Drilling Moratorium

[Just1More]

_ While it is physically possible, it would be financially prohibitive. The average land well costs about 1 million dollars to drill. That price is exponentially greater offshore, depending on depth. On some you might be talking 1 million dollars a day. Generally, the oil industry is very safe and these relief well would never be needed. This accident is very serious and tragic, but not a industry wide epidemic. Over the history of the oil industry, for ever million barrels produced, 30 barrels have leaked into the ocean. That is 0.003%. Most of the hydrocarbon pollution in the oceans is naturally occurring, and another large portion comes from runoff from the roads. Also by drilling two wells, you have doubled you chances of something going wrong (blowout). And when you say "before the work begins" I assume you mean converting the well from exploration to production, because the exploration part is really the "work", when you produce you use that natural pressure to produce the hydrocarbons to the surface. _

Excellent explanation. It is a bit ironic that deepwater drilling will be halted, but the administration spokespeople are eager to move on drilling the relief wells as the "permanent solution". It is as if they now can guarantee additional drilling will not exacerbate the problem, but any future deepwater production wells are unthinkable.

[geo_cajun]

_ FYI...Canada requires a relief well to be drilled along side the primary well. The details are in the article linked below...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_596142.html

"BP and other oil companies urged Canadian regulators to drop a requirement stipulating that companies operating in the Arctic had to drill relief wells in the same season as the primary well."

The Canadians feel that the same if the same incident that is occuring in the GOM happened in the Arctic, that the outcome could be worse... _

Did you read the whole article?

"Canadian regulations about relief wells are not quite as simple as the Reuters story suggested. • Oil companies do not actually have to drill relief wells in advance. Rather, in order to get a drilling permit they have to satisfy the National Energy Board that they have the capability to drill a relief well the same season as the exploratory well."

This is very different than having to drill the relief at the same time as the main well as it sounded like you were insinuating.

[LSUTiger4RaginCajuns]

_ There is only one group of people that I hope to witness evisceration in the upcoming years of my life... greater than these completely imbecilic "progressives"... and it is the mainstream media. They are supposed to be the windshield wipers in this rain of excrement that politicians sling. Instead, they are the bowels of production.

I also equate having BP titled as "problem solver" on par with telling someone whose campfire lit up a national forest... "you lit it up... now go put it out". _

I hope that is an original quote of yours as I have laughed myself silly this morning over your windshield . Awesome.

[Tripple Threat]

_ Did you read the whole article?

"Canadian regulations about relief wells are not quite as simple as the Reuters story suggested. • Oil companies do not actually have to drill relief wells in advance. Rather, in order to get a drilling permit they have to satisfy the National Energy Board that they have the capability to drill a relief well the same season as the exploratory well."

This is very different than having to drill the relief at the same time as the main well as it sounded like you were insinuating. _

Nope sure didn't...Just call me CNN...

[Hammer58]

_ Nope sure didn't...Just call me CNN... _

Don't dispair. Not reading the article makes you eminently qualified to serve in congress where they don't read bills before voting on them or in the Obama adminstration as Attorney General, Homeland Security Secretary, etc where they don't read laws before commenting on them either.

[Just1More]

_ First part: Genius, I will quote you later and act like I made it up so people will think I'm smart.

Second part: Not so much, equating this to a forest fire is very simplistic. I should be divided into to main approaches, stopping the well and cleanup. BP should be out of the way on the cleanup with the military or whoever getting it done and sending the bill to BP. Stopping the well is different, it is like the surface of the moon 5000' below, and the only people with the expertise are large oil companies (and certainly not the government). Everything they have done has been a progression and they have learned from every problem. _

I am not advocating that the federal government (expertise-wise) solve the "forest fire". Actually, it should have been separated immediately into three distinct objectives: 1) Barrier and Cleanup 2) Capping the leak, and 3) Investigation of responsibility... by the federal and state authorities cooperatively. They immediately blurred the objectives.

BP is not alone in deepwater technology. I am certain they had an immediate desire to cap the leak and contain the spill, but they also were attempting to limit the cost. That is where my analogy to a forest fire comes in. If the campfire was started by a firefighter in a forest of trees with winds that blow the water hose right out of his hand... I do not stand there yelling in his ear that he is to blame, he is going to pay for all of this damage, and to both barricade the towns and cities within 100 miles of the fire while he tries to put the fire out. Although he may have a serious reason to limit the fire damage... he is still going to use his own fire hose and not necessarily call in the entire worldwide fire brigade. That call needed to be made by our federal government. And saying that you did that after 40 days into a disaster... is unacceptable.

[Tripple Threat]

_ Don't dispair. Not reading the article makes you eminently qualified to serve in congress where they don't read bills before voting on them or in the Obama adminstration as Attorney General, Homeland Security Secretary, etc where they don't read laws before commenting on them either. _

I'm actually pretty embarrassed, I'm usually more thorough than that. I had heard the same information shared on one of the 24hr news channels and just went with the lead information...The article slaps the initial implication in the face with a cleanup at the end. I was a perfect example of getting caught up in the sensationalism..._____e! Thanks to Geo for calling me out...

[Just1More]

_ I hope that is an original quote of yours as I have laughed myself silly this morning over your windshield . Awesome. _

It's all mine... many times to my discredit. Glad to make you laugh.

[geo_cajun]

_

I'm actually pretty embarrassed, I'm usually more thorough than that. I had heard the same information shared on one of the 24hr news channels and just went with the lead information...The article slaps the initial implication in the face with a cleanup at the end. I was a perfect example of getting caught up in the sensationalism..._____e! Thanks to Geo for calling me out... _

Not to worry, you just practiced better investigative journalism than most media outlets in the country. And you are right, the whole tone of the article is made null by the closing caveat.

[Boomer]

_ Not to worry, you just practiced better investigative journalism than most media outlets in the country. And you are right, the whole tone of the article is made null by the closing caveat. _

I think that we are about to witness the opposite of supply side economics----We will see the trickle down of lost jobs-----now I need you oilers help ----BUT I have been told about the # of companies that are involved in a deep water well and if one loses out the next will follow and even to the food chain like in caterers to the rig and who brings them out---How bad could this be?????