I used this old photo because I think it is more like the image liberals have in their mind of the oilfield. We learned long ago that fully utilizing oil leases is not that great of an idea.Now I am oilfield trash. My father was a petroleum engineer. Like many other professionals he had to actually go out into the field and work as part of his education. He also worked on drilling rigs to put himself through school and put beans in our bellies. He would often take me and my little brother with him when he was a pumper in the field. I was around 5 at the time. This is a culture I grew up in with engineers, geologists and oil service people over at our house, out fishing or my parents bowling league.
My brother and I worked in it when we were adults and I stayed there until I was 28 years old. Unlike a Kennedy with nice trimmed fingernails and a trust fund from a dishonest father, or a Pelosi with big boobs and a multi-millionaire husband with the time to work my way up from the PTA to the US Congress, we had to work our way up. I know a little about the oilfield.
Bush called the popular Democrat Congress' hand by lifting the Executive ban on offshore drilling. These brilliant Democrats have now countered with an argument that oil companies are not fully using their leases. Unfortunately they are too drunk with gotcha politics to realize how stupid this is.
These are people not doing what is right for the country but pandering to their base of Greens and other EPA inspired Eco-nuts on the extreme left. As difficult as it might be, try and put yourself into the mind of this group of voters. Once they get a clue about what this position will lead to what will they think when the oilfield is dotted with rig after rig fully utilizing leases. If for them one rig footprint is one too many imagine what they will think when it is 100 ?
The Democrats have no clue how the oilfield works. Nor do they understand that rigs are very expensive and finding oil or gas miles below the surface is not an exact science. That's why they call it oil exploration; exploring from one lease to another. These leases take time to acquire at great expense. The competition is trying to acquire them as well. So a company acquires them for future exploration when either their rigs are finished at one site and can be moved to another or another rig can be built or leased. Because some people think a windfall profits tax is a good way to get back at these evil oil companies there may be less money to build or lease additional rigs.
Not. A. Clue. Yet they run a country.
A vote for a Democrat in Congress is tacit approval of high oil prices. Don't complain if you vote that way. You'll be part of the problem.
As some old sage said: "The People deserve the government they get."
4 comments:
It made me laugh that the cost of a barrel of oil fell $10 just on the announcement. The market has responded positively.
Is there a "clue" here that the geniuses in congress can glomb on to here?
I have given up all hope and spend time watching Idiocrocy over and over so I can adapt to the their thinking since I have no other choice.
I will admit that I await the DNC convention. Be a laugh a minute. Kind of like a sick humor watching lemmings plunge over a cliff.
iopian - i'd like your take on the latest t. boone pickens plan and ads. my husband used to be in wind energy and is seriously thinking about going back. either that or solar.
nanc,
I think if you all have some money set aside it would be worth the time to research and invest it wind power. I am thinking of doing it. Not because I am behind it or I think it is the answer to our problems but because it is an opportunity to make a couple of bucks on other's enthusiasms.
The discussion on our energy problems is like the national debate on immigration. The other side would lose the debate on the violation of our laws so they devolve it into a general discussion of immigration, race and human rights.
The same is happening with energy. It is being posed as an either/or debate. Why not approach it more inclusively to alleviate problems with our energy needs according to what they are?
Solar and wind energy are far superior methods of generating electricity to heat our homes, run mass transport systems in populated areas than petroleum.
But neither wind nor solar energy is of any use as a lubricant, a base in the production of chemicals, medicines, feed stocks or plastics.
There is a common notion in our society that oil is used just for fuel. It is not. So people like Al Gore who want us to become a petroleum free society in 10 years are abjectly ignorant of the subject they want us to believe they are experts on. If his proposals are taken seriously it will kill our economy. Without lubrication and raw petroleum materials it will grind to a standstill.
I also believe this notion of renewable source of energy is an illusion. The sun doesn't always shine nor does the wind always blow. Sometimes this may happen and the demand rises because the sun is shining but the wind isn't blowing. One need only experience a hot summer day in August on the plains of Oklahoma or West Texas to understand this. If we relied on a single method there could be problems.
Oil is a renewable resource. It is just the time it takes for it's replacement that causes us to not look at it that way. But if we locate 100 years of supply it might as well be considered renewable with further exploration in that time or until we can develop replacement sources.
Then there are downsides of any approach. 1800 wind generators is a danger to migratory bird populations. Battery powered cars would pollute landfills with toxic elements.
So I take the position that yes we should convert our source of electricity to wind and solar. These are elegant solutions for electricity and home climate control where the use of oil based products are not the best way with the exception of natural gas.
But petroleum fuels are necessary when the objects we need to move are heavy like ships, aircraft, trucks, cars or construction equipment.
For you and I this is the third time the Arabs have retaliated with oil price manipulation and threatened or economy. We should develop our oil reserves and tell that part of the world what they can do with there oil. We should aim our efforts to support the end of our military involvement in that region which to me is the single most important reason to tap our own reserves. How much has it cost us in the past to have to defend those supplies ?
Post a Comment