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.

 

Big Oil: To create jobs, let us drill more

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

With job creation taking center stage in American politics, the oil industry Wednesday made a pitch for drilling more widely. With looser restrictions, the industry says it could deliver 1.4 million new jobs, boost tax rolls by $800 billion, and increase domestic energy production almost 50%.

To hit those numbers, the industry would need to drill off the East and West Coasts, in waters off Florida's Gulf Coast, in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and on most federal public land that's not a national park. These areas are currently off limits to drilling, except for some public land in these regions.


CNN Article

I read this and thought, great, let's drill and create jobs, provide more oil and bring gas prices down.
Seems simple right?

I know I'm missing something though. What is it?

What do you think about drilling more to create jobs?




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
how freakin convient is that?! lol...

ya no, I think our dependancy on this crap has gone on for far too long! they are stringing us along for everything we are worth, including our morality.

not only does it degrade our environment....



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Why do they need looser restrictions? They let up on restrictions on Deepwater Horizon and look at how that turned out. These companies could drop the price of gas quite a bit and still they would make a profit. Maybe it's time to tell them seeing how your not creating jobs then say goodbye to your tax breaks.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
Why do they need looser restrictions? They let up on restrictions on Deepwater Horizon and look at how that turned out. These companies could drop the price of gas quite a bit and still they would make a profit. Maybe it's time to tell them seeing how your not creating jobs then say goodbye to your tax breaks.


It's restrictions that push oil companies out in mile deep water in the first place.

Any jobs plan worth anything would have this at the top of the list.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
It is very doubtful that many jobs could be made across the country. ExxonMobile being one of the largest oil companies only employs 85,000 worldwide. This sounds like a cheap sales trick to get restrictions loosened.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
well it makes sense but the environmentalists will say we will have another BP, but BP was intentionally caused by Haliburton, so that seems like a false flag to muddy the waters (literally) and keep us dependent on foreign oil.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
well it makes sense but the environmentalists will say we will have another BP, but BP was intentionally caused by Haliburton, so that seems like a false flag to muddy the waters (literally) and keep us dependent on foreign oil.


Are you one of those people who think BP actually WANTED to drill in mile deep water in the middle of nowhere? They were forced out there by Environmentalists and regulations. This is what keeps us dependent on foreign oil.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4

Originally posted by buster2010
Why do they need looser restrictions? They let up on restrictions on Deepwater Horizon and look at how that turned out. These companies could drop the price of gas quite a bit and still they would make a profit. Maybe it's time to tell them seeing how your not creating jobs then say goodbye to your tax breaks.


It's restrictions that push oil companies out in mile deep water in the first place.

Any jobs plan worth anything would have this at the top of the list.


BRAVO! That is exactly correct. I agree with Carseller4 100%.

They do NOT want to drill in the middle of the ocean (or gulf) where it is more expensive and difficult to get to the oil.

Many people who make comments about how we need to stop using oil because we are ruining the planet need to get over themselves. Unless those people do not drive, then their comments are hypocrisy. Even if they drive hybrids...those cars require a TREMENDOUS amount of energy to produce. I once read that overall, a Hummer uses LESS energy in its' lifetime, from production to gas usage, than a Prius, due to these costs....Google is my friend today: here is an article that explains: reason.org...

But despite all these drawbacks, hybrids are at least better for the environment than say�.. a Hummer, right? Nope.

Spinella spent two years on the most comprehensive study to date — dubbed "Dust to Dust" — collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a car from the initial conception to scrappage. He even included in the study such minutia as plant-to-dealer fuel costs of each vehicle, employee driving distances, and electricity usage per pound of material. All this data was then boiled down to an "energy cost per mile" figure for each car (see here and here).

Comparing this data, the study concludes that overall hybrids cost more in terms of overall energy consumed than comparable non-hybrid vehicles. But even more surprising, smaller hybrids' energy costs are greater than many large, non-hybrid SUVs.

So we see that even people who are trying to "save the planet" may be doing more harm than they think.

Now, back to drilling (now that I got that off of my chest!):


Which country is going to protect the environment more when drilling for oil? The United States, or a Middle Eastern nation? If you said the US, you are RIGHT. By drilling HERE, we will be doing more for the planet than we do by relying on Middle Eastern countries to drill for it (in a less environmentally conscious way) and then SHIP it halfway around the world. Do you know how much energy THAT wastes????

Drill here, drill now. We do it cleaner, and it doesn't have to travel as far. We have enough oil here at home to supply our needs.

Yes, the Gulf spill was a disaster. It could have been prevented had we not FORCED the company to go so far offshore.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
Why do they need looser restrictions? They let up on restrictions on Deepwater Horizon and look at how that turned out. These companies could drop the price of gas quite a bit and still they would make a profit. Maybe it's time to tell them seeing how your not creating jobs then say goodbye to your tax breaks.


I worked on the DWH some and was on that rig just 5 months before it blew. Luckily I was moved to the Uncle John rig before the DWH blew because they needed a diver there. I'm not gonna get into details of what I think happened but I'll say that BP is notorius for violating rules. Also, if the restrictions weren't in place that force oil companies to relocate into deepwater areas then you wouldn't have catastrophies such as that. The problem with DWH was that the well head was at almost 4k' depth and if you have an accident there is no feasible way to fix the problem.

I was a Sat Diver for 15+ years and worked at the extreme range of workable depths by humans with over 800 logged dives over the 1,000' range. A "dive" for a Sat Diver is not a single dive down and back up, it consists of staying in a chamber pressurized to working depth for anywhere from 30-60 days. 1,000' is pushing the envelope on human dives and for the most part 1,500' is absolute max so when you are drilling in 4,000' of water you are pretty much screwed when you need to send a diver down to fix a problem. Had the DHW spill been in 1,000' of water the leak would have been stopped within 24hrs or 48hrs tops.

The other problem is that at a depth of 4,000' the pressure of the water around the well is over 1,700 psi, that effects the ability of blow-off preventers to work properly because the piston in the preventer is having to work against that pressure while operating off of 3,500psi operating pressure. This makes the BOP function at only 50% of its actual ability and creates a possible failure point.

The problem with the regulations that we are under is that they are actually only meant to apply to American companies and are designed to actually restrict the oil companies operating capacity and raise operating costs, not make a safer environment for the companies or environment. Right now in the gulf there are at least 4 foriegn companies drilling on our leases. While these companies are not sitting directly on our leases, they are using horizontal drilling techniques to obtain our oil and sell it back to us. They are also immune from federal safety guidelines which is why I choose to stay at home instead of go to work now for an unsafe company.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4

Originally posted by buster2010
Why do they need looser restrictions? They let up on restrictions on Deepwater Horizon and look at how that turned out. These companies could drop the price of gas quite a bit and still they would make a profit. Maybe it's time to tell them seeing how your not creating jobs then say goodbye to your tax breaks.


It's restrictions that push oil companies out in mile deep water in the first place.

Any jobs plan worth anything would have this at the top of the list.


Yeah right. It's because they keep polluting the environment and they get fined for it. If they did their jobs the right way then they wouldn't have to worry about the fines. The only reason they went off shore is because they thought they would hit a huge pocket of oil. And they did and they almost destroyed the gulf with it.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4

Originally posted by buster2010
Why do they need looser restrictions? They let up on restrictions on Deepwater Horizon and look at how that turned out. These companies could drop the price of gas quite a bit and still they would make a profit. Maybe it's time to tell them seeing how your not creating jobs then say goodbye to your tax breaks.


It's restrictions that push oil companies out in mile deep water in the first place.



Oh really...

I say it is greed

I think you are shilling extremely hard

...And trying to sell the most ridiculous "logic" I have ever heard, I think EVER.

You are trying to tell us that Oil companies think it is cheaper and easier to
drill a mile deep. I should probably ask you if you are retarded, but I won't...

Please explain how Oil companies seek out chasing the most EXPENSIVE methods
of extraction???

ALSO, anyone care to guess how many oil leases are retained but unused???

Is AMERICA JUST A LOT OF SHILLS?

Is this all we are?



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by Carseller4

Originally posted by buster2010
Why do they need looser restrictions? They let up on restrictions on Deepwater Horizon and look at how that turned out. These companies could drop the price of gas quite a bit and still they would make a profit. Maybe it's time to tell them seeing how your not creating jobs then say goodbye to your tax breaks.


It's restrictions that push oil companies out in mile deep water in the first place.

Any jobs plan worth anything would have this at the top of the list.


Yeah right. It's because they keep polluting the environment and they get fined for it. If they did their jobs the right way then they wouldn't have to worry about the fines. The only reason they went off shore is because they thought they would hit a huge pocket of oil. And they did and they almost destroyed the gulf with it.


Buster, you have my respect,

Conservative does not mean overtly STUPID, Carseller!


edit on 7-9-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by Carseller4

Originally posted by buster2010
Why do they need looser restrictions? They let up on restrictions on Deepwater Horizon and look at how that turned out. These companies could drop the price of gas quite a bit and still they would make a profit. Maybe it's time to tell them seeing how your not creating jobs then say goodbye to your tax breaks.


It's restrictions that push oil companies out in mile deep water in the first place.

Any jobs plan worth anything would have this at the top of the list.


Yeah right. It's because they keep polluting the environment and they get fined for it. If they did their jobs the right way then they wouldn't have to worry about the fines. The only reason they went off shore is because they thought they would hit a huge pocket of oil. And they did and they almost destroyed the gulf with it.


I am not trying to sound rude to you so please don't take what I say the wrong way. I have actually walked on the bottom of the GoM in the oilfield areas and I have seen what goes on there. Are you aware of the fact that everyday crude bubbles up out of fissures from the ocean floor and to the surface? I have seen it plenty of times. I am not speaking of just a few bubbles here and there, scientists have estimated that over 1 million barrels of oil leak to the surface every year. even in areas where there are no drilling rigs for miles I have seen this fizzing oil while doing pipeline work, and the oil was not from the pipelines the were NG lines.

Furthermore the myth, and that's what it is, that offshore drilling is a massive polluter is just that. Anytime that a well leaks even the smallest amount of oil into the water they are fined millions, sometimes tens of millions so they do all they can to prevent any spillage of oil. Oil wells don't do like they show in movies of spraying oil everywhere when the breach the reservoir, they are basically capped while drilling and absent some malfunction they do not leak. They also have a "diaper pan" beneath the drilling head that prevents any oil from dripping into the water.

The bottom line is that offshore drilling is actually the cleanest form of drilling on the face of the planet, now if you want to talk about drilling polluting the envirnment, go check out some land based rigs and you may see some proof to support your point.

And you are soooooo wrong with your assumption of why they went offshore and to extreme depths, it had nothing to do with wanting to, it was because of the restrictions that forced them into water drilling. They were also forced from the shallow water by restrictions, they could have drilled 90% of the oil reserves without going into deepwater. They can actually horizontal drill up to and in some cases beyond 10 miles.

The amount of pollution of the GoM from oil operations is miniscule compaired to river run-off from the mississippi and other rivers. Land based pollution that makes it's way into the ocean is the biggest contributing factor in the destruction of the GoM. You have to realize that deepwater rigs and far offshore rigs are no where near the biozone where 95% of all marine life lives. Most marine life resides within the first 250' of the surface and within the first 30 miles off shore.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by Carseller4

Originally posted by buster2010
Why do they need looser restrictions? They let up on restrictions on Deepwater Horizon and look at how that turned out. These companies could drop the price of gas quite a bit and still they would make a profit. Maybe it's time to tell them seeing how your not creating jobs then say goodbye to your tax breaks.


It's restrictions that push oil companies out in mile deep water in the first place.

Any jobs plan worth anything would have this at the top of the list.


Yeah right. It's because they keep polluting the environment and they get fined for it. If they did their jobs the right way then they wouldn't have to worry about the fines. The only reason they went off shore is because they thought they would hit a huge pocket of oil. And they did and they almost destroyed the gulf with it.



Just one example, one state, this year

It has to do with consolidation



CODY, Wyo. — More than two-thirds of the drilling leases issued to oil and natural gas companies in the Bighorn Basin are inactive, figures from the Bureau of Land Management show.


billingsgazette.com...


So nominal huh


edit on 7-9-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by elevatedone
 


Lo and behold I almost fell back and hit my head I check the day on the thread to make sure it was not and old thread, I am starting to see the older mods around, I am glad to see you again.


My view on this one, well, we have reached a point in our nation, that to tell you the truth economically we are in deep crap, spending money and adding to the debt to create jobs is not going to cut it, without getting to the root of the problem first, bandaids or stimulus are not going to fix anything.

We need jobs, we do not need "temp" jobs we need long lasting jobs and income that can take people out of the welfare vicious cycle, we have lost our industrial base and the way things look is not coming back.

I am all for drilling, if my gas prices will go down and the economy can benefit from it, I say lets drill.

Still we have to be careful about the freedoms of drilling without restrictions, but hell good pay jobs are hard to find.

The jobs should be only for Americans not foreign workers from India using H1B visas.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Drill baby drill.

Drilling for natual gas (most common) and oil (least common) in the US is not environmentally devistating. British petroleum as a corporation is devistating, the exxon valdes was devistating, but there are hundreds of thousands of rigs and they are not dangerous.

People attack oil drilling are the same ones driving 40 or more miles a day in a SUV. Sickning to hear the hypocrasy honestly.

If drilling will reduce cost, increase jobs, and help recover this toilet driven economy then I am all for it.




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
We don't need oil, we need a pure energy source as long as we aren't in the next step, it will be released soon.

GM



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Grey Magic
 


True... sort of. We do need something new, but for now we need oil and more of it.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
It is essential that all economies return to growth, no matter how you achieve it. There must be constant growth in every country in the world, who gives a damn if we destroy the planet in the process. we must have continual unsustainable growth. It's the only answer.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Damn. Now I'm scared. I actually agree 100% with marg.


As Nuclear Diver states, the only people we hurt with these BS environmental regulations are our selves.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join