Page 14 of 15

Re: Where would offshore oil drilling start first if allowed

Unread postPosted: Sat 11 Oct 2008, 14:06:04
by ROCKMAN
Sorry Tex...missed your question. Had to spend a bit of time on a rig down in the bayous.

We're pretty much in a drilling rampage right now. The only reason you'll never see 100% utilization is that they go off the board during mobilization, repairs and revamping. Simmons is right...there are no spare rigs. Any new offshore plays will have to compete with existing activity. But new offshore and land rigs are coming out the yards all the time. Brazil is turn into a giant black hole for deep-water rigs. They already have 80% of the rigs that can drill in 3000m+. And they are picking up more all the time. The global credit crunch might slow them up though.

As far as stocks, it's just like the NG heavy companies: it makes now sense that they were bid down with the rest of the market. Long-term demand destruction could be a problem but that will take a year+ to hit drilling ops IMO. And PO, along with OPEC possibly becoming a functioning cartel, will probably offset that. I think when Sen. Obama becomes President we'll see the potential for military conflict jump up some. I don't care for the R party anymore then the D party. But my personal history leads me anticipate D war mongering as much as from the other side. Additional instability will only add to the volatility....and been doing OK play that volatility so far. Look where the stock are now. At 57 yo I can only risk so much in the market....but boy do I wish I could right now. I don't see anything but upside until next spring at least.

Offshore foes find little room to compromise

Unread postPosted: Tue 14 Apr 2009, 13:27:03
by Maddog78
Looks like any chance to open up more areas in US waters for offshore oil exploration are not going to happen.
They don't even want to allow seismic work nevermind drill for and produce oil.


http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=75023


The Obama administration is winning little new support for a compromise proposal to explore for oil and gas in federal waters without drilling.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar floated the idea at a public meeting in Atlantic City last week, but was rebuffed by environmental groups, which oppose any new offshore exploration for fossil fuels. Salazar is holding forums in

four cities to help determine how, or whether, to allow oil and gas development in coastal waters kept off-limits to the industry by a federal moratorium until recently. He will travel to Anchorage on Tuesday and San Francisco on Thursday.

"We need to know what the facts are, we have to make (decisions) based on the best knowledge we have," Salazar said, responding to a statement by Jacqueline Savitz, a senior director with Oceana, a marine conservation group. "Our information on the Atlantic is 25 years old...we haven't done any scientific assessment of what's out there."

Salazar was referring to seismic imagery, which uses sound waves to map geological formations beneath the seabed. Seismic testing is typically one of the first steps taken to assess an area's potential for oil and gas reserves.

The moratorium, covering federal waters off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, as well as parts of the Gulf of Mexico and offshore Alaska, was allowed to expire last year. Oil prices were close to a record high at the time, increasing pressure to find new sources of energy. Although prices have since fallen sharply, President Barack Obama has not dismissed the Bush administration's push for increased offshore drilling, even as he rolls back some of his predecessor's other industry-friendly energy initiatives.


snip...............................

California Almost Approves Offshore Drilling

Unread postPosted: Mon 27 Jul 2009, 11:37:13
by mattduke

Re: California Almost Approves Offshore Drilling

Unread postPosted: Mon 27 Jul 2009, 12:05:54
by Maddog78

Diane Rehms discusses oil drilling in the US

Unread postPosted: Thu 01 Apr 2010, 10:37:14
by midnight-gamer
Diane Rehms, is my favorite radio host. Her April first show involves off shore drilling. It is live, as I type this. Also, the show can be played after the fact on mp3/windows media player.

http://thedianerehmshow.org/

Re: Diane Rehms discusses oil drilling in the US

Unread postPosted: Thu 01 Apr 2010, 10:43:14
by anador
Ha, Im listening now too.

US tax dollars being spent to train offshore IT workers

Unread postPosted: Wed 04 Aug 2010, 02:28:53
by Sixstrings
$22 million, federally-backed program aims to help outsourcers in South Asia become more fluent in areas like Java programming—and the English language.

Despite President Obama's pledge to retain more hi-tech jobs in the U.S., a federal agency run by a hand-picked Obama appointee has launched a $22 million program to train workers, including 3,000 specialists in IT and related functions, in South Asia.

Following their training, the tech workers will be placed with outsourcing vendors in the region that provide offshore IT and business services to American companies looking to take advantage of the Asian subcontinent's low labor costs.

Under director Rajiv Shah, the United States Agency for International Development will partner with private outsourcers in Sri Lanka to teach workers there advanced IT skills like Enterprise Java (Java EE) programming, as well as skills in business process outsourcing and call center support. USAID will also help the trainees brush up on their English language proficiency.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/integration/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=226500202


Huh. So while Gheitner tells us to expect more unemployment, Obama appointee Rajiv Shah is using taxpayer dollars to not only train foreign workers in computer programming and English, but also hook them up with outsourcers so they can take US jobs. Amazing how blatant this is, the whole program is specifically about outsourcing American IT jobs.

(and Preston please don't jump on me for mentioning Obama, he is the President and this Rajiv fellow is one of his appointees -- and this didn't come from Fox News, I saw it on democraticunderground)

Re: US tax dollars being spent to train offshore IT workers

Unread postPosted: Wed 04 Aug 2010, 07:17:48
by Roy
Good find.

I share your disdain. But it helps to remember that this is the United States. Maximum profit for corporations, at any cost, is our M.O.

And offshore IT workers will work longer hours for less money, therefore they increase the bottom line; issues of efficiency and innovation notwithstanding.

At the rate things are going, all high paying jobs will be moved overseas or replaced with H1B's before us Gen X'ers reach retirement age. AT&T staffs their MIS network center with H1B's that are not fluent in English. I say that because when I call to report internet problems at my company, I always get a foreigner, but with differing accents ranging from Hispanic to Indian to African -- which leads me to believe they're located in the US rather than a call center in Hyderabad for example. Cisco's call center is in Costa Rica staffed with Costa Rican network engineers. Anyone care to guess what they earn compared to what a comparably skilled American would command in the US?

I think our flag should be changed to represent the current principles of this nation: green and white stripes, with an inset 50 white dollar signs on a gray background.

Salute the Green White and Gray!

No matter what we USED to stand for, this is what the government of the USA represents, and the majority of its citizens care about more than anything else: money and maximum gain.


Re: US tax dollars being spent to train offshore IT workers

Unread postPosted: Wed 04 Aug 2010, 08:05:20
by dissident
But this operating procedure is a one way trip to the bottom. Clearly the enhanced profits of the corporations are not trickling down to maintain the American standard of living. In fact, a big chunk of these profits are hidden and invested abroad. We are seeing greed driven blindness of epic proportions.

Re: US tax dollars being spent to train offshore IT workers

Unread postPosted: Wed 04 Aug 2010, 16:54:37
by jbrovont
What the [expletive deleted]! :x

Re: US tax dollars being spent to train offshore IT workers

Unread postPosted: Wed 04 Aug 2010, 17:50:26
by Sixstrings
Roy wrote:I think our flag should be changed to represent the current principles of this nation: green and white stripes, with an inset 50 white dollar signs on a gray background.


Or maybe we should just adopt the flag of the UN. That's what it's come down to now, we're no longer a nation but rather a fiefdom of global capitalists. I am trying to come to terms with that by the way, because it's the reality whether I like it or not. I'll continue to vote my conscience, but I will have to work on not getting so upset about this. Globalism is like the Borg -- resistance is futile.

Re: US tax dollars being spent to train offshore IT workers

Unread postPosted: Tue 10 Aug 2010, 07:07:50
by pedalling_faster
Roy wrote:No matter what we USED to stand for, this is what the government of the USA represents, and the majority of its citizens care about more than anything else: money and maximum gain.



there are a lot of industries where we can live without their products.

it sounds like its time for American citizens to boycott American corporations that don't provide jobs for Americans.

Re: US tax dollars being spent to train offshore IT workers

Unread postPosted: Tue 10 Aug 2010, 15:33:27
by Sixstrings
pedalling_faster wrote:there are a lot of industries where we can live without their products.

it sounds like its time for American citizens to boycott American corporations that don't provide jobs for Americans.


Won't work. Was tried in the late 80's and didn't work, and that was when a lot more people cared about this issue than they do now. Even Walmart felt the pressure and for a while had a policy of selling an American product when available -- it didn't last long and they soon dropped the whole Made in USA push.

I think boycotts can't work in a nation that has no worker solidarity in the first place. Nobody wants to unionize or go on strike or protest anymore, it's just dog eat dog at all class levels, I got mine and to hell with you mentality.

Nexen North Sea Offshore Buzzard Project Production Cut

Unread postPosted: Tue 10 May 2011, 08:04:30
by bratticus
The story is that there are "cooling problems" but we all know that North Sea crude production is way past peak, right? Don't want to spook the sheeple with that peak oil story.

3 Forties Oil Cargoes Cancelled On Buzzard Field Issues-Traders
By Sarah Kent, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES / NASDAQ / May 4, 2011


Ongoing production issues at the 200,000-barrel-a-day Buzzard field in the North Sea have caused severe delays to cargoes of Forties crude for delivery in May, traders told Dow Jones Newswires Wednesday.

Three cargoes of the North Sea grade, the largest component of the global Brent price benchmark, have been dropped, and over half are facing delays of two to three days, the traders said.


North Sea Buzzard oilfield at reduced rates after restart
Reuters / May 9, 2011


'We restarted the Buzzard platform at reduced rates Saturday morning (in the range of fifty percent),' Nexen spokesman Pierre Alvarez said in an email to Reuters.

Nexen's Yemen Operations Hit By Strike; Buzzard Operation Reduced
By Edward Welsch, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES / WSJ / May 9, 2011


Raymond James analyst Kristopher Zack said ... that Buzzard's problems are more meaningful. Buzzard production was 80,500 barrels a day net to Nexen last year, or about a third of its total production. Zack estimated production at about 35,000 barrels a day during the second quarter, which could cut into cash flow per share by about 8%.

Re: THE Offshore Drilling Thread (merged)

Unread postPosted: Tue 15 Aug 2017, 18:19:43
by Subjectivist
Have the Tides Turned Against Offshore Drilling?

By Seth Cline | Staff Writer
Aug. 10, 2017, at 1:51 p.m.
Last month, in one of the North Carolina's most popular beach towns, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper announced his opposition to offshore drilling.

"It's clear that opening North Carolina's coast to oil and gas exploration and drilling would bring unacceptable risks to our economy, our environment and our coastal communities – and for little potential gain," Cooper said from Atlantic Beach, North Carolina. "As governor, I'm here to speak out and take action against it. I can sum it up in four words: not off our coast."

When oil drilling off the southeast coast was proposed by President Barack Obama in 2015, Cooper's press conference may have stood apart from the bipartisan consensus that supported the idea?

But now, two years later, the Democratic governor's stance is less noteworthy. More than 125 municipalities along the coast have formally opposed drilling or seismic testing, and just one coastal governor in the Southeast still supports it.

What changed? Not local opinion, says Sierra Weaver, an attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center.

"The local communities have always been against offshore drilling, it's really a matter of them getting educated about what's at stake," Weaver says. "What has shifted is interest at the state level or the political level."

The issue of offshore drilling is one that often defies partisan loyalties. President George H. W. Bush instituted a moratorium on drilling off the southeastern coast, which President Bill Clinton extended, but President George W. Bush ended.

After the BP oil spill in 2010 derailed Obama's first attempt to open the East Coast to oil rigs, he tried again in 2015. Attention to the spill had subsided, the president's approval rating was on the rise, and every affected governor backed the plan, as did senators of both parties and many statehouses. The idea had momentum.

But coastal communities bucked. A grassroots movement born in Kure Beach, North Carolina pushed back against the town's mayor, then-Gov. Pat McCrory, and other political supporters. More than a million public comments were submitted about the proposal, many citing the environmental and economic harm that oil drilling and exploration would cause.

"It baffled me why the previous administration could be so adamantly against the Keystone pipeline and then wanted to go offshore and drill," says Jeff Oden, a commercial fisherman in Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.

For fishermen such as Oden, who face strict environmental regulations every time they go out, the drilling campaign is hypocritical.

"We’re regulated to the hilt and we’re just asking for a fair shake. We’re just looking to get the job done," Oden says. "You’re gonna have oil companies coming in that don’t need it and you’re gonna take a livelihood."

Critics of offshore drilling say the practice could decimate coastal fisheries, a $95 million business in North Carolina. Seismic surveys – in which ships blast underwater airguns to detect oil and gas deposits – are particularly disruptive, especially to marine mammals like whales and dolphins.

Oden, who also owns a motel in Cape Hatteras, says the potential threat to tourism is another reason for his opposition.

"It’s incredible what could happen, and to turn a blind eye and forget the Gulf oil spill is unbelievable," he says. "The bottom line is there's way more to lose than there is to gain in this venture."

In the end, scientists, fishermen and small business owners – three groups that don't always see eye-to-eye – were among those who opposed the drilling proposal. The campaign worked: The Obama administration removed southeast Atlantic coast drilling from its five-year plan last year.

But the fight is not over. In April, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at reviewing Obama's five-year plan and making millions of ocean acres eligible for oil and gas leasing. This time around, the political tides may have shifted.

In South Carolina, like in North Carolina, the new governor opposes offshore drilling. And after a visible anti-drilling campaign in 2015 and the collapse of another high-profile energy project – two new nuclear plants – South Carolinians may be skeptical of a new drilling push.

"That ship has pretty much sailed and I think the only thing that would change anyone's mind on this issue would be higher gas prices," says Tyler Jones, a longtime political consultant in South Carolina. "There's not a whole lot of oil off our coast and so the juice isn't worth the squeeze, so to speak."

Low gas prices in South Carolina likely contribute to the ebb in offshore drilling support, Jones says. Indeed, gas prices across the country are among the lowest in the decade, and South Carolina has the nation's cheapest gas.

The state's dependence on tourism and Charleston's political pull also blur the partisan battle lines, says Matt Moore, a former South Carolina Republican Party chair.

"The Republican Party base extends a lot of grace on this issue – black and white lines have not been drawn," Moore says. "The closer a person lives to the coast, the less likely they are to support offshore drilling. It's a classic 'Not In My Backyard' issue which makes it an extremely narrow line to walk as a politician."

In Virginia, public opinion may be shifting as well. Though Gov. Terry McAuliffe supports offshore drilling, in the past year, Sen. Tim Kaine has reconsidered his support for it, and Lieutenant Gov. Ralph Northam, the Democratic nominee in this year's gubernatorial election, is a vocal opponent. The state's two largest cities, Norfolk and Virginia Beach, have voted to formally oppose offshore drilling and the Department of Defense, which operates the world's largest naval base in that region, has also voiced concerns about offshore drilling, citing potential disruptions to military exercises.

Proponents of offshore drilling say the practice is not as destructive as it's often portrayed.

“What you see along the coast is a lot of exaggeration of what this could mean in terms of impact on tourism fisheries and the coastline," says Erik Milito, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute. "We know from around the world this is certainly compatible with military exercises, with tourism, with fishing and with coastal economies in general."

Much of the recent anti-drilling sentiment is political, and often magnified by media coverage of activists and other drilling opponents, he says.

“Because we’re going through the process again we’re seeing an uptick in the amount of noise coming from the activist community," Milito says. "There are supporters in the coastal states that just aren’t as loud as a lot of the opposition when it comes to discussing this issue.”

Because of a "drumbeat of fear" that’s pushed into the debate, voters and politicians often lose sight of the long-term goals, he says.

“If we move 10 to 20 years down the road and we start seeing declines in the Gulf of Mexico what are we gonna replace that with?”

Trump officials have acknowledged that the plan to open the southern Atlantic to drilling will take years, and the Obama administration's five-year plan will remain in effect during that time. But the conflict will likely come to a head eventually.

"Trump's administration has said he intends to make the U.S. energy dominant. These communities have said they don't want drilling. So there's gonna be a fight," Weaver, the environmental lawyer, says.

Whether that fight will be enough to kill the proposal a second time remains to be seen.

"It doesn't seem like a death knell given the divided opinion among Republican officials," says Moore, the former GOP chairman. "When it comes to American energy independence the country is in a much different place than it was even 5 years ago, so there's not a pressing need, but external events have a way of changing things."


https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states ... -southeast

Will Oil Majors Really Sink Money Into America’s Waters?

Unread postPosted: Sat 06 Jan 2018, 15:37:03
by AdamB

Energy dominance begins at home, and that includes any beachfront property you might have. The Interior Department unveiled on Thursday a draft proposal for leasing areas of the U.S. outer continental shelf for oil and gas drilling between 2019 and 2024. As five-year plans go, it's an ambitious one, envisaging leasing on fully 25 out of 26 planning areas -- from sea to shining sea, as it were: ClearView Energy Partners (which provided the data for that chart) points out in a report published on Friday morning that the proposal is probably padded for a purpose. Interior knows the list will get whittled down over time, so it's starting bigly. For an oil and gas industry seeking new prospects, that makes the proposal at least partly a mirage. It's not that there aren't potentially good prospects out there. Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico


Will Oil Majors Really Sink Money Into America’s Waters?

Re: THE Offshore Drilling Thread (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sat 06 Jan 2018, 16:21:09
by Tanada
What should have happened decades ago is leasing off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the lower 48. California had some exploration, then a bad offshore leak and they banned offshore oil and have gone to great lengths to keep the USA from leasing offshore beyond state waters. Florida behaves the same way on both the GOM and Atlantic sides of the state. In fact there has been a movement erupt from time to time for the extreme western counties of the panhandle to leave Florida and become part of Alabama simply so those areas can be leased and the local residents get the excise taxes in the coffers.

Re: THE Offshore Drilling Thread (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sun 07 Jan 2018, 08:51:28
by vtsnowedin
This will be a big issue this fall and again in 2020. The outcome of those elections will set the course or scrap this plan. Eventually we will need any oil that is out on the coastal shelves and we will drill it all. Just a matter of when.

Re: THE Offshore Drilling Thread (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sun 07 Jan 2018, 13:21:54
by Subjectivist
vtsnowedin wrote:This will be a big issue this fall and again in 2020. The outcome of those elections will set the course or scrap this plan. Eventually we will need any oil that is out on the coastal shelves and we will drill it all. Just a matter of when.


The biggest handicap on America dealing with peak oil, climate change or debt is the same, no continuity of planning between the two major parties.