"Matt Colie" wrote in message
...
Why do they make noise about dependence on foreign oil and not let anybody
go get what we have. (Canada has wells in most of the great lakes - we
aren't allowed to, Cuba will soon be using Chinese investment to drill
under the Florida straight - we can't do that either.)

Matt Colie - environmentally conscious but educated and realistic



I'm all for energy-independence, but I cannot believe that oil wells on our
Great Lakes would be a good idea. Oil spills from rigs on the oceans are bad
enough -- but similar spills on the Lakes would be disasterous.

"KLC Lewis" wrote in
:

I'm all for energy-independence, but I cannot believe that oil wells
on our Great Lakes would be a good idea. Oil spills from rigs on the
oceans are bad enough -- but similar spills on the Lakes would be
disasterous.



Some of the finest fishing on the planet is right under those oil rigs in
the Gulf of Mexico....a whole new ecosystem that's just thriving....
all the way to the bottom!

http://www.thejump.net/fishingarticl...gged-reefs.htm
http://www.marshmission.com/coastal_...t/volume12.htm
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regul...viron/rigs-to-
reefs/information.html
.....to name a few.


Larry
--
Guess what I want to do with the Little Drummer Boy's drum
by Christmas Eve....rrrrump..pa-pum...pum...up his bum....

"Larry" wrote in message
...
"KLC Lewis" wrote in
:

I'm all for energy-independence, but I cannot believe that oil wells
on our Great Lakes would be a good idea. Oil spills from rigs on the
oceans are bad enough -- but similar spills on the Lakes would be
disasterous.



Some of the finest fishing on the planet is right under those oil rigs in
the Gulf of Mexico....a whole new ecosystem that's just thriving....
all the way to the bottom!

http://www.thejump.net/fishingarticl...gged-reefs.htm
http://www.marshmission.com/coastal_...t/volume12.htm
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regul...viron/rigs-to-
reefs/information.html
....to name a few.


Larry
--
Guess what I want to do with the Little Drummer Boy's drum
by Christmas Eve....rrrrump..pa-pum...pum...up his bum....

Sure, plant the rigs as artificial reefs and don't drill. That's fine with
me.

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 14:47:57 -0600, in message

"KLC Lewis" wrote:


"Matt Colie" wrote in message
...
Why do they make noise about dependence on foreign oil and not let anybody
go get what we have. (Canada has wells in most of the great lakes - we
aren't allowed to, Cuba will soon be using Chinese investment to drill
under the Florida straight - we can't do that either.)

Matt Colie - environmentally conscious but educated and realistic



I'm all for energy-independence, but I cannot believe that oil wells on our
Great Lakes would be a good idea. Oil spills from rigs on the oceans are bad
enough -- but similar spills on the Lakes would be disasterous.

Whose Great Lakes? Keep in mind that we share them with the US. Or are
you posting from the US and speaking only of Lake Michigan?

There's already plenty of wellheads under Lake Erie where the shallow
depths make drilling quite easy and Lake Erie is in way better shape
than it was 40 years ago.

Ryk

"Ryk" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 14:47:57 -0600, in message

"KLC Lewis" wrote:


I'm all for energy-independence, but I cannot believe that oil wells on
our
Great Lakes would be a good idea. Oil spills from rigs on the oceans are
bad
enough -- but similar spills on the Lakes would be disasterous.

Whose Great Lakes? Keep in mind that we share them with the US. Or are
you posting from the US and speaking only of Lake Michigan?

There's already plenty of wellheads under Lake Erie where the shallow
depths make drilling quite easy and Lake Erie is in way better shape
than it was 40 years ago.

Ryk



By "our Great Lakes," I was referring to humanity. But, of humanity,
naturally Americans come first. Just ask any of our politicians.

KLC,

I don't like the thought of spills either, but three Canadian companies
have a total of 450+ wells for both oil and natural gas in Lake Erie
alone. They seem to manage just fine (with gear and technology from
American suppliers).

Recently, I was told by someone that has studied these problems for many
years that most of the oil on Lake Erie comes from untrapped storm
drains. The last big one was the Rouge River about three years ago.

We have the opportunity to correct a lot of problems if we pick the real
ones instead of the "politically correct" ones.

This has been my problem with the "evironmental movement" since they
forced cars to get much reduced fuel economy in favor of maginally
reduced tailpipe emissions. Remember the early cat cars of the mid
seventies?

Matt


KLC Lewis wrote:
"Matt Colie" wrote in message
...

Why do they make noise about dependence on foreign oil and not let anybody
go get what we have. (Canada has wells in most of the great lakes - we
aren't allowed to, Cuba will soon be using Chinese investment to drill
under the Florida straight - we can't do that either.)

Matt Colie - environmentally conscious but educated and realistic




I'm all for energy-independence, but I cannot believe that oil wells on our
Great Lakes would be a good idea. Oil spills from rigs on the oceans are bad
enough -- but similar spills on the Lakes would be disasterous.

Exactly. You can't force technology faster just to meet an arbitrary goal
dreamed up by a beaurocrat.
And the sick thing about it is that whoever dreamed up those regs goes to
bed thinking "I saved the world again today".

"Matt Colie" wrote in message
...

This has been my problem with the "evironmental movement" since they
forced cars to get much reduced fuel economy in favor of maginally reduced
tailpipe emissions. Remember the early cat cars of the mid seventies?

Matt

Garland Gray II wrote:
Exactly. You can't force technology faster just to meet an arbitrary goal
dreamed up by a beaurocrat.
And the sick thing about it is that whoever dreamed up those regs goes to
bed thinking "I saved the world again today".



Well regardless, the technology caught up and cars get roughly double
the fuel economy as they got in the 70s, have much cleaner emissions,
and many are far more powerful too.

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:ah1bh.10103$7a2.1829@trndny06...
Garland Gray II wrote:
Exactly. You can't force technology faster just to meet an arbitrary goal
dreamed up by a beaurocrat.
And the sick thing about it is that whoever dreamed up those regs goes to
bed thinking "I saved the world again today".


Well regardless, the technology caught up and cars get roughly double the
fuel economy as they got in the 70s, have much cleaner emissions, and many
are far more powerful too.

The more economy is mostly from smaller cars. My 1964 300 hp 327 Impala SS
got about 16.5 mpg on average. City and highway. My slightly heavier, way
more technology 1999 Expedition got 14.5 mpg average. But MTBE cost about
10% milage, while reducing air pollution about 6%. Not a large combined
number. while at the same time, causing mass ground water pollution.

That's my point. It was misguided --inefficient-- to force manufacturers to
meet standards before the technology was developed. And I don't think for a
moment that the stiff initial regs caused the technology to be developed any
sooner.
Furthermore, it was counterproductive to prevent (which the feds did) the
major car makers from pooling their resources to develop this technology.
Anti trust laws, you know.

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:ah1bh.10103$7a2.1829@trndny06...



Well regardless, the technology caught up and cars get roughly double the
fuel economy as they got in the 70s, have much cleaner emissions, and many
are far more powerful too.