 3/18/2005, we know the video was made after that date. The Kola borehole began in 1970 and the SG3 reached its final depth in 1989. Does a time span of 9 to 30 years justify the term "just drilled".

#4.* He calls the Kola super deep boreholes, "wells."* They are not wells as they were not meant to, nor have they ever, produced anything.* They were drilled strictly for scientific research. The most unusual thing from the project was the discover of very deep water and hydrogen gas. No oil was ever produced.* Additionally, the boreholes have been open to the scientific community for a long time and aren't a secret...the Soviets were very proud of them.* I heard about them back in '83.

#5.* He then claims there is enough natural gas on the North Slope of Alaska to supply the entire USA with natural gas for the next 200 years. He* also implies the reason we don't currently have this natural gas* is because 1 billion cubic feet of gas is pumped back into Prudue Bay Alaska every day. The reserves of natural gas in Alaska are stated as 193.831 trillion cubic feet. The USA consumes 82.626 billion cubic feet per day. So, even if we add the billion cubic feet of natural gas Mr. Williams claims is being pumped into the ground each day... Alaska still doesn't have enough natural gas to supply the entire USA for 200 years.

#6.* *His implication that the 1 billion cubic feet reinjected (the correct term for "pumping it back into the ground" is "reinject") into the Prudue Bay is* a big secret and part of a conspiracy is lludicrous.* I don't know how much natural gas is reinjected, for all I know, it could be more, but it isn't part of a conspiracy. There are two possible reasons why it is reinjected.
But, first I should explain the term "Natural Gas" is generic.* While it means one thing to the consumer, in the exploration and production business it refers to a pertoleum product produced from wells. Natural gas can be "dry" meaning it is basically methane... the stuff piped into your home. Or it can be liquid natural gas (LNG).*

So, what are the possible reasons for reinjecting natrual gas in Prudue Bay?
Transportation:* *LNG can be very corrosive to pipelines.* So the best way to transport it is by LNG Tankers. However, for safety reasons, LNG Tankers require water depths of at least 79 feet for loading. The coast of artic Alaska are very shallow.* Special pipelines can still transport LNG, and two pipelines have been proposed, but the cost of building the special pipelines has been uneconomical untill recently.* Natural gas mimics crude oil price, so it has risen too.

Production of Crude Oil: It is very common in the oil business to reinject natural gas to enhance the recovery of crude oil. The industry term is "gas lift".* Basically, the gas is used to "lift" the oil out of the rock.* Without "gas lift", as much as 50% of the oil might not be recoverable.
BTW= the gas that is reinjected.... it is pumped back out with the oil it lifts and is reinjected again.*



http://www.billmaher.com/?page_id=159
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/ftparea/wogirs/xls/ngm02vmall.xls#'Data 1'!A1
At about minute 15 into the video, Mr. Williams tells a story about an island 2-2.5 miles off the coast, Gull Island, and the discovery of the largest oil pool in North America.* He claims an employee of Arco asked him to come watch a well test because;"I'd like you to see what we think we have struck today."* They sit on the West Dock of Prudue Bay when suddenly there is a big plume of black smoke. According to him, back then it was still allowed to "burn it off." After the test, he and the Arco employee rushed back "to see what was coming in from out at the well site".

So, what are the falsehoods in this part of the video?

1.* You can't watch a well test from 2 miles away.* The test is basically a few men inside a trailer looking at read-outs and possibly test tubes.
2.* Oil doesn't burn easily and you don't "burn it off" when it is released because; it flows.
3.* Even in 1976 they had Blow Out Preventors (BOP).* I guarantee, unless it was some kind of practical joke, had there been a "plume of black smoke" it would have been because the BOP had failed, and they would have been rushing back to report an emergency, not to look at test results.

FWI =* When drilling a well, it is common to hit pockets of gas and for the gas to flow up the hole. Again, the BOP is designed to handle this gas and then divert it to a vent line. Basically, a vent line is a long pipe that runs away from the drilling rig where it vents any gas.* Oh, and the venting gas is ignited. i.e. the gas is "burned off."* As for his comment regarding “back then they still allowed them to "burn it off”?* They are still allow them to burn it off… after all its much safer to burn it off then let gas float around ready to ignite.


The story continues with Mr. Williams telling how he was included in a board meeting of the most powerful oil executive in the world who excitedly told him how fabulous the discovery was. The next day he was warned never to tell what he had seen.* According to him, the discovery was never to be released, but was to remain secret.* He also tells of an Arco executive (responsible for the development of the Purdue Bay oil fields & the cracking plant for all the oil up and down the line),* getting fired when Williams book came out.

1.* The* most productive oil field in the world is the Ghawar Field in Saudi Arabia. The producing structure of the Ghawar field is 150 miles long and about 25 miles wide. Therefore, if the Gull Island field is real, it would logically be approximately similar in size.
2.* *Wells must be spaced apart from each other so they don't deplete the oil from other wells and not adversly affect the preasure needed to produce the oil.* Spacing requirements can be as big as 640 acres, or as small as 20 acres.* An acre is 210' x 210'. Under 20 acre spacing requirements, the next well would need to be at least 4,200 feet away. (5,280' = 1 mile) Therefore, too keep from pumping any oil from the supposed, Gull Island field, there couldn't be any wells within 4/5th of a mile.
4.**I fFound a geologist to question regarding the best placement for an exploratory well.* His short answer was "the high point in the structure of the field" ...which he then followed up with the exections to the rule.* However, the exceptions aren't reliavant to this part of my argument. Basically, the Gull Island field structure would easily continue to the shore.
5.* *I also learned from the geologist that oil fields come in all shapes. So, while the Ghawar Field is long and narrow, fields can be round or even shaped like a stubby spider (legs extending from a center point)
*
So....if the Gull Island field is real, and there is a conspiracy to keep it secret; then simply by looking at a map, we should see a large gap void of wells someplace near the coast line.* Please see link below.* There isn't a large gap void of wells.* *

Another strange part of Mr. Williams story is; it is very unlikely a person experienced in developing an oil field woud also be qualified in Cracking Plants.* One would require a petroleum engineer, the other a chemical engineer. (okay... I asked an engineer about this, he agreed it would be very unlikely, but it is possible.)

...and why in the world would the most powerful men in the oil industry allow a small town preacher to attend a board meeting?



http://www.d.umn.edu/~cstroupe/archive/5230/glocal/prudhoe/www.d.umn.edu/~hoef0049/prudhoe.html

mike60 doing my homework

Gayle in MD
07-11-2008, 01:57 PM
I thought I had read a government study, some time ago, which stated that the transporting costs from the North Alaskan region were so prohibitive that the end result would save only pennies per gallon.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
07-11-2008, 06:59 PM
That might have been true when oil was $30 a barrel...but times have changed. What once was cost prohibitive has now become a very viable solution. Drilling in ANWR and off shore is the best option we have. It may not solve the problem overnight, but 5 years from now, will we be sorry we didn't do something today?
Steve

mike60
07-11-2008, 08:28 PM
Steve, Hopefully in five years we will have gotten to the point in alternate fuels we won't need the oil.

mike60

sack316
07-12-2008, 01:05 AM
methinks that if anyone in the world actually thought we would be diligent in our quest for alternative fuels (i.e. in five years) that the cost of oil would plummet, if nothing else, to keep us thirsting for more of it.

Sack

LWW
07-12-2008, 05:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The president of Chevron said on TV that the price in California was high because the consumers will pay whatever is asked and just eat it.</div></div>
Evidence?

C'mon Mikey ... you claimed it, let's see it.

LWW

LWW
07-12-2008, 05:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyway most of the oil from the Alaska pipeline is shipped to Japan not the USA.</div></div>
Only because the far left has petitioned our govt that this oil shouldn't be burned here. In any event, it merely shows that they and you, as if there was a difference, have no clue as to how free markets work.

The oil is sold on the world market and increases in supply have effects on prices without regards to where it came from.

Do yourself a favor Mikey, read a book.

LWW

LWW
07-12-2008, 06:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Our immediate problem is that it takes between eight and ten years for the oil to reach the market.</div></div>
Our immediate problem is we listened to the counsel of moonbats on this for 40 years.

So what if it takes 8-10 years. Everyday wasted is a day wasted and nothing more.

BTW, it takes 8-10 years to produce a doctor from a HS grad. Due to the delay, why try ?

Do yourself a favor, think using your own brain and stop letting moonbats explain to you what you think.

You parrot the far left line daily so bad it rivals Gayle.

LWW

LWW
07-12-2008, 06:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Steve, Hopefully in five years we will have gotten to the point in alternate fuels we won't need the oil.

mike60 </div></div>
Can't happen.

The moonbat left opposes wind because we might kill a bird.

The moonbat left opposes solar because we might kill a desert rat.

The moonbat left opposes hydro because we might kill a fish.

The moonbat left opposes nuclear because we might get the equivalent of 1 addl dental X ray per lifetime.

The moonbat left opposes shale because we might kill some ants.

The moonbat left opposes offshore because a mere 100% of our wells hold up under hurricanes.

As long as America listens to the moonbat left nothing will change. However, finally, people are waking up to reality and the fact that our congress has sold out to anti capitalist forces draped in faux ecology.

LWW

LWW
07-12-2008, 06:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">methinks that if anyone in the world actually thought we would be diligent in our quest for alternative fuels (i.e. in five years) that the cost of oil would plummet, if nothing else, to keep us thirsting for more of it.

Sack </div></div>
Absolutely, and in an effort to keep us from doing it for economic reasons.

LWW

pooltchr
07-12-2008, 06:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Steve, Hopefully in five years we will have gotten to the point in alternate fuels we won't need the oil.

mike60 </div></div>

If it takes 10 years (and I must question that statement) to bring oil from the ground to the market, what possible reason do we have to think alternative fuel sources could be available in half that time?

It takes about 10 years to get a nuclear power plant on-line and generating electricity, most of it due to the government regulations that slow the entire process to a crawl. Is that any reason to give up on nuclear?

We have a problem that won't go away any time soon. It would seem prudent for us to be working on EVERY possible solution today so that eventually we can come out on top. That includes offshore drilling, opening ANWR, shale oil, nuclear, electric cars, solar, hydrogen, and anything else that would give us the power we need to live.

By the way, do you know that General Motors actually had a working electric car years ago. It was marketed on a limited basis in California through the Saturn dealerships. Just imagine if we had continued to advance that technology years ago how far ahead we would be today.

Steve

Wally_in_Cincy
07-12-2008, 10:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Steve, Hopefully in five years we will have gotten to the point in alternate fuels we won't need the oil.

mike60 </div></div>

If it takes 10 years (and I must question that statement) to bring oil from the ground to the market, what possible reason do we have to think alternative fuel sources could be available in half that time?

</div></div>

Exactly.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

By the way, do you know that General Motors actually had a working electric car years ago. It was marketed on a limited basis in California through the Saturn dealerships. </div></div>

They deep-sixed the car because it only went 40 miles on a charge and very few people wanted them.

I would think a viable electric car (100 mile range or more) would sell like hotcakes (and GM is coming out with the Volt next year I think) but we need new power plants to provide for this. We need to get nuclear plants going right now. Or say "screw the environmentalists wackos" and burn coal, which we have in quantities that equal Saudi Arabia's wealth in oil.

jayalley
07-12-2008, 10:49 AM
More elegant truth from Professor LWW !!

As if wind and solar sources aren't going to take much, much longer to come to(if any, if ever) significant relief!! The Far Left opposes oil production only on the basis of the usual mindless, doctrinaire self-righteousness.

mike60
07-12-2008, 11:25 AM
Where to start. LWW is just a twisted nutcase. The electric car is available now, it gets over 100 miles on a charge. There are several models for sale in California.
J, read the newspapers, yesterday there was an article about Wind farms in Texas,
huge areas near Sweetwater and Lubbock.
"They deep-sixed the car because it only went 40 miles on a charge and very few people wanted them." Actually they leased them and when the leases ran out they
reclaimed them and crushed them. The people tried to buy them or release them but GM refused. Everybody that had one wanted to keep it.

This is so dumb: "The moonbat left opposes offshore because a mere 100% of our wells hold up under hurricanes."
You should do some research:
Hurricane Katrina - Gulf of Mexico Oil Spills
Speaking of oil spills, SkyTruth images revealed significant spills covering a large area of the northern Gulf of Mexico in the wake of Hurricane Katrina back in 2005. At the time, nobody was talking about what had happened to the 4,000 offshore oil platforms - and 34,000 miles of pipeline on the seafloor - when Katrina ripped through the Gulf as a Cat 5 storm, followed a few weeks later by Hurricane Rita. Attention was rightly focused on the unfolding human tragedy, as well as the 7-9 million gallons of oil spilled from damaged pipelines, refineries and storage tanks onshore.

But for months after the storms, officials from government and industry repeatedly claimed that there were no "significant" spills in the Gulf. That line is still heard even now. Yet in May 2006, the U.S. Minerals Management Service published their offshore damage assessment: 113 platforms totally destroyed, and - more importantly - 457 pipelines damaged, 101 of those major lines with 10" or larger diameter. At least 741,000 gallons were spilled from 124 reported sources (the Coast Guard calls anything over 100,000 gallons a "major" spill).

Wells and platforms were shut down before the storm, so leakage from those facilities was minimal. Pipelines were shut down too. But what the officials failed to mention is they don't require industry to "purge" pipelines before a severe storm - so they were probably still loaded with oil, gas or liquid gas condensate. Any section of pipeline that was breached leaked all of that product into the Gulf within hours of the storm. That's what we think accounts for the widespread slicks seen on the imagery from September 1 and 2, covering hundreds of square miles and obviously emanating from many points of origin. These slicks dispersed after several days of high winds offshore, as shown by our followup imagery taken on September 12, but a few problems remained as evidenced by ongoing leaks from wrecked platforms.

This report from MMS details the pipeline damage that occurred.
POSTED BY JOHN AMOS AT 8:23 AM
LABELS: KATRINA, OIL SPILL, SATELLITE IMAGE
These are US Government reports you brainless twit. Try the Google.

This is too easy.


mike666 james kopp murdering scum doing forever as some guy's bitch

Wally_in_Cincy
07-12-2008, 11:34 AM
The electric car is available now, it gets over 100 miles on a charge. There are several models for sale in California.


<span style="color: #FF0000">There are certainly none around here. </span>

"They deep-sixed the car because it only went 40 miles on a charge and very few people wanted them."

Actually they leased them and when the leases ran out they
reclaimed them and crushed them. The people tried to buy them or release them but GM refused. Everybody that had one wanted to keep it.

<span style="color: #FF0000">The car was test marketed. They leased them as a test market. If they had sold them they would have been trresponsible for providing parts and service far into the future. They did not want to risk that if the car did not sell well.

Apparently it did not sell enough to make its mass production viable. </span>

Everybody that had one wanted to keep it.

<span style="color: #FF0000">Maybe so but there were not enough additional folks who did not have one who wanted one. If there had been a great demand what would be GM's motivation for axing the program? </span>

LWW
07-12-2008, 11:40 AM
Translated:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[SNIP] <span style='font-size: 23pt'>OH, WON'T SOMEBODY AGREE WITH ME! I'M GETTING MY ASS HANDED TO ME BECAUSE I KEEP POSTING STUFF THAT THE FACTS DON'T SUPPORT ... SO I'LL ACT LIKE EVIDENCE EXISTS EVEN THOUGH I KNOW IT DOESN'T!</span>
<span style='font-size: 23pt'>H</span><span style='font-size: 20pt'>E</span><span style='font-size: 17pt'>L</span><span style='font-size: 14pt'>P</span> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>M</span><span style='font-size: 8pt'>E</span> <span style='font-size: 23pt'>H</span><span style='font-size: 20pt'>E</span><span style='font-size: 17pt'>L</span><span style='font-size: 14pt'>P</span> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>M</span><span style='font-size: 8pt'>E</span> <span style='font-size: 23pt'>H</span><span style='font-size: 20pt'>E</span><span style='font-size: 17pt'>L</span><span style='font-size: 14pt'>P</span> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>M</span><span style='font-size: 8pt'>E please </span>... </div></div>

You mean like THESE (http://www.katrinadestruction.com/images/v/damaged+energy+facilities/) and THESE (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9365607/) and THESE (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/sep/16/usnews.hurricanekatrina) oil spills that were from on land sites and NOT from the wells?

Lesson for the day Mikey.

Words mean things. If you don't understand the words then go HERE (http://dictionary.reference.com/) to find their definitions.

Also, try reading posts. It helps you to comprehend things better.

If you need further assistance I suggest you go HERE (http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fd/) to find help in your area.

LWW

Wally_in_Cincy
07-12-2008, 11:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


This is so dumb: "The moonbat left opposes offshore because a mere 100% of our wells hold up under hurricanes."
You should do some research:
Hurricane Katrina - Gulf of Mexico Oil Spills
Speaking of oil spills, SkyTruth images revealed significant spills covering a large area of the northern Gulf of Mexico in the wake of Hurricane Katrina back in 2005. At the time, nobody was talking about what had happened to the 4,000 offshore oil platforms - and 34,000 miles of pipeline on the seafloor - when Katrina ripped through the Gulf as a Cat 5 storm, followed a few weeks later by Hurricane Rita. Attention was rightly focused on the unfolding human tragedy, as well as the 7-9 million gallons of oil spilled from damaged pipelines, refineries and storage tanks onshore.

But for months after the storms, officials from government and industry repeatedly claimed that there were no "significant" spills in the Gulf. That line is still heard even now. Yet in May 2006, the U.S. Minerals Management Service published their offshore damage assessment: 113 platforms totally destroyed, and - more importantly - 457 pipelines damaged, 101 of those major lines with 10" or larger diameter. At least 741,000 gallons were spilled from 124 reported sources (the Coast Guard calls anything over 100,000 gallons a "major" spill).

</div></div>

quoting your source

US Mineral Management damage assessment (http://www.mms.gov/SettingtheRecordStraight/EstimatedOil%20SpillsAsaResultofHurricanesKatrinaa ndRita.htm)

mike60
07-12-2008, 11:50 AM
Wally, Your ally LWW claimed 100% containment, NO SPILLS AT ALL. Go to the aerial
photos of the oil slicks available:http://skytruth.mediatools.org/node/12846
skytruth_katrina_platform_leaks_montage_200dpi.tif

Whats In The Photo:

Radarsat-1 satellite radar image acquired on September 2, 2005, that shows extensive oil slicks (dark patches) in the Gulf of Mexico following Hurricane Katrina. Approximately 2,144 platforms and 15,366 miles of seafloor pipeline experienced hurricane-force winds; an additional 2600 platforms and 12,470 miles of seafloor pipeline were exposed to tropical storm-force winds. Insets show slicks apparently emanating from platforms shown by orange squares (platform locations and ID numbers from U.S. Minerals Management Service data). Original TIFF file is 200dpi @ 10"x7.5".

Caption:

Detail - Leaking Platforms, 9/2/2005



Rent a clue.

mike666 james kopp murdering scum doing forever as some guy's bitch

LWW
07-12-2008, 11:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wally, Your ally LWW claimed 100% containment, NO SPILLS AT ALL. Go to the aerial
photos of the oil slicks available:http://skytruth.mediatools.org/node/12846
skytruth_katrina_platform_leaks_montage_200dpi.tif

Whats In The Photo:

Radarsat-1 satellite radar image acquired on September 2, 2005, that shows extensive oil slicks (dark patches) in the Gulf of Mexico following Hurricane Katrina. Approximately 2,144 platforms and 15,366 miles of seafloor pipeline experienced hurricane-force winds; an additional 2600 platforms and 12,470 miles of seafloor pipeline were exposed to tropical storm-force winds. Insets show slicks apparently emanating from platforms shown by orange squares (platform locations and ID numbers from U.S. Minerals Management Service data). Original TIFF file is 200dpi @ 10"x7.5".

Caption:

Detail - Leaking Platforms, 9/2/2005



Rent a clue.

mike666 james kopp murdering scum doing forever as some guy's bitch </div></div>
Why didn't you post the photo Mikey?

I'll help tou out.

Here it is:

<span style='font-size: 23pt'>Page not found</span>

Sorry dude, most people punk someone else.

LWW

LWW
07-12-2008, 12:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wally, Your ally LWW claimed 100% containment, NO SPILLS AT ALL. Go to the aerial
photos of the oil slicks available:http://skytruth.mediatools.org/node/12846
skytruth_katrina_platform_leaks_montage_200dpi.tif

Whats In The Photo:

Radarsat-1 satellite radar image acquired on September 2, 2005, that shows extensive oil slicks (dark patches) in the Gulf of Mexico following Hurricane Katrina. Approximately 2,144 platforms and 15,366 miles of seafloor pipeline experienced hurricane-force winds; an additional 2600 platforms and 12,470 miles of seafloor pipeline were exposed to tropical storm-force winds. Insets show slicks apparently emanating from platforms shown by orange squares (platform locations and ID numbers from U.S. Minerals Management Service data). Original TIFF file is 200dpi @ 10"x7.5".

Caption:

Detail - Leaking Platforms, 9/2/2005



Rent a clue.

mike666 james kopp murdering scum doing forever as some guy's bitch </div></div>
Translated:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">GAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY-ULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL HE'S GOT ME AGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIN!

WHAT DO I SAY NOW?

<span style='font-size: 23pt'>H</span><span style='font-size: 20pt'>E</span><span style='font-size: 17pt'>L</span><span style='font-size: 14pt'>P</span> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>M</span><span style='font-size: 8pt'>E</span> <span style='font-size: 23pt'>H</span><span style='font-size: 20pt'>E</span><span style='font-size: 17pt'>L</span><span style='font-size: 14pt'>P</span> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>M</span><span style='font-size: 8pt'>E</span> <span style='font-size: 23pt'>H</span><span style='font-size: 20pt'>E</span><span style='font-size: 17pt'>L</span><span style='font-size: 14pt'>P</span> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>M</span><span style='font-size: 8pt'>E please </span>...</div></div>

LWW

mike60
07-12-2008, 12:05 PM
GAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY-ULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL HE'S GOT ME AGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIN!

WHAT DO I SAY NOW?

HELP ME HELP ME HELP ME please ...

It seems you have nothing to say. But we already knew that.

mike666 james kopp murdering scum doing forever as some guy's bitch

LWW
07-12-2008, 12:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">GAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY-ULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL HE'S GOT ME AGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIN!

WHAT DO I SAY NOW?

HELP ME HELP ME HELP ME please ...

It seems you have nothing to say. But we already knew that.

mike666 james kopp murdering scum doing forever as some guy's bitch </div></div>
Nothing that a ninnyhammer such as yourself can follow, but ... we both knew that.

LWW

mike60
07-12-2008, 03:00 PM
LWW, Did you really say"ninnyhammer" ? I am aghast! May i submit this to the
Nobel Prize committee? Wow.

mike60 passing through

Wally_in_Cincy
07-12-2008, 05:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wally, Your ally LWW claimed 100% containment, NO SPILLS AT ALL. </div></div>

I was not defending LLW. I was just posting the facts according to your source.

No "major" spills. In a Cat 5 hurricane. What more can we ask for? As technology improves (as it always does) this should improve.

p.s. good job for twisting the facts by combining all the minor spills into one major spill. I am sure Gayle was giddy upon reading that.

mike60
07-12-2008, 06:16 PM
Twist this dimwits:
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/whatsnew/speeches/2006/Baker%20Inst%20Rice%20Univ.pdf (This above is the actual Government report.)

http://www.memagazine.org/june06/features/stormwrn/stormwrn.html
(This above is Mechanical Engineering Magazine report)

Katrina and Rita pummeled the Gulf of Mexico's oil and gas producers. What can they do to keep it from happening again?
by Alan S. Brown, Associate Editor


DOWNLOADMLOrig.
Radarsat-1 satellite image with detail insets showing oil slicks in Gulf of Mexico following passage of Hurricane Katrina. Image taken on September 2, 2005.

the day after Hurricane Katrina scoured the Gulf of Mexico, the residents of Dauphin Island outside Mobile Bay in Alabama came out to assess the damages. In addition to storm wreckage, they found an offshore drilling rig grounded on their beach.

The Ocean Warwick's mangled superstructure towered above the horizon. Ordinarily home to up to 96 workers, its hull measured 208 feet by 178 feet by 23 feet with a 62-foot-square cantilevered heliport jutting out from its side. Its height dwarfed the buildings nearby.

Ocean Warwick was a jackup rig, a mobile drilling unit that the owner, Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc., could tow to a worksite. Once there, it would lower its legs 300 feet to the ocean floor for support, then jack itself above the water line, and begin drilling. It had been moored 12 miles off the coast of Louisiana. Katrina had pushed it 66 miles to Dauphin Island.

Ocean Warwick was not the only drilling rig to break free. Katrina ripped Transocean Inc.'s $330 million Deepwater Nautilus from its moorings, severing it from the 3,200-foot riser piping that connected it to an underwater well before pushing it 80 miles. The storm tore loose four other drilling rigs and capsized a seventh.

Katrina also wreaked havoc among the production platforms that bring up oil and natural gas from wells sunk into the ocean bottom. It destroyed 46 production platforms and damaged 20 more. One month later, Hurricane Rita took out another 69 platforms and damaged 32 others. Seven months after Rita, 23 percent of the Gulf's oil production and 14 percent of its gas production remain out of commission.


The $1 billion, 400-foot-high Thunder Horse platform lists on its side after Hurricane Dennis. Despite defects in its ballast, bilge, and fire water systems, the platform's compartmentalized design kept it afloat.
Since September, it has been clear that the energy industry must make offshore structures more hurricane-resistant. The vast majority of failed platforms were older fixed units, platforms mounted on tubular steel members supported by piles driven into the seabed. Built as far back as the 1950s and 1960s, they were not designed to today's more exacting standards and also were weakened with age. Katrina and Rita's massive currents, waves, and winds simply ripped them apart. Yet the older structures accounted for no more than 2 percent of the Gulf's total production.

The hurricanes also pummeled several modern platforms. Rita, for example, capsized Chevron Corp.'s four-year-old, $256 million Typhoon, which produced about 40,000 barrels of oil per day plus 60 million cubic feet of natural gas. It now bobs face down, 2,100 feet above the ocean bottom and 165 miles southwest of New Orleans.

"Its failure is of great concern to us," said Chevron's senior facilities engineering advisor, Paul Versowsky. "We're studying what happened right now, but there's no clearcut smoking gun. It's a huge disappointment."

The Typhoon was very different from the fixed units that work close to shore and constitute one category of platform. Typhoon represents a second category—floating platforms designed to operate in deeper seas where supporting truss structures are impractical. Such deepwater platforms now account for 60 percent of Gulf production, and some are monsters.

Typhoon was a tension leg platform, a deepwater floater that relied on tensioned tendons secured to moorings on the ocean bottom to hold its buoyant hull in place. The tension created by the hull pulling up and the tendons pulling down provided the loading needed to drill and produce wells.

A storm can imperil floaters if they break free of some tendons. Then the remaining tendons can cause the platform to behave like a balloon tethered to the bottom of a swimming pool. Any forward motion will push it beneath the surface. Broken moorings may have led to Typhoon's demise.

"If we take early, intelligent corrective action, we can
probably get home. If we try to ignore them, they'll kill us."

Weighing in at 36,500 tons of steel, Royal Dutch Shell plc's nine-year-old Mars was also a tension leg platform. One of the Gulf's largest deepwater production platforms, it produced 220,000 barrels of oil and 220 million cubic feet of natural gas each day. Designers built it to withstand 71-foot waves and 140-mile-per-hour winds.

Katrina left Mars looking like a huge fist had pounded the top floors of its superstructure into the lower decks. While Shell has not yet released a report on the damage, several engineers speculate that Mars's drilling derrick was not secured well enough. When it collapsed, it smashed through the decks and severed the connection with the platform's oil pipeline.

Hurricane Dennis, a less severe storm than either Katrina or Rita, caused extensive damage to BP plc's new $1 billion, 250,000-barrel-a-day Thunder Horse in July 2005. The platform, destined to become the hub of the Gulf's largest hydrocarbon find, was also a deepwater floater. Its 400-foot-high hull achieved stability by floating partly submerged while anchored to the ocean floor by 16 chain and wire mooring lines.

Apparently, Thunder Horse's ballast control valves were installed incorrectly. Operators who thought they were securing the platform prior to the hurricane actually let in water. When they returned after the storm, they found the platform listing at 30 to 35 degrees. Thanks to the platform's compartmentalized design and enclosed decks, it retained enough buoyancy to remain afloat. BP expects to return it to operation later this year.

Pictures of broken platforms and drifting rigs populated the Web for months after the storms, but they showed only part of the story. Below the surface, mud slides, surging currents, and dragging anchors damaged more than 450 oil and gas pipelines, said Alex Alvarado, chief of the pipeline section for the Gulf of Mexico in the U.S. Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service.

According to Pat O'Connor, a senior advisor at BP, the production falloff after Katrina was not an offshore crisis as much as an infrastructure crisis. "In the past, the industry would recover from hurricanes within a few weeks," he said. "Now, we've got all these main pipelines coming in from deepwater facilities that feed all the hubs. It's these pipelines that affect production, not the platforms." In addition, Rita damaged many onshore facilities that distribute the oil and gas produced offshore.

mike60
07-12-2008, 06:27 PM
reminder of commander lww lies:"The moonbat left opposes offshore because a mere 100% of our wells hold up under hurricanes."

some more: COPYRIGHT 2006 South Florida Sun-Sentinal

Byline: William E. Gibson

WASHINGTON _ When hurricanes Katrina and Rita swept across the Gulf of Mexico last year, they destroyed scores of offshore oil and gas rigs, damaged hundreds of pipelines and spilled 741,384 gallons of petroleum products into the sea, federal records show.

A damage assessment released this week by the U.S. Minerals Management Service said the largest of the spills poured about 76,000 gallons of condensate, a toxic form of liquefied gas, into Gulf waters.

Initially overlooked during news of the storms' human toll, the offshore leaks could become an important consideration when Congress resumes debate next month on legislation that would spread energy exploration into the eastern Gulf, closer to the shores of Florida.

it is sad to have such ignorant people to debate.

LWW
07-12-2008, 07:02 PM
Do you even read the stuff you post?

You can't.

Let me sum it up for you.

On land holding facilities had spills.

Off shore platforms were in some cases destroyed.

The off shore platforms were NOT the caus of the spills.

Please stop your dishonest and/or ignorant use of data.

LWW

mike60
07-12-2008, 07:21 PM
Try this dimwit.

http://skytruth.mediatools.org/node/19981


OFFSHORE SLICKS MUST HAVE BEEN THE SEA GULLS SHITTING.

You posted: "The moonbat left opposes offshore because a mere 100% of our wells hold up under hurricanes."

100% of our wells hold up under hurricanes? Moron.

And why would you assume i'm against off shore drilling? I'm for off shore exploration and better designed rigs. Ask the oil companies for better rigs.
better yet just fuck off.

Wally_in_Cincy
07-12-2008, 08:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

better yet just fuck off.
</div></div>

Very mature debating tactic

mike60
07-12-2008, 11:22 PM
W, Yes i agree it has served me very well lately.

http://skytruth.mediatools.org/node/19981

mike60

LWW
07-13-2008, 05:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Try this dimwit.

http://skytruth.mediatools.org/node/19981


OFFSHORE SLICKS MUST HAVE BEEN THE SEA GULLS SHITTING.

You posted: "The moonbat left opposes offshore because a mere 100% of our wells hold up under hurricanes."

100% of our wells hold up under hurricanes? Moron.

And why would you assume i'm against off shore drilling? I'm for off shore exploration and better designed rigs. Ask the oil companies for better rigs.
better yet just fuck off.
</div></div>
You really are this dumb aren't you.

Have you ever been to the Gulf Coast?

Guess why they call it the Gulf Coast?

Because it's on the Coast of the Gulf of Mexico.

When oil storage tanks on the GULF COAST leak, where do you think it goes?

BTW, COAST = SHORE.

Now, why do you think they call it OFF SHORE?

Because it;'s not on the shore/coast.

Please, attend some remedial education.

You can't even look at pictures and follow what's going on.

LWW

LWW
07-13-2008, 05:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">W, Yes i agree it has served me very well lately.

http://skytruth.mediatools.org/node/19981

mike60 </div></div>
Thanks idiot boy.

Look at YOUR PHOTO.

It shows OFF SHORE platforms with no oil ... and MILES AWAY an oil spill.

If the platform leaked there would be OIL SPILLED THERE.

You are a fool who can't even comprehend what you are looking at.

BTW, tell brian he should read some books to you.

LWW

mike60
07-13-2008, 12:54 PM
LWW, You are as brain dead as a dry fart. In a Force 5 Hurricane there are accelerated winds and water currents. Nothing is static and everything is being blow and washed around by the 120MPH+ winds.
Even you with you Dementia Praecox should be able to understand that. If not get the dogs to explain.

http://skytruth.mediatools.org/node/19981
Notice the curvature of the slicks. Blown away from the platforms.

Recall that LWW stated "100% of our wells" undamaged, then he changed his words. Typical LWW bullshit.


mike666 james kopp murdering scum doing forever as some guy's bitch

LWW
07-13-2008, 04:41 PM
Somebody throw Mikey a lifeline.

LWW

hondo
07-13-2008, 07:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">W, Yes i agree it has served me very well lately.

http://skytruth.mediatools.org/node/19981

mike60 </div></div>
Thanks idiot boy.

Look at YOUR PHOTO.

It shows OFF SHORE platforms with no oil ... and MILES AWAY an oil spill.

If the platform leaked there would be OIL SPILLED THERE.

You are a fool who can't even comprehend what you are looking at.

BTW, tell brian he should read some books to you.

LWW </div></div>


Dude, you seem to enjoy all the vicious name-calling on here.
Just don't play the innocent elsewhere. Fair enough?

LWW
07-14-2008, 01:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">W, Yes i agree it has served me very well lately.

http://skytruth.mediatools.org/node/19981

mike60 </div></div>
Thanks idiot boy.

Look at YOUR PHOTO.

It shows OFF SHORE platforms with no oil ... and MILES AWAY an oil spill.

If the platform leaked there would be OIL SPILLED THERE.

You are a fool who can't even comprehend what you are looking at.

BTW, tell brian he should read some books to you.

LWW </div></div>


Dude, you seem to enjoy all the vicious name-calling on here.
Just don't play the innocent elsewhere. Fair enough? </div></div>
I'm not innocent at all.

I found Mikey to be a vicious internet bully incapable of civil behavior or honest discussion.

After listening to him spew bile for quite some time I decided to give him some of his own medicine back.

That's why the leftys all hate me ... I used to be one and I know all of their tactics and use them against them.

LWW

hondo
07-14-2008, 05:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">W, Yes i agree it has served me very well lately.

http://skytruth.mediatools.org/node/19981

mike60 </div></div>
Thanks idiot boy.

Look at YOUR PHOTO.

It shows OFF SHORE platforms with no oil ... and MILES AWAY an oil spill.

If the platform leaked there would be OIL SPILLED THERE.

You are a fool who can't even comprehend what you are looking at.

BTW, tell brian he should read some books to you.

LWW </div></div>


Dude, you seem to enjoy all the vicious name-calling on here.
Just don't play the innocent elsewhere. Fair enough? </div></div>
I'm not innocent at all.

I found Mikey to be a vicious internet bully incapable of civil behavior or honest discussion.

After listening to him spew bile for quite some time I decided to give him some of his own medicine back.

That's why the leftys all hate me ... I used to be one and I know all of their tactics and use them against them.

LWW </div></div>

Now, that's funny!

LWW
07-14-2008, 06:45 AM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/ONLINE%20ARGUMENTS/dsg-bridge_troll.jpg

LWW

Gayle in MD
07-14-2008, 07:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It may not solve the problem overnight, but 5 years from now, will we be sorry we didn't do something today?
Steve </div></div>

My view is that we could have already been free of foreign threats, and dependency on foreign energy resources, had we followed Jimmy Carter's warnings and tax breaks for new energy resources, cleaner fuels, greater use of solar, wind, and higher cafe' standards, instead of electing Republicans like Reagan, who took the solar panels off of the White House, removing the higher cafe's standards, immediately sending the message that the bottom line was all that mattered, and as always when Republicans are in office, big business can bilk the rest of us unchecked, and at the same time, they get our money in subsidies, for which they provide no progress, while they're stealing from all of us.

None from the right want to accept the fact that all of our present problems are a result of the Republican Philosophies: No accountability from corporations which do not fulfill obligations to justify their tax breaks, no program for tax exemptions for the corporations which actually do operate in the best interests of a cleaner planet, alternative energy research. Destruction of safe guards for American workers. Destroying ythe effectivness of unions to protect employees. Expansive nation building, growing the federal government, borrowing us into the most threatening debt accumulation to foreign countries we've ever faced, the continuing atack on science.

If the right could consider where we could have been by now as regards our oil dependency, they would have to admit that the beginning of the end of facing our energy challenges happened with Reagan, and continued through Republican polices.

Oil men, in the White House, with decades of dirty dealings in the middle east, and personal financial ties with Arabs in the Middle East, corporate ties with their preferred no bid contractors, who have bilked us without accountability, and propping up despots in Iran and Iran, all of it brought us to this disasterous moment.

But gee, it's easier to just blame conservationists, isn't it?

Easier to just blame all the innocent Americans, who wanted homes, then to give any responsibility to the predatory mortgage practices, overlooked for a decade by this administration, which pushed atleast 60% of those who could have afforded a traditional mortgage into their creative mortgage scams which have bilked people out of their hard earned money.

Bush's administration loved the pseudo rosey economic picture, and looked the other way while the Federal Regulators failed to respond to what amounted to the same kind of fascist Enron-like exploitation, and predatory practices, that they should be jailed for fomenting.

Easier to blame the poor in New Orleans, who couldn't get out, than to place the blame on Bush, who was too busy vacationing to give attention to an impending disaster, just as he was to busy vacationing to take the 9/11 threat seriously.

Whatever problems we face, from debt, to international threats, to our energy issues, loss of American jobs, an invasion of illegal immigrants, prevention of accurate scientific reporting, Republican philosophies have worsened everything.

Drilling off shore will have no impact at this late date. The Republican barricades thrown up against renewable energy, have led us straight to this point. Instead of thinking that more of the same old oil dependency is the solution, we need to finally bite the bullet and solve the core of the problem by awarding the American spirit of revolutionary change for the better, with subsidies and tax breaks that lead us away from oil, not for more of it.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
07-14-2008, 06:41 PM
Gayle,
You are so hung up on who is to blame for what, you miss the point. Looking back and saying Jimmy C was the Messiah, and all Republicans are pigs doesn't solve the problem.

You say if we had done something 20 years ago we wouldn't be in this situation. I say, well, we didn't, and we are, and if we don't do it now, you will still be on here 20 years from now still blaming everything on the Republicans.

Get off your damn soapbox and start thinking. You are so quick to point fingers and play the blame game. If only we had listened to Carter. If only RR didn't do this or that. If only AlGor had won the election....if only, if only, if only.

Rather than spend all that energy trying to blame someone for our problems, it's time we deal with today. We can't do anything about the past except learn from it. Why make the same mistakes? Let's get the Dems in congress to authorize EVERY available option to meet our own energy needs.

Of course, it's possible that the Dems actually WANT higher gas prices. They can blame the present administration and use it to get the White House back. They can use it to come down on "Big Oil". They can use it to put further pressure on American automobile makers. GW lifted the executive order his father put in place blocking offshore exploration. But congress hasn't budged. WHY????

If you could just open your eyes and look at the country today, you might figure out that Carter, Clinton, HW, and RR are all history. QUITYOURBITCHIN!!!! Get with the program!

Steve

mike60
07-14-2008, 08:41 PM
Steve, There is plenty of blame to go around more than once. In Gayle's favor is the fact that whenever the D's got the Majority the R's do all they can to mess things up. Neither party is without shameful behavior. But an honest review of the last four Congressional terms shows R misbehavior stopping any improvement in health care. This includes when Hillary tried to get it done. R cheerleading the war but in fairness the D's should never have trusted Bush to tell the truth about exhausting diplomatic resolutions. Reagan did business with the Iranians and let Ollie North subvert the Constitution from the basement of the White House. Actually Al Gore did win the election until the Supreme Court appointed Bush. Save the bullshit, Al had a clear majority of the votes. This is after Jeb Bush and his Sec. of State, the one term House of Representatives wonder, Katherine Harris, illegally stripped 90,000 voters from the list. Rather than do everything we may to give more money to the
energy conglomerates we need to be more careful about how we spend our precious resources.
There is no soapbox, no high horse, only our nation needing to heal after the disaster of the Cheney-Bush debacle. Until we pull together we're pulled apart.
Where's Ben Franklin when we need him?


mike60