Green Living
Visit my blog about my family's experiments in eco-living
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Drilling
Did ya'll see this? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100331/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_drilling
Really, Obama? I love how they say he gave a few concessions to environmentalists... 
Visit my blog about my family's experiments in eco-living
Re: Drilling
Oh it's more than just VA's coastline, it's the entire eastern seaboard AND more drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html
What REALLY burns me up is this part:
So we're going to ruin our entire eastern seaboard, source of mucho tourist dollars, ecosystems, and shipping, for three years of oil? WTF is this man thinking, and why did I vote for him?
DH says "I don't know if you heard but the EU is preparing for massive oil shortages. Their government has said peak oil is here. I think our government knows it too and we're scrambling to have some reserves to soften the fall." My reply is we need to move to alternative energy, not destroy the planet wringing every last drop of oil out of it. That's insanity.
It's Delaware to Florida, not the entire Eastern seabord.
Most of these will not be able to be seen from shore.
They will be tightly regulated for ocean pollution.
They will create 10's of thousands of jobs.
They will have no affect whatsoever on shipping, which by the way, offers its own environmental risks and effects to both the ocean, the air, and the shoreline.
Nearly all of U.S. waters oil spills are from foreign-owned petroleum product and freight carriers, importing oil and goods into the United States, the amount of pollution contributed from offshore platforms in the Gulf is absolutely negligible in comparison.
I agree with you that we need to dedicate more resources to alternative energy sources and look to the day when the use of oil and gas as power sources is over, however, interim measures to obtain petroleum products need to be established in the meantime. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil is a good thing.
(I work in oil spill prevention and response)
Yeah that's right my name's Yauch!
I agree w/you. We definitely need to look into alt. energy, but the dependence on oil is not going to go away anytime soon. It definitely sucks, but we need it, and the jobs and self-sufficiency is a +.
Exploratory drilling is really minimally invasive, and if actual drilling and collection is conducted, it will be very carefully regulated.
Plus, who knows if it will even end up being worth it. Isn't this just preliminary approval to explore?
(Laptop- I used to review FRP plans as a contractor for the EPA
)
Ok so 2/3 of the Eastern seaboard to be precise. How long do you think it will be until the government opens the West coast? And the rest of Alaska? Is this really the United States you want to live in, encircled by oil and gas platforms?
I'm not so concerned with the visual impact as I am the alteration of the ocean floor, the harassment of ocean species, and inteference with whale migration and breeding. I write Environmental Assessments (EA) and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for a living and have done several EAs for offshore oil and natural gas platforms. Pile driving into the ocean floor to secure the pylons for the platform destroys a large acreage of the sea floor, which has a very negative impact on flora, fauna, fish, and the animals that feed on them. I specialize in acoustics and underwater pile driving is loud enough to rupture a whale's ear causing stranding and death at a distance of a mile from construction activities. The pile driving and other construction noise, which takes 3-5 years to complete, is loud enough at very far distances from the platform to harass whales and cause them to abandon their feeding, mating, and birthing grounds which seriously impacts their ability to breed.
How do you plan on getting the oil and gas from the platform to the shoreline? You've got two options: Carrying it on ships, which as you pont out carries environmental and safety risks, or creating a series of pipelines. If the platform is far enough to not be seen from shore, they are going to be numerous and veerrry long pipelines. Pipelines carry their own risk of rupture and are very harmful to the ocean to install and maintain, as a significant right-of-way is cleared around the pipeline during construction.
I do not accept that this level of environmental degradation is worth 3 years of oil. They don't even know if that much is even there. Of course reducing our dependence on foreign oil is a good thing, but it's insanity to degrade our natural environment and spend billons of dollars to create a very short supply of a finite resource that we have to move away from. The switch to alternative energy will never be easy, I don't buy the "we have to do this to make American jobs" excuse. It has to get done. How many wind turbines and solar arrays could we build for the mult-million or billon cost of one offshore oil platform? How many American jobs would that make? The EIS I'm writing for a proposed platform alone is $3 millon, and that's just the compliance document for the platform, let alone the actual cost of permitting and construction supplies and equipment.
We are PAST the point of "look[ing] to the day when the use of oil and gas as power sources is over". We can't hold on to a energy source that is simply.running.out. We have to move forward, not spend billions of dollars and destroy what precious environmental quality we have left to stand still.
Given the State of California's stranglehold on international trade while they are completely bankrupt, I think it will probably be never. I try not to get into a panic about stuff that hasn't happened yet.
As for the rest, well I guess you told me.
But I still disagree with you that it's not worth it.
Yeah that's right my name's Yauch!
I read about this today on FB and was not happy about it.
There is no way that drilling off the coast of VA would not have a profound effect on the nation's largest estuary, the Chesapeake Bay. Why would he bother to pledge for the federal gov't to help clean up the Bay, if he's just going to let oil companies drill @ the mouth of the Bay.
I read this to Jeff because I'm irked about it to begin with, and he thinks the way it's phrased is fairly obscure and is less upset about it.
Leave it to the engineer to think about the way it was written and be unemotional about it.
In his opinion, "three-year supply of oil . . . at current rates of consumption" could mean:
*Oil companies can drill and get oil for 3 years, but after that they'd have to stop drilling. That doesn't really make sense.
*Oil companies can drill, and over however long a time period it takes to get the oil, it could last or 3 years based on current consumption rates. That could potentially be a huge amount of oil, depending on how they meant it. It could have been meant that if the US didn't use oil from any other country, at current consumption rates the oil would last for 3 years. And combined with oil from other countries, it could last longer then 3 years.
Or, it could be X percent of the current supply when including oil from other sources and would last for 3 years (this makes the least amount of sense).
I see his point, and I really hate the media and the way they write things to prey on emotions. But I'm still pissed at Obama.
Thank you for your perspective, and working to prevent oil spills! (er, in case it did, that wasn't supposed to sound snarky)
Unfortunately though, I have these same concerns:
Very well-said SuperGreen.
I agree that the 3-year statement is ambigious and could mean any of the 3 alternative you've written. But I don't think any of those options, even the second star which would be best-case scenario, are worth it. We need to spend that money and manpower investing and creating alternative energy solutions, not holding on to a resource that is finite no matter how much effort we put into getting it. Say the eastern seaboard is magically a 50 year supply. That will be over in a blink of an eye and then what? We're in the same boat as before, a finite resource with no viable alternatives because we haven't invested in them.
I'm pissed at Obama too for having the same 4 year blinders on that all politicans have. "Who cares if drilling wrecks the oceans or continues our dependence on a finite resource? At least I might get re-elected." That's the only end-goal he's looking for.