OT: FOX News and the oil blowout

[MadeInTaiwan]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=briansd1]
Sure the cementing might have caused the explosion.

How do the facts you listed support the oil industry’s claim that they can drill safely and guarantee to the public (because the public wants a guarantee) that another historical disaster will not happen again?

That’s what I was addressing when I said that this disaster obviated the drill-baby-drill argument of safe exploration and extraction.

[/quote]

Brian: So, let me see if I have this straight: You want a 100% risk-free guarantee on ALL new extraction technologies? Also, you want this guarantee, in spite of the fact that the cementing process was at fault, not the drilling itself? This is exactly the type of thinking I was referencing in my earlier post: A zero risk mentality that eliminates any possibility of forward-thinking on new technologies.

Dude, how about this instead: Your guy, Obama, uses this golden opportunity to formulate and enact a sweeping energy policy for the US, and one that includes cost-effective solutions, like nuke and natural gas? Think that’s a good idea? Do you think he’ll do it? (And you and I both know the answer there).

And, by the way, Bunkie, we already DO bear the risks of disaster and not only in extracting oil, but transshipping it, refining it and distributing it. I’m no fan of Big Oil and I deal with issues relating to this industry every day, but until someone steps up and offers a cheaper, better, more viable alternative, then this is what we get.[/quote]

First, Allan, I need to call a bit of a foul on you. You were hammering Brian for not understanding the nature of the spill when your real beef is that either he expects 100% spill proof drilling or that he and by extension his man Obama has not laid out a comprehensive plan. The post I quoted above essentially concdes this point.

I think you’re also misrepresenting that he demands 100% spillproof guarrantee.

I, and I suspect Brian, do not expect 100% guarrantee, but we do want more oversight, and slowing down, or more vigorous process for approving additional off shore drilling.

My understanding is that oversight has been significantly weakend in all extraction industries under Pres Bush/Cheney. I for one like to see the regulations strengthened.

I am under the impression that Pres. Obama is open to nuclear, gas, even coal as well as wind, solar as part of an overall solution and in fact is the path he was proceeding.

One way to make other energy solutions cheaper by comparison is to make energy from oil more expensive. This can be done via taxes, less exploration/drilling of untapped reserves, higher operational costs due to insurance/safety procedures, oil extraction not keeping up w/ consumption or any combination of the above.

I prefer tax because it can be adjusted to smooth out the energy price increase. From what I read our economy can adjust to higher oil prices, just not the sudden swings we experienced recently. So theoretically we can set tax policy to steadily increase oil prices over years until gasoline is say $8 a gallon at the pump. Taxes can be reduced or increased depending on external events to keep the schedule. There is a lot of new technology that becomes viable at equivalent of $120/barrel prices. However, with market swings and uncertainty there is little incentive for investors.

Lastly, I’ve read that we need not just replacement for fuel, but we need replacement for all kinds of other pretoleum products. My understanding is that crude products belong to three major categories, gasoline, diesel/airplaine fuel, lubricants/asphalt/plastics and the like. We can massage around the edges but the % of each category from a barrel of crude is not really elastic. Maybe you can add insight to this. Therefore we not only need to find replacements in all the areas that currently pretroleum dependent. No one solution can do that.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Russell]Allan, Rustico here…

I guess I should have made the reference to “not seeing the forest for the tress more clear”? In the vernacular drilling means “extraction”. Defending one or two steps or components over another in this case doesn’t defend the failure at “safe drilling”. Something else will fail next. Maybe even the aspect(s) you are associated with. That’s a lot of oil and destruction.

I don’t have a pragmatic enough answer for the larger power/money/energy/ecological issues.[/quote]

Russ: My bad, then. Sorry. And, yeah, I get your point about “all of a piece”. However, using that same logic, you cannot necessarily demonize ALL offshore drilling, especially when oil represents one of the central elements satisfying our present energy needs.

Following that same line, we also need to recognize that, if oil isn’t working, then we need to come up with viable alternatives and those alternatives need to be cost-effective and safe (or as safe as possible) in their own right.

I get tired of the rhetoric, especially when nothing substantive is offered as a plausible alternative solution. Note, Russ, that I’m not directing that comment at you.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Russell]Allan, Rustico here…

I guess I should have made the reference to “not seeing the forest for the tress more clear”? In the vernacular drilling means “extraction”. Defending one or two steps or components over another in this case doesn’t defend the failure at “safe drilling”. Something else will fail next. Maybe even the aspect(s) you are associated with. That’s a lot of oil and destruction.

I don’t have a pragmatic enough answer for the larger power/money/energy/ecological issues.[/quote]

Russ: My bad, then. Sorry. And, yeah, I get your point about “all of a piece”. However, using that same logic, you cannot necessarily demonize ALL offshore drilling, especially when oil represents one of the central elements satisfying our present energy needs.

Following that same line, we also need to recognize that, if oil isn’t working, then we need to come up with viable alternatives and those alternatives need to be cost-effective and safe (or as safe as possible) in their own right.

I get tired of the rhetoric, especially when nothing substantive is offered as a plausible alternative solution. Note, Russ, that I’m not directing that comment at you.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Russell]Allan, Rustico here…

I guess I should have made the reference to “not seeing the forest for the tress more clear”? In the vernacular drilling means “extraction”. Defending one or two steps or components over another in this case doesn’t defend the failure at “safe drilling”. Something else will fail next. Maybe even the aspect(s) you are associated with. That’s a lot of oil and destruction.

I don’t have a pragmatic enough answer for the larger power/money/energy/ecological issues.[/quote]

Russ: My bad, then. Sorry. And, yeah, I get your point about “all of a piece”. However, using that same logic, you cannot necessarily demonize ALL offshore drilling, especially when oil represents one of the central elements satisfying our present energy needs.

Following that same line, we also need to recognize that, if oil isn’t working, then we need to come up with viable alternatives and those alternatives need to be cost-effective and safe (or as safe as possible) in their own right.

I get tired of the rhetoric, especially when nothing substantive is offered as a plausible alternative solution. Note, Russ, that I’m not directing that comment at you.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Russell]Allan, Rustico here…

I guess I should have made the reference to “not seeing the forest for the tress more clear”? In the vernacular drilling means “extraction”. Defending one or two steps or components over another in this case doesn’t defend the failure at “safe drilling”. Something else will fail next. Maybe even the aspect(s) you are associated with. That’s a lot of oil and destruction.

I don’t have a pragmatic enough answer for the larger power/money/energy/ecological issues.[/quote]

Russ: My bad, then. Sorry. And, yeah, I get your point about “all of a piece”. However, using that same logic, you cannot necessarily demonize ALL offshore drilling, especially when oil represents one of the central elements satisfying our present energy needs.

Following that same line, we also need to recognize that, if oil isn’t working, then we need to come up with viable alternatives and those alternatives need to be cost-effective and safe (or as safe as possible) in their own right.

I get tired of the rhetoric, especially when nothing substantive is offered as a plausible alternative solution. Note, Russ, that I’m not directing that comment at you.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Russell]Allan, Rustico here…

I guess I should have made the reference to “not seeing the forest for the tress more clear”? In the vernacular drilling means “extraction”. Defending one or two steps or components over another in this case doesn’t defend the failure at “safe drilling”. Something else will fail next. Maybe even the aspect(s) you are associated with. That’s a lot of oil and destruction.

I don’t have a pragmatic enough answer for the larger power/money/energy/ecological issues.[/quote]

Russ: My bad, then. Sorry. And, yeah, I get your point about “all of a piece”. However, using that same logic, you cannot necessarily demonize ALL offshore drilling, especially when oil represents one of the central elements satisfying our present energy needs.

Following that same line, we also need to recognize that, if oil isn’t working, then we need to come up with viable alternatives and those alternatives need to be cost-effective and safe (or as safe as possible) in their own right.

I get tired of the rhetoric, especially when nothing substantive is offered as a plausible alternative solution. Note, Russ, that I’m not directing that comment at you.

[Arraya]

Ok… Regarding “forrest and trees”

We pretty much know how much oil we have out there at this point. After 150 years of exploration and advances in technology regarding under ground topography and understanding of geological sciences our understanding is astounding. We have the earth pretty well mapped out. It’s no long a mystery, even as much as it was just 30 ears ago.

The benefits of additional deep water drilling for society as a whole is very very minimal. It’s pretty much negligible actually. The benefits for the soon-to-be shrinking oil industry are huge. Put another way, it wont matter to joe six pac at all if the oil industry sucks out every last drop it can. he really won’t notice at all. So if you really want to fight for the right of the oil industry to exist a little bit longer at incalculable social costs(see nigeria, ecuador and GOM for details), go for it. Put up the good fight for them. I won’t be joining you.

Over this time we have painted ourselves into an oil corner(fossil fuel actually). With a massive infrastructure set up for fossil fuels. This massive century long investment will be with out a doubt worthless within a century, quite possible sooner and their is not a damn thing we can do about it.

The earth has plenty of natural energy to bring stability and we do have the technology to harness it. Here is the kicker, our market system will never deliver it and neither will out political system.

We are enslaved to institutions and really a cultural straight jacket that won’t allow us stability and we are talking a lot of potential instability in the cue if we are not careful.

What I’m seeking, and have been seeking for a while now is an understanding of our natural place in this world. What I’ve found, contrary to my expectations, is that we’re confused on a grand scale. Understanding that what we have is an institution of our own creation, makes it apparent that we hold our own destiny in our hands; it’s not an invisible hand that acts through our very nature, and thereby removes our free will to be otherwise, but rather a confusion waiting to be transcended.

My advice, to be taken or left of course, is always retain an open mind even about your deepest convictions, or you’re little more than an artifact. We need a fully integrated view of this world and our place in it with respect to life itself, and it isn’t easy to put into one liners and political talking points.

The future is very fragile now.

[Arraya]

Ok… Regarding “forrest and trees”

We pretty much know how much oil we have out there at this point. After 150 years of exploration and advances in technology regarding under ground topography and understanding of geological sciences our understanding is astounding. We have the earth pretty well mapped out. It’s no long a mystery, even as much as it was just 30 ears ago.

The benefits of additional deep water drilling for society as a whole is very very minimal. It’s pretty much negligible actually. The benefits for the soon-to-be shrinking oil industry are huge. Put another way, it wont matter to joe six pac at all if the oil industry sucks out every last drop it can. he really won’t notice at all. So if you really want to fight for the right of the oil industry to exist a little bit longer at incalculable social costs(see nigeria, ecuador and GOM for details), go for it. Put up the good fight for them. I won’t be joining you.

Over this time we have painted ourselves into an oil corner(fossil fuel actually). With a massive infrastructure set up for fossil fuels. This massive century long investment will be with out a doubt worthless within a century, quite possible sooner and their is not a damn thing we can do about it.

The earth has plenty of natural energy to bring stability and we do have the technology to harness it. Here is the kicker, our market system will never deliver it and neither will out political system.

We are enslaved to institutions and really a cultural straight jacket that won’t allow us stability and we are talking a lot of potential instability in the cue if we are not careful.

What I’m seeking, and have been seeking for a while now is an understanding of our natural place in this world. What I’ve found, contrary to my expectations, is that we’re confused on a grand scale. Understanding that what we have is an institution of our own creation, makes it apparent that we hold our own destiny in our hands; it’s not an invisible hand that acts through our very nature, and thereby removes our free will to be otherwise, but rather a confusion waiting to be transcended.

My advice, to be taken or left of course, is always retain an open mind even about your deepest convictions, or you’re little more than an artifact. We need a fully integrated view of this world and our place in it with respect to life itself, and it isn’t easy to put into one liners and political talking points.

The future is very fragile now.

[Arraya]

Ok… Regarding “forrest and trees”

We pretty much know how much oil we have out there at this point. After 150 years of exploration and advances in technology regarding under ground topography and understanding of geological sciences our understanding is astounding. We have the earth pretty well mapped out. It’s no long a mystery, even as much as it was just 30 ears ago.

The benefits of additional deep water drilling for society as a whole is very very minimal. It’s pretty much negligible actually. The benefits for the soon-to-be shrinking oil industry are huge. Put another way, it wont matter to joe six pac at all if the oil industry sucks out every last drop it can. he really won’t notice at all. So if you really want to fight for the right of the oil industry to exist a little bit longer at incalculable social costs(see nigeria, ecuador and GOM for details), go for it. Put up the good fight for them. I won’t be joining you.

Over this time we have painted ourselves into an oil corner(fossil fuel actually). With a massive infrastructure set up for fossil fuels. This massive century long investment will be with out a doubt worthless within a century, quite possible sooner and their is not a damn thing we can do about it.

The earth has plenty of natural energy to bring stability and we do have the technology to harness it. Here is the kicker, our market system will never deliver it and neither will out political system.

We are enslaved to institutions and really a cultural straight jacket that won’t allow us stability and we are talking a lot of potential instability in the cue if we are not careful.

What I’m seeking, and have been seeking for a while now is an understanding of our natural place in this world. What I’ve found, contrary to my expectations, is that we’re confused on a grand scale. Understanding that what we have is an institution of our own creation, makes it apparent that we hold our own destiny in our hands; it’s not an invisible hand that acts through our very nature, and thereby removes our free will to be otherwise, but rather a confusion waiting to be transcended.

My advice, to be taken or left of course, is always retain an open mind even about your deepest convictions, or you’re little more than an artifact. We need a fully integrated view of this world and our place in it with respect to life itself, and it isn’t easy to put into one liners and political talking points.

The future is very fragile now.

[Arraya]

Ok… Regarding “forrest and trees”

We pretty much know how much oil we have out there at this point. After 150 years of exploration and advances in technology regarding under ground topography and understanding of geological sciences our understanding is astounding. We have the earth pretty well mapped out. It’s no long a mystery, even as much as it was just 30 ears ago.

The benefits of additional deep water drilling for society as a whole is very very minimal. It’s pretty much negligible actually. The benefits for the soon-to-be shrinking oil industry are huge. Put another way, it wont matter to joe six pac at all if the oil industry sucks out every last drop it can. he really won’t notice at all. So if you really want to fight for the right of the oil industry to exist a little bit longer at incalculable social costs(see nigeria, ecuador and GOM for details), go for it. Put up the good fight for them. I won’t be joining you.

Over this time we have painted ourselves into an oil corner(fossil fuel actually). With a massive infrastructure set up for fossil fuels. This massive century long investment will be with out a doubt worthless within a century, quite possible sooner and their is not a damn thing we can do about it.

The earth has plenty of natural energy to bring stability and we do have the technology to harness it. Here is the kicker, our market system will never deliver it and neither will out political system.

We are enslaved to institutions and really a cultural straight jacket that won’t allow us stability and we are talking a lot of potential instability in the cue if we are not careful.

What I’m seeking, and have been seeking for a while now is an understanding of our natural place in this world. What I’ve found, contrary to my expectations, is that we’re confused on a grand scale. Understanding that what we have is an institution of our own creation, makes it apparent that we hold our own destiny in our hands; it’s not an invisible hand that acts through our very nature, and thereby removes our free will to be otherwise, but rather a confusion waiting to be transcended.

My advice, to be taken or left of course, is always retain an open mind even about your deepest convictions, or you’re little more than an artifact. We need a fully integrated view of this world and our place in it with respect to life itself, and it isn’t easy to put into one liners and political talking points.

The future is very fragile now.

[Arraya]

Ok… Regarding “forrest and trees”

We pretty much know how much oil we have out there at this point. After 150 years of exploration and advances in technology regarding under ground topography and understanding of geological sciences our understanding is astounding. We have the earth pretty well mapped out. It’s no long a mystery, even as much as it was just 30 ears ago.

The benefits of additional deep water drilling for society as a whole is very very minimal. It’s pretty much negligible actually. The benefits for the soon-to-be shrinking oil industry are huge. Put another way, it wont matter to joe six pac at all if the oil industry sucks out every last drop it can. he really won’t notice at all. So if you really want to fight for the right of the oil industry to exist a little bit longer at incalculable social costs(see nigeria, ecuador and GOM for details), go for it. Put up the good fight for them. I won’t be joining you.

Over this time we have painted ourselves into an oil corner(fossil fuel actually). With a massive infrastructure set up for fossil fuels. This massive century long investment will be with out a doubt worthless within a century, quite possible sooner and their is not a damn thing we can do about it.

The earth has plenty of natural energy to bring stability and we do have the technology to harness it. Here is the kicker, our market system will never deliver it and neither will out political system.

We are enslaved to institutions and really a cultural straight jacket that won’t allow us stability and we are talking a lot of potential instability in the cue if we are not careful.

What I’m seeking, and have been seeking for a while now is an understanding of our natural place in this world. What I’ve found, contrary to my expectations, is that we’re confused on a grand scale. Understanding that what we have is an institution of our own creation, makes it apparent that we hold our own destiny in our hands; it’s not an invisible hand that acts through our very nature, and thereby removes our free will to be otherwise, but rather a confusion waiting to be transcended.

My advice, to be taken or left of course, is always retain an open mind even about your deepest convictions, or you’re little more than an artifact. We need a fully integrated view of this world and our place in it with respect to life itself, and it isn’t easy to put into one liners and political talking points.

The future is very fragile now.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

MadeInTaiwan: While I get your point about calling foul, I was simply trying to nail Brian down regarding facts and parsing words/information. A good example would be his retort, “Sure, the cementing MIGHT have caused the explosion”. No, it DID cause the explosion; no MIGHT involved.

As far as addressing the balance of your post: I work predominantly on engineering defensive/protective designs for structures against what is called VCE (vapor cloud explosions), like the one that hit BP Texas City in 2005.

What I’m about to say is NOT a defense of Big Oil, but rather a statement of fact about oil/gas facilities in the US and Canada. Let’s use the refineries of the Los Angeles River Basin as an example. Most of these refineries were originally built by Standard Oil during the 1920s and 1930s, and have seen substantial retrofitting and upgrading over the years, but its been done on something of a haphazard basis. The name of the game in refining is production and capacity and everything else takes a back seat to that, including, sometimes, safety.

Your point about regulations being relaxed under Bush/Cheney is certainly valid, but, in truth, these facilities and Chem/Petrochem, have enjoyed prefential treatment for decades, and largely because of our need for their products.

This takes me back to my focal point about a national energy program. Yeah, we can point a finger at Bush/Cheney and with some validity. But, let’s also be honest about Obama, too. We’re not seeing anything approaching a national energy program, and I can say this because I also work on protective design, largely for Force Protection, in the private nuke sector, and I hear the complaints regarding the difficulties in permitting, approvals and loan guarantees. The US government could be doing a lot more in this sector, including offering more support to companies like Westinghouse, and offering streamlined permitting/approval processes and a better loan guarantee program (like the French have). Same goes with natural gas, which is an excellent alternative product, but has languished for decades and mainly due to the fact that it doesn’t enjoy the clout or lobbying power of Big Oil.

Obama has a clear-cut opportunity here to do something sweeping, but I don’t see it happening. I don’t say this pessimistically, or because I don’t care for Obama; I say this because the status quo ante is deeply entrenched in not only US industry, but in what is considered an American birthright: Cheap Oil.

There’s a running joke in the oil business about ExxonMobil being a bank that happens to drill for oil. Except that’s it not really a joke at all. These companies wield tremendous power and influence and have had their way for over a century. It was abundantly clear as WWII drew to a close that the US was going to need huge amounts of oil and refined products going forward and we positioned ourselves to win the necessary “wars of extraction”. Better alternatives now exist, but the real question is if we, as Americans, have the will to make the change.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

MadeInTaiwan: While I get your point about calling foul, I was simply trying to nail Brian down regarding facts and parsing words/information. A good example would be his retort, “Sure, the cementing MIGHT have caused the explosion”. No, it DID cause the explosion; no MIGHT involved.

As far as addressing the balance of your post: I work predominantly on engineering defensive/protective designs for structures against what is called VCE (vapor cloud explosions), like the one that hit BP Texas City in 2005.

What I’m about to say is NOT a defense of Big Oil, but rather a statement of fact about oil/gas facilities in the US and Canada. Let’s use the refineries of the Los Angeles River Basin as an example. Most of these refineries were originally built by Standard Oil during the 1920s and 1930s, and have seen substantial retrofitting and upgrading over the years, but its been done on something of a haphazard basis. The name of the game in refining is production and capacity and everything else takes a back seat to that, including, sometimes, safety.

Your point about regulations being relaxed under Bush/Cheney is certainly valid, but, in truth, these facilities and Chem/Petrochem, have enjoyed prefential treatment for decades, and largely because of our need for their products.

This takes me back to my focal point about a national energy program. Yeah, we can point a finger at Bush/Cheney and with some validity. But, let’s also be honest about Obama, too. We’re not seeing anything approaching a national energy program, and I can say this because I also work on protective design, largely for Force Protection, in the private nuke sector, and I hear the complaints regarding the difficulties in permitting, approvals and loan guarantees. The US government could be doing a lot more in this sector, including offering more support to companies like Westinghouse, and offering streamlined permitting/approval processes and a better loan guarantee program (like the French have). Same goes with natural gas, which is an excellent alternative product, but has languished for decades and mainly due to the fact that it doesn’t enjoy the clout or lobbying power of Big Oil.

Obama has a clear-cut opportunity here to do something sweeping, but I don’t see it happening. I don’t say this pessimistically, or because I don’t care for Obama; I say this because the status quo ante is deeply entrenched in not only US industry, but in what is considered an American birthright: Cheap Oil.

There’s a running joke in the oil business about ExxonMobil being a bank that happens to drill for oil. Except that’s it not really a joke at all. These companies wield tremendous power and influence and have had their way for over a century. It was abundantly clear as WWII drew to a close that the US was going to need huge amounts of oil and refined products going forward and we positioned ourselves to win the necessary “wars of extraction”. Better alternatives now exist, but the real question is if we, as Americans, have the will to make the change.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

MadeInTaiwan: While I get your point about calling foul, I was simply trying to nail Brian down regarding facts and parsing words/information. A good example would be his retort, “Sure, the cementing MIGHT have caused the explosion”. No, it DID cause the explosion; no MIGHT involved.

As far as addressing the balance of your post: I work predominantly on engineering defensive/protective designs for structures against what is called VCE (vapor cloud explosions), like the one that hit BP Texas City in 2005.

What I’m about to say is NOT a defense of Big Oil, but rather a statement of fact about oil/gas facilities in the US and Canada. Let’s use the refineries of the Los Angeles River Basin as an example. Most of these refineries were originally built by Standard Oil during the 1920s and 1930s, and have seen substantial retrofitting and upgrading over the years, but its been done on something of a haphazard basis. The name of the game in refining is production and capacity and everything else takes a back seat to that, including, sometimes, safety.

Your point about regulations being relaxed under Bush/Cheney is certainly valid, but, in truth, these facilities and Chem/Petrochem, have enjoyed prefential treatment for decades, and largely because of our need for their products.

This takes me back to my focal point about a national energy program. Yeah, we can point a finger at Bush/Cheney and with some validity. But, let’s also be honest about Obama, too. We’re not seeing anything approaching a national energy program, and I can say this because I also work on protective design, largely for Force Protection, in the private nuke sector, and I hear the complaints regarding the difficulties in permitting, approvals and loan guarantees. The US government could be doing a lot more in this sector, including offering more support to companies like Westinghouse, and offering streamlined permitting/approval processes and a better loan guarantee program (like the French have). Same goes with natural gas, which is an excellent alternative product, but has languished for decades and mainly due to the fact that it doesn’t enjoy the clout or lobbying power of Big Oil.

Obama has a clear-cut opportunity here to do something sweeping, but I don’t see it happening. I don’t say this pessimistically, or because I don’t care for Obama; I say this because the status quo ante is deeply entrenched in not only US industry, but in what is considered an American birthright: Cheap Oil.

There’s a running joke in the oil business about ExxonMobil being a bank that happens to drill for oil. Except that’s it not really a joke at all. These companies wield tremendous power and influence and have had their way for over a century. It was abundantly clear as WWII drew to a close that the US was going to need huge amounts of oil and refined products going forward and we positioned ourselves to win the necessary “wars of extraction”. Better alternatives now exist, but the real question is if we, as Americans, have the will to make the change.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

MadeInTaiwan: While I get your point about calling foul, I was simply trying to nail Brian down regarding facts and parsing words/information. A good example would be his retort, “Sure, the cementing MIGHT have caused the explosion”. No, it DID cause the explosion; no MIGHT involved.

As far as addressing the balance of your post: I work predominantly on engineering defensive/protective designs for structures against what is called VCE (vapor cloud explosions), like the one that hit BP Texas City in 2005.

What I’m about to say is NOT a defense of Big Oil, but rather a statement of fact about oil/gas facilities in the US and Canada. Let’s use the refineries of the Los Angeles River Basin as an example. Most of these refineries were originally built by Standard Oil during the 1920s and 1930s, and have seen substantial retrofitting and upgrading over the years, but its been done on something of a haphazard basis. The name of the game in refining is production and capacity and everything else takes a back seat to that, including, sometimes, safety.

Your point about regulations being relaxed under Bush/Cheney is certainly valid, but, in truth, these facilities and Chem/Petrochem, have enjoyed prefential treatment for decades, and largely because of our need for their products.

This takes me back to my focal point about a national energy program. Yeah, we can point a finger at Bush/Cheney and with some validity. But, let’s also be honest about Obama, too. We’re not seeing anything approaching a national energy program, and I can say this because I also work on protective design, largely for Force Protection, in the private nuke sector, and I hear the complaints regarding the difficulties in permitting, approvals and loan guarantees. The US government could be doing a lot more in this sector, including offering more support to companies like Westinghouse, and offering streamlined permitting/approval processes and a better loan guarantee program (like the French have). Same goes with natural gas, which is an excellent alternative product, but has languished for decades and mainly due to the fact that it doesn’t enjoy the clout or lobbying power of Big Oil.

Obama has a clear-cut opportunity here to do something sweeping, but I don’t see it happening. I don’t say this pessimistically, or because I don’t care for Obama; I say this because the status quo ante is deeply entrenched in not only US industry, but in what is considered an American birthright: Cheap Oil.

There’s a running joke in the oil business about ExxonMobil being a bank that happens to drill for oil. Except that’s it not really a joke at all. These companies wield tremendous power and influence and have had their way for over a century. It was abundantly clear as WWII drew to a close that the US was going to need huge amounts of oil and refined products going forward and we positioned ourselves to win the necessary “wars of extraction”. Better alternatives now exist, but the real question is if we, as Americans, have the will to make the change.

[Author]

Posts