Offshore drilling misguided

  • Follow Letters

Newt Gingrich has stated that offshore drilling in South Carolina will help free the United States from its dependence of foreign oil. We as a country must do everything possible to decrease our dependence on Middle East oil. However, previous oil and gas exploration on the Atlantic Ocean Outer Continental Shelf suggests that there is low potential for future hydrocarbon discovery in this offshore area.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management summarizes Atlantic OCS oil and gas exploration on their website. There are 51 dry holes in the Atlantic OCS with no evidence of economic hydrocarbons. This suggests that there is a low potential of oil and gas offshore of South Carolina. There are no exploratory wells drilled in the South Carolina OCS, but there are seven dry holes in the Georgia OCS: (www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/offshore/atlocs/atl_south_well.pdf).

The Atlantic OCS is not considered a primary area for further oil and gas exploration based on the number of dry holes. Oil companies have tried 51 times to discover oil in the Atlantic OCS without success. They will be reluctant to attempt many more expensive wells in the Atlantic OCS – a deep-water Gulf of Mexico well costs about $200 million.

Our future toward energy independence must be a combination of more energy efficiency and new energy sources, but current data suggests the Atlantic OCS will not be a part of it.

Dave Willis

Trenton, S.C.

Comments (16) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
desertcat6
1140
Points
desertcat6 02/01/12 - 04:00 am
0
0
The seven wells drilled in

The seven wells drilled in the Georgia portion of the South Atlantic OCS were drilled in the late 70s and early 80s. The seismic data associated with those efforts is even older. I wouldn't consider 30 year old evidence as current data.

New techniques in data collection and drilling have been developed since then. None of the South Atlantic OCS leases are currently active. Why not let the oil companies resume/act on new data collection activity, and start exploratory oil drilling if they determine its feasible? To drill the companies have to lease - both are sources of either federal income and jobs.

scorehouse
196
Points
scorehouse 02/01/12 - 10:09 am
0
0
all you dems should be happy
Unpublished

all you dems should be happy if they drill dry holes. no possibility of oil spills but lots of jobs for regulatory bureaucrats. also, high paying jobs for industry workers who you can then tax to death. this seems like a no-brainer! drill, drill, drill!

scorehouse
196
Points
scorehouse 02/01/12 - 10:15 am
0
0
also, if the oil companies
Unpublished

also, if the oil companies get permission, the first thing they will do is spend millions to collect new seismic data. this requires big boats which will use wilmington, charleston, and savannah as ports. most of their provisions, etc. will be local. the ships will pay port fees, etc. the workers will stay in hotels, eat at local restaurants etc. the geophysicists, resevoir engineers, and project managers will stay onshore in leased office space. they will buy homes, condo's etc. if their reseach shows no commercial oil and gas, the area will be condemmed to future drilling. in the meantime, its a win-win for all locals.

dichotomy
32937
Points
dichotomy 02/01/12 - 10:49 am
0
0
I think I am tired of hearing

I think I am tired of hearing about energy conservation. Energy conservation has given us light bulbs that give off obnoxious light and we need an EPA cleanup team to get the mercury up if we break one. Energy conservation has given us $60,000 cars that can't go 100 miles in a single trip. Energy conservation has given us offices that are too cold in the winter and too hot in the summer. In the winter, every female employee (and some males) have a 1200 watt heater in the foot well of their desk. In the summer everyone is hot, muggy, and irritable. More stupid things have been done in the name of energy conservation than I can list. And guess what? It does not work. I think it's time we all admitted that we need more and cheaper hydrocarbon based energy. Instead of trying to force substitutes (which don't work) down our throats, our efforts should have been directed at figuring out how to use what we have and remove the pollutants from the process. None of the "alternative" energy systems have proven themselves as economically or functionally viable. The only real progress we have made in the last 40 years is cleaner and more efficient hydrocarbon fueled cars and power plants. We need to concentrate on our successes and give up on the pie in the sky dream of a hydrocarbon free country.....at least not in our lifetime. Sure, you can continue to do research and development. But don't base our current hydrocarbon energy policy on the dream of technologies that do not work today. As for energy conservation....I'm all for it if the result is BETTER but that ain't happened yet. I am of the opinion that new policies and products have to come up to my standards. I am not going back down to theirs. If you don't believe me, you should come see my stock of incandescent light bulbs.

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 02/01/12 - 11:00 am
0
0
I think desertcat6 is correct

I think desertcat6 is correct on the technicals; the old data was probably processed on IBM360’s (1M RAM). The old seismic sensors consisted of leprechauns (Schlumberger sub-contractors) in diving suits with man-portable hydrophones; they would say (in an Irish lilt): “I hear something, more to the left, send down more beer”.

On a related note, this one always gets me:

“[Person X] has stated that offshore drilling in [pick your domestic or nearby continental location] will help free the United States from its dependence of foreign oil.”

And yet, no where can you find such a provision in legislation, contract, or Executive Order, i.e., a rhetoric claim with no teeth. The oil companies are free to sell the oil to the highest bidder and they will, be that foreign or domestic.

itsanotherday1
43148
Points
itsanotherday1 02/01/12 - 11:12 am
0
0
"And yet, no where can you

"And yet, no where can you find such a provision in legislation, contract, or Executive Order, i.e., a rhetoric claim with no teeth. The oil companies are free to sell the oil to the highest bidder and they will, be that foreign or domestic."

BINGO!! On the old forums I made that very point. The only way for domestic oil to benefit us directly is for there to be a government owned system that sold only in the U.S.
An indirect benefit of domestic production would be additional supply that would push prices down on the world market.

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 02/01/12 - 11:44 am
0
0
itsanotherday1: “The only way

itsanotherday1: “The only way for domestic oil to benefit us directly is for there to be a government owned system that sold only in the U.S.”

1) Why does it have to be government owned? That is REAL Socialism (government ownership of the commanding heights of the economy) and not the loose way the word is thrown around here as a political smear.

2) I’m not saying the oil needs to be designated for domestic consumption only that the claim implying same is a rhetorical trick meant to deceive the public.

3) I withhold judgment on the efficacy of this particular offshore drilling because I have not studied the issue enough to make that judgment.

Riverman1
83926
Points
Riverman1 02/01/12 - 12:04 pm
0
0
BJ said, "I withhold judgment

BJ said, "I withhold judgment on the efficacy of this particular offshore drilling because I have not studied the issue enough to make that judgment."

Heck, I judge things all the time from just what's presented in the news. I don't need to know how the TV works. I just want to watch the game.

I say, drill baby drill. We need oil. My only condition would be to have everything out of sight from the shore. Easy.

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 02/01/12 - 12:15 pm
0
0
Riverman1, I’d like to make

Riverman1,

I’d like to make sure we don’t inadvertently drill through the high pressure sea dome of the leprechaun colony; it’s been down there since ’82 so I’m sure the head count has increased.

Riverman1
83926
Points
Riverman1 02/01/12 - 12:21 pm
0
0
We don't need no stinkin

We don't need no stinkin leprechauns.

itsanotherday1
43148
Points
itsanotherday1 02/01/12 - 12:40 pm
0
0
BJ, how else could you

BJ, how else could you designate American oil for American use only? Certainly you don't want government interference in private corporations; setting prices and dictating who they sell to. That is my whole point; WE DON'T WANT GOVERNMENT IN IT, so drill here, drill now has no real impact other than increasing world supply, and hopefully driving down prices.

allhans
23645
Points
allhans 02/01/12 - 12:58 pm
0
0
One man said that when he

One man said that when he bought his electric car he was told to expect 18 hours of driving time, but there was no warning that running the heater would drastically reduce those hours.
I guess we will have to learn to drive without a heated or air-cooled car..at least if Obama keeps helping his donors.

Bizkit
31423
Points
Bizkit 02/01/12 - 07:56 pm
0
0
All the shallow oil is gone

All the shallow oil is gone in the Atlantic and Gulf, now in the gulf you have to go miles to reach the bottom and then 30,000 feet down to reach then. So basically it takes billions invested to get a drop and you wonder about cost-return. Seems counterproductive. We already get most of our oil from Canada and it is a shame the Prez plays politics with the pipeline (which has been studies for 4 years and approved by the EPA) but it is an election year and all the eco-fruities want their pint of blood. We should consider drilling into the frozen methane clathrate on the sea floor to mine methane as a fuel source. The StarTrekkie in me wants clean energy (and I still believe Hydrogen is the cleanest) but reality often kicks like a mule so I'm open to anything-since our economy will always need petro for plastics, asphalt, paraffin wax, tar, sulfur, etc. Elminating the use of petro as a fuel is just a drop in the bucket for all its uses. I'd suggest riding a bike but around here you're treated like a Eurofreak with a target on your back-sad I loved biking though Germany and Holland-had their own lane with traffic lights too. Even car pooling is frowned upon-as though we lose some freedom or you're just a panzi-environmentalist eco freak. I love ecology but when its mixed with politics it becomes misguided. I remember in the 70s how its time for another mini-ice age (like the one that drove the Irish to the Americas) so maybe this global warming is a good thing (did I just that?) I like the movie Chain Reaction with Morgan Freeman and Keanu Reeves-it touches on the altruist scientist and the government manipulator and probably is more art reflecting life than we can imagine.

harley_52
23288
Points
harley_52 02/01/12 - 08:20 pm
0
0
Bizkit, global warming is so

Bizkit, global warming is so 1997. It's over, haven't you heard?

Global cooling is our real problem.

***The supposed `consensus' on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.***

Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cy\cle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1ktFtI200

scorehouse
196
Points
scorehouse 02/01/12 - 08:46 pm
0
0
WOW! the ignorance. been to
Unpublished

WOW! the ignorance. been to texas, montana, north dakota, michigan, new york, pennsylvania, colorado. etc. lately? there's a driiling boom! for oil. open up alaska and california and we're there!

Bizkit
31423
Points
Bizkit 02/01/12 - 09:49 pm
0
0
Harley hate to burst your

Harley hate to burst your bubble but the dailymail is not exactly a reliable resource and proves my point about how politicizing a science issue is a bad idea. That and several articles misquote and misinterpret data and other papers. Show me a peer-reviewed science article and I'll bite. Just like the notorious supposed climategate fraud which after an investigation no evidence of misconduct or fraud was discovered. There is so much misinformation on that topic you have to be careful. Science is a process and in fact the original articles stated global warming was a 20 year period ending in 97' I believe but now the data indicates a 100 year climb in temperature. The real problem is the only real solution for "man-made global warming" is to eliminate man. All this supports my contention the internet now creates negative knowledge and politicizing issues just exacerbates this problem. With all due respect.

Pu239
284
Points
Pu239 02/01/12 - 10:09 pm
0
0
John Holdren For
Unpublished

John Holdren For President...man made global warming solved!

harley_52
23288
Points
harley_52 02/01/12 - 11:27 pm
0
0
Bizkit said "Show me a

Bizkit said "Show me a peer-reviewed science article and I'll bite."

I haven't asked you to bite, yet. You're free to hold whatever opinion you choose about global warming and dismiss articles from any source you choose. Me, I'm not impressed with the call for "peer reviewed science articles" because that's what was used to promulgate this man-made global warming hoax in the first place. A bunch of left-wing, snake oil salesmen and America hating academics cooking the books on climate data with the goal of using the climate scare for self-enrichment and political power.

I'd be a lot more comfortable believing the Dailymail, or the Wall Street Journal, or scores of other publications than I would any "peer reviewed articles" you might find in one of the scientific journals that participated in the hoax in the first place.

With all due respect, of course.

harley_52
23288
Points
harley_52 02/01/12 - 11:30 pm
0
0
Speaking of the Wall Street

Speaking of the Wall Street Journal, here's what they had to say about it.

***Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet.
Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.***

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?m\
od=rss_opinion_main

Bizkit
31423
Points
Bizkit 02/01/12 - 11:39 pm
0
0
I agree global warming has

I agree global warming has become a political pawn, the same for embryonic stem cell research, and some environmentalist are selling the scientific soul for a political agenda. That much is frightening, but still I am like Thomas and have to stick my hand into the open wound. And I agree there is plenty of real fraud (even one nobel laureate)and bias too. Even a bias against science when it is inconvenient or not politically correct like intelligence and race. But data is data and often it is how you interpret the data or how you design a study or experiment.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs