On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:02:59 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


And the potential field on the OCS off New Jersey which could dwarf the
amount of oil that has ever been produced by the Middle East.

Interesting you should mention this. IIRC, you once mentioned that at
one time you worked for Texaco. At one time, I worked for ODECO and we
contracted several of Texaco's wells in the Baltimore Canyon, most of
them dry. We did find some gas, but I would be very surprised if the
Baltimore Canyon was commercially viable, let alone dwarf the Middle East.

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 08:22:43 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:02:59 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


And the potential field on the OCS off New Jersey which could dwarf the
amount of oil that has ever been produced by the Middle East.

Interesting you should mention this. IIRC, you once mentioned that at
one time you worked for Texaco. At one time, I worked for ODECO and we
contracted several of Texaco's wells in the Baltimore Canyon, most of
them dry. We did find some gas, but I would be very surprised if the
Baltimore Canyon was commercially viable, let alone dwarf the Middle East.

According to some friends no longer in the production business (they
are in the exploration business) the original Baltimore Canyon test
wells were too shallow. I'm not a geologist so I have to take them at
their word. :)

You have to remember that new seismic techniques have found huge domes
- that's what tipped off Petrobras to the Tupi and the Carioca-Sugar
Loaf fields off Brazil. Both of those fields combined are massive in
terms of quantity and are located in areas where previous test drills
produced nothing.

ODECO huh? :)

When was that? Before or after Murphy Oil bought them out.

Know quite a few people who worked for ODECO.

Oh no - we may know each other in real life!! :)

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...


In the US, it takes 12 years (and that's a conservative estimate -
there is one proposal by Clearwater to add additional reactor to an
existing site in Texas that will be twenty years into the process) to
get a nuke power plant approved and additional 5 years to actually
build it. Those 12 years are the result of legal challenges - pure
and simple. We could be entirely off fossil fuels in the US for power
generation by now if only...



I may have mentioned this before, but what the heck ....

I was talking to my neighbor not too long ago. He's a quality control/test
engineer at the Pilgrim Nuke Plant in Plymouth.
The discussion involved the need for new plants and the historical problems
and costs risks associated with getting permits.

He told me that has changed, fairly recently. Prior to the change, a
utility company or company who wanted to put up a nuke plant had to go
through all the engineering, design phases, get building permits, build the
thing, then apply for a permit to operate it.
The application for permit to operate is where the trouble started with all
the environmentalists and anti-nuke organizations, and they prevailed. As
a result, nobody wants to put up the money to design and build, only to be
refused a license to operate.

The new procedure changes that. A permit to operate is issued up front
..... contingent upon successful compliance with all inspections conducted
during the design and build phase. As long as the plant meets the approved
design and build conditions, a license to operate is already approved.

This may help get new plants off the dime.

Eisboch

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:39:33 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .


In the US, it takes 12 years (and that's a conservative estimate -
there is one proposal by Clearwater to add additional reactor to an
existing site in Texas that will be twenty years into the process) to
get a nuke power plant approved and additional 5 years to actually
build it. Those 12 years are the result of legal challenges - pure
and simple. We could be entirely off fossil fuels in the US for power
generation by now if only...



I may have mentioned this before, but what the heck ....

I was talking to my neighbor not too long ago. He's a quality control/test
engineer at the Pilgrim Nuke Plant in Plymouth.
The discussion involved the need for new plants and the historical problems
and costs risks associated with getting permits.

He told me that has changed, fairly recently. Prior to the change, a
utility company or company who wanted to put up a nuke plant had to go
through all the engineering, design phases, get building permits, build the
thing, then apply for a permit to operate it.
The application for permit to operate is where the trouble started with all
the environmentalists and anti-nuke organizations, and they prevailed. As
a result, nobody wants to put up the money to design and build, only to be
refused a license to operate.

The new procedure changes that. A permit to operate is issued up front
.... contingent upon successful compliance with all inspections conducted
during the design and build phase. As long as the plant meets the approved
design and build conditions, a license to operate is already approved.

This may help get new plants off the dime.

They can build one in my back yard anytime they want. :)

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:19:48 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:



That means drilling until we can develop other methods of
supplying the energy.

I wouldn't argue with that. Drilling is definitely a *part* of the
solution, but the days off cheap energy are over. We need a
comprehensive energy plan, including drilling, *and* including
conservation. All this bitching about $4 gas, is just that, bitching.
We had one wake-up call in the '70s, $4 gas is a second wake-up call. If
we don't deal with it, we deserve to go down the drain.


What is interesting to me about this issue is that up until two years
ago, including one regular here who I respect greatly, peak oil theory
was all the rage. Oil hits $150 a barrel and now we're awash in oil -
there's freakin' oil everywhere. The Bakken Field is an older field -
you are correct. What you apparently don't know is that while the
original field is fairly well played out, the field UNDER the old field
is huge - 400 Billion (with a B) barrels of oil that can be recovered
with new vertical/horizontal drilling techniques.

I disagree. We aren't awash in oil, we are awash in talk of oil. It's
true, the higher the price of oil, expensive oil fields become
profitable, but it is still a finite resource, and we are still running
out. We import 1/2 our oil, but we are exporting our wealth. This is
perhaps the greatest transfer of wealth in history, and who are we
transferring it to? Not our friends.




The problem is this - there is no clearly defined energy policy - the
Democrats don't have one, the Republicans don't have one and the
environmentalists - climate change advocates don't have one. All sides
of the issue are at logger heads over inconsistent and frankly stupid
concepts and outdated theories of social progress.

30 years ago, Carter had one. He was laughed at.



Here's the hitch - there is no way to tax sun power. In short we won't
see this technology put into production because the power from the sun
can't be taxed. In short, there is no "use" tax on free power.

Yeah, but it's past taxes. It's getting real close to survival. Perhaps
not literally, but definitely economically.

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:38:22 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


ODECO huh? :)

When was that? Before or after Murphy Oil bought them out.

Know quite a few people who worked for ODECO.

Oh no - we may know each other in real life!! :)

IIRC, Murphy was always the parent company. It's just that now there is
no ODECO. Anyway, it was the late '70s, early '80s. Again, IIRC, we
were going down @12,000'. There was one hole that I wasn't on, that took
a kick a little over 13,000', and ran on choke for a week or so. There
were a lot of stories going round about that one. Salt water? Oil?
Beats me, but all the companies pulled out of the area.

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:39:33 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


The new procedure changes that. A permit to operate is issued up front
.... contingent upon successful compliance with all inspections
conducted during the design and build phase. As long as the plant
meets the approved design and build conditions, a license to operate is
already approved.


This may help get new plants off the dime.

Eisboch

The new procedure makes sense, as long as they don't try to sneak them
through in the middle of the night, so to speak. Besides the permitting,
there was another reason new nukes weren't built, cheap oil. Nuclear
energy is expensive. Coal, oil and natural gas, are, or were, cheaper.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:39:33 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..


In the US, it takes 12 years (and that's a conservative estimate -
there is one proposal by Clearwater to add additional reactor to an
existing site in Texas that will be twenty years into the process) to
get a nuke power plant approved and additional 5 years to actually
build it. Those 12 years are the result of legal challenges - pure
and simple. We could be entirely off fossil fuels in the US for power
generation by now if only...



I may have mentioned this before, but what the heck ....

I was talking to my neighbor not too long ago. He's a quality
control/test
engineer at the Pilgrim Nuke Plant in Plymouth.
The discussion involved the need for new plants and the historical
problems
and costs risks associated with getting permits.

He told me that has changed, fairly recently. Prior to the change, a
utility company or company who wanted to put up a nuke plant had to go
through all the engineering, design phases, get building permits, build
the
thing, then apply for a permit to operate it.
The application for permit to operate is where the trouble started with
all
the environmentalists and anti-nuke organizations, and they prevailed.
As
a result, nobody wants to put up the money to design and build, only to be
refused a license to operate.

The new procedure changes that. A permit to operate is issued up front
.... contingent upon successful compliance with all inspections conducted
during the design and build phase. As long as the plant meets the
approved
design and build conditions, a license to operate is already approved.

This may help get new plants off the dime.

They can build one in my back yard anytime they want. :)

And you could provide the flatus, if the nuke fuel wasn't available. 8)

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 08:49:08 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:19:48 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:



That means drilling until we can develop other methods of
supplying the energy.

I wouldn't argue with that. Drilling is definitely a *part* of the
solution, but the days off cheap energy are over. We need a
comprehensive energy plan, including drilling, *and* including
conservation. All this bitching about $4 gas, is just that, bitching.
We had one wake-up call in the '70s, $4 gas is a second wake-up call. If
we don't deal with it, we deserve to go down the drain.

We agree - I think we're just motivated by different details. :)

What is interesting to me about this issue is that up until two years
ago, including one regular here who I respect greatly, peak oil theory
was all the rage. Oil hits $150 a barrel and now we're awash in oil -
there's freakin' oil everywhere. The Bakken Field is an older field -
you are correct. What you apparently don't know is that while the
original field is fairly well played out, the field UNDER the old field
is huge - 400 Billion (with a B) barrels of oil that can be recovered
with new vertical/horizontal drilling techniques.

I disagree. We aren't awash in oil, we are awash in talk of oil. It's
true, the higher the price of oil, expensive oil fields become
profitable, but it is still a finite resource, and we are still running
out.

Well, that's entirely in dispute. Some will say half, some say a 1/3,
some say a 1/4, some are somewhere in the middle. Personally, I
think the anecdotal evidence pretty much rests on the more side than
the less side. It seems to me that the discussion has, since the
'70's, always been price will find more oil. That seems to be proving
true.

Think about it for a minute - two years ago, peak oil was all the rage
- we're running out - it's all over but the shouting - we'll be out by
2015 - 2020, etc. Where is that discussion now?

I forget where I read this, but apparently the bulk storage facilities
are in crisis - they don't have the room to store all the oil that
being pumped. We went from having excess storage capacity to not
having enough in five years. Oil on old bulk tankers, barges, old
refurbished land based storage tanks - there's oil everywhere.

Admittedly, some of it is heavy/sour crude which requires a different
cracking process which also is in short supply, but the proof in the
pudding of oil supplies is the Indian ship breaking industry in Alang,
India - they are having a hard time finding old tankers to break
because they are all being used for storage.

Add the new discoveries, the Artic potential, offshore, yada, yada,
yada we have too much oil.

Lastly, the Chinese are exploring the Straights of Florida off Cuba
and the Russia's Rosneft and Gazprom are getting into the act - what
do they know that we don't?

We import 1/2 our oil, but we are exporting our wealth. This is
perhaps the greatest transfer of wealth in history, and who are we
transferring it to? Not our friends.

I don't disagree with that - in fact, I'm in complete agreement.

Drill, drill, drill. :)

The problem is this - there is no clearly defined energy policy - the
Democrats don't have one, the Republicans don't have one and the
environmentalists - climate change advocates don't have one. All sides
of the issue are at logger heads over inconsistent and frankly stupid
concepts and outdated theories of social progress.

30 years ago, Carter had one. He was laughed at.

Um...I'll let that statement stand if only because...well, I'll just
let that one go.

Be that as it may, the current situation requires some forethought and
action - we need to do something. Less talk, more do. We can't have
politicians like Chuck Schumer saying we need to have the Saudi's
produce more oil instead of drilling on our own.

We can't afford to have moronic statements like keeping tires inflated
will save all the oil we can drill for the next five years.

It silly crap that is muddying up the waters and stopping us from
accomplishing what we can accomplish by using a comprehensive plan to
increase out independance - in short, use everything.

Weneed to really have a comprehensive plan from upgrading the grid to
distributed power generation - there's a ton of things we need to do
that we just aren't doing.

I've often thought that what we really need is a new WPA to put people
to work and get **** done.

Sorry for the language. :)

Here's the hitch - there is no way to tax sun power. In short we won't
see this technology put into production because the power from the sun
can't be taxed. In short, there is no "use" tax on free power.

Yeah, but it's past taxes. It's getting real close to survival. Perhaps
not literally, but definitely economically.

Again, agreed, but the point is that there is a technology which has a
lot of potential - not only for us, but for the Third World and it's
not going to go anywhere because governments can't add revenue cost to
the process.

One of my buddies here in town has a development he started just
before everything went down the tubes. He managing to keep his crews
busys with this and that, but he's been really interested in turing
the development into a "green" development. Geo thermal
heating/cooling, solar power - state-of-the-art type homes. Did a
whole ROI for potential purchasers.

Up until the Planning, Zoning and Code Compliance folks started
getting involved that is.

It's a mess.

I think we're on the same side, we're just looking at it from
different angles. :)

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:39:33 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

The new procedure changes that. A permit to operate is issued up front
.... contingent upon successful compliance with all inspections conducted
during the design and build phase. As long as the plant meets the approved
design and build conditions, a license to operate is already approved.

This may help get new plants off the dime.

I hope so. The scenario you describe is exactly what happened to the
New Shoreham nuclear plant on Long Island. After 4 or 5 billion
dollars and 10+ years of construction, then Governor Cumo caved to the
enviro-nutz and the reactors were scrapped.