It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Significant New Oil Discovery in Gulf of Mexico

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   
An exploratory test well drilled deep below the Walker Ridge over 250 miles southwest of New Orleans has led to the discovery of a promising oil field that may boost domestic oil and natural gas reserves in the US by as much as 50%. The field may not start producing until after 2010, however, depending on how many more test wells are drilled. Early estimates put the size of the field at nearly 15 billion barrels of oil and gas.
 



www.comcast.net
Tests of a deep-water well in the Gulf of Mexico could indicate a significant oil discovery, three companies announced Tuesday, in the first project to tap into a region that reportedly could boost U.S. oil and gas reserves by as much as 50 percent.

The Jack 2 well was drilled about 5.3 miles deep by U.S. oil company Chevron Corp., with partners Statoil ASA of Norway and Devon Energy Corp. of Oklahoma City. During the test, the Jack 2 well sustained a flow rate of more than 6,000 barrels of oil per day, Statoil said.

"Test results are very encouraging and may indicate a significant discovery. The full magnitude of the field's potential is still being defined," Statoil said in a statement.

The discovery has industrywide implications, analysts said.

The successful test wells do not mean a huge supply of oil will hit the market anytime soon. Gheit estimated that the first production might not come on line until after 2010, depending on how many more test wells the companies drill.

The Wall Street Journal reported in Tuesday's editions that Chevron and Devon officials estimate that recent discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico's lower-tertiary formations hold up to 15 billion barrels of oil and gas reserves, a total that would boost the nation's current reserves by 50 percent.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This could be important news on a variety of fronts if the field holds up to testing and comes on line reasonably soon. Anything that reduces our dependence on foreign oil, especially mid-east (and maybe Venezuelan) crude is a good thing for the American public.

A reliable source of domestic oil and natural gas would help ease prices at the pump, as well as be an incentive for our government to rethink its more ambitious efforts at "nation-building" and "spreading democracy to the mid-east."

[edit on 5-9-2006 by Icarus Rising]




posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Wowsville! This would be outstanding. Of course, if the manical environmentalist would join the reality club and demand that all off-shore fields were utilized, as well as ANWR, our oil production would skyrocket and prices would fall.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Still it will neve compare to the vast resources in Iraq and Iran and it will never make any impact on our energey dependancy on foreign oil.

We need to get off the oil dependancy plain and simple.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Great. Environmental destruction from Hurricanes slamming into the oil platforms. And we are not solving any problems, just prolonging our poisonous addiction.

Ill be excited when they come out with energy derivied from sewage or something like that.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I agree that we need to replace fossil fuels as an energy source. It also seems realistic to me that we need a bridge (and not a bridge to nowhere) between oil dependence and renewable energy sources. This find may go a long way toward providing that bridge.

I also agree that redundant safeguards need to be set in place for environmental threats posed by the drilling platforms due to hurricanes and other natural (and man-made) disasters.

I still think we need to develop this resource safely, effectively, and economically.

[edit on 5-9-2006 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Let's hope this time the captains aren't drunk and crashing the tankers!
Such as they did in Alaska....

And Btw...Uh Does the US even have control over the Gulf Of Mexico? Just Curious.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryWaste
And Btw...Uh Does the US even have control over the Gulf Of Mexico? Just Curious.


The drilling made to discover this field was within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (which extends 200 nautical miles off the coast of every coastal country). But perhaps it extends beyond that and open to anyone who can drill past it.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   
doesn anyone realistically think gas prices will drop as a result of this or anything else though? heck, they have us to the point we're happy when gas drops to 2.70 a gallon. crude could go back to 30 a barrel and we'd still be paying 2.50 plus.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Actually in many ways this is a disaster... I mean that in the sense that the average consumer, not to mention corporations, car manufacturers and the like won't change their ways any time soon. Even without the threat of global warming, conservation makes more sense that burning our candle at both ends, but Americans specifically hate to be inconvienced in any way, even if that inconvinence mean saving our fat asses.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Grover, you are the quintessential pessimist. Look at this way. The sooner we pump all that oil out of the earth and burn it or turn it into polyester, the sooner the planet can recover and we can all freeze to death in the dark.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   
I don't see it as pessimism I firmly believe that conservation is always wise even (or especially in) times of plenty....remember Joseph's dream? You will have 7 years of abundance followed by 7 years of drought and famine, so faced with that prophesy the wise Pharoh saved as much as he could...the same is true of all cultures and civilizations. Very few nuture their resources, but those who do survive.

All that being said, any civilization who turns its petrolum into polyester deserves to freeze to death in the dark.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   

All that being said, any civilization who turns its petrolum into polyester deserves to freeze to death in the dark.


WOW do you really believe that people whom use plastics deserve to freeze to death?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Actually in many ways this is a disaster... I mean that in the sense that the average consumer, not to mention corporations, car manufacturers and the like won't change their ways any time soon. Even without the threat of global warming, conservation makes more sense that burning our candle at both ends, but Americans specifically hate to be inconvienced in any way, even if that inconvinence mean saving our fat asses.


Very well said and so true. The average boob will greet this news with open arms not seeing the bigger unfortunate picture. Relying on fossil fuels is a path to nowhere as has been discussed so many times here.


brill



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by brill
Relying on fossil fuels is a path to nowhere....


Everyone knows this. What we don't know is how we can live as do without cheap, abundant, readily available energy or what will provide that in the absence of petroleum.

The future of mankind will be one without petroleum as an abundant source of energy. People who do more that pontificate on bulletin boards are working on that. In the meantime, we need all the petroleum we can get our hands on.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Yea they say it could be 4 years before we would see any difference at the pumps.kind of pisses me off, because when ever one of them Saudi princes fart they raise the price of gas.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by brill
Relying on fossil fuels is a path to nowhere....


Everyone knows this. What we don't know is how we can live as do without cheap, abundant, readily available energy or what will provide that in the absence of petroleum.

The future of mankind will be one without petroleum as an abundant source of energy. People who do more that pontificate on bulletin boards are working on that. In the meantime, we need all the petroleum we can get our hands on.


I don't buy this for a second. There are alternatives but laziness and lack of govt initiatives, to name a few things, hinder progress. Obviously oil is big business and its not a market that will fold overnight (wish it would though). I agree with the future of mankind statement but then you kinda veered off somewhere.

brill



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
...you are the quintessential pessimist.


And on this issue, Grady, you are the quintessential ostrich with his head in the sand...


Come on! You should know better!

Just so I understand you correctly:


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
...our oil production would skyrocket and prices would fall...


Is that your only goal? Your only consideration? Are you denying there is any environmental expense?

I am always amazed by the degree to which some conservatives immediately dismiss their conservative principles once environmental issues are in play. It shows me that for many self-proclaimed conservatives, their affiliation with "conservatism" as a political and economic philosophy is really nothing more than a cheap imitation of the real thing. Your ranting about the "maniacal environmentalist" unjustifiably continues a long tradition of discrediting very real concerns by painting anyone who might be concerned about such things as somehow being in the same camp as the fringe "nutcases" we've all read about.

I'm not going to let you get away with that.

Environmental expense is a cost of doing business... The fact that businesses for the most are privileged to ignore that expense does nothing to change the fact that someone still has to pay for the expense. (Just to be clear, I'm talking about actual ECONOMIC expense...and not some kind of altruistic or aesthetic expense.
)

I think you seem pretty clear on the evils of entitlement, redistribution of wealth, and government protectionism, but what I don't understand is why you then find it equally challenging to apply that understanding to the environment and our natural resources?

Why should business be allowed to IGNORE environmental expense? Why is that expense so easily dismissed by so called "conservatives"?

When I have to be forced to pay for someone else's windfall, I'd call that a redistribution of wealth on equal footing with the most egregious of economic policies issuing from the former Soviet Politburo.

I doubt you would agree it would be appropriate for me to make a buck by forcing you to incur expense. With government backing, such arrangements become nothing more than a tax. When done by business without accountability, it becomes the worst kind of tax... It becomes theft.

So Grady, tell me how it is you came to favor such egregious, leftist, nutso, liberal ideology?
Entitlements, redistribution of wealth, government protectionism, taxes, theft... and you say environmentalists are the ones who are maniacal?


I'd hoped for better from you...


[edit on 6-9-2006 by loam]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Okay, I concede. Leave the damn oil under the Gulf of Mexido and we'll just use foreign oil until it all runs out.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Okay, I concede. Leave the damn oil under the Gulf of Mexido and we'll just use foreign oil until it all runs out.


Does the pendulum only have two positions for you, Grady?


How about having a discussion about energy policy that accounts for not only the upside, but ALL of the downside as well? Then go from there...

[edit on 5-9-2006 by loam]



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 06:40 AM
link   
I hate to say it but with America, we are not about to change our ways (especially with this administration or its heir in power) until our proverbial balls are nailed to the wall and that is so sad and depressing. We have known for decades we were going to have to come up with alternatives and the sooner the better, but NNNOOOOOOOO....stick our heads in the sand and denydenydeny ....lets build SUV's, Hummers (ain't nothing dumber) and macmansions and wallow in our greed. We have the richest and most opulent society the world has ever seen and it still isn't enough, we will devour the world if given half the chance, and if we don't those trying to emulate us will while trying. Corporations have no vision to save the planet, and won't develop one unless there is a healthy profit to be made. They are too short sighted....5 or 10 years out is planning for the future for them and their investors aren't interested either, all they want to see is a profit the next quarter. And then there are those self deluded fools who deny that global warming is a problem or that it is somehow caused by stellar space clouds as if stellar space clouds are adding to the CO2 in the atmosphere that is the major cause for the warming in the first place. Spendspendspend like there's no tomorrow because if Jesus don't get us our own vices will. And it is all so unneccessary. The simple reality is (and has been for decades now) is that if we were to seriously invest not only in the alternative energy sources we already have (and developing new ones) but in converting our superstructure into more energy efficent buildings and designs, we would create the greatest economic boom this country has ever seen. Just home conversion to, say solar and wind, where possible would add trillions to the economy. If you add to this environmental restoration and we would have the makings for an economic boom that could last the rest of the century. But NNNOOOOO that would cut into todays profits....FOOLS.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join