Oil Slick Stuff

Sort by newest Sort by date
09/01/2010 - Updated 12:33 PM ET
1.gif
Crude oil rises on manufacturing data, ahead of supplies
1.gif
By Nick Godt, MarketWatch

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Crude-oil futures rallied past $74 a barrel Wednesday, after a surprise rise in a U.S. manufacturing survey sweetened the outlook for global oil demand and supplies data showed a drop in refined products such as heating oil.[more]
http://markets.usatoday.com/custom/usatoday-com/html-story.asp?markets=COMMODITIES&guid=%7B0B57F44C%2DFF35%2D4EB6%2D976E%2D93365F02E1DF%7D
 
Last edited:
BP to Give Spill Response Evaluation
by James Herron
|
Dow Jones Newswires
|
Wednesday, September 01, 2010

LONDON (Dow Jones Newswires), Aug. 1, 2010
BP will submit Wednesday a report evaluating lessons learned in its response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill to the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, a company spokesman said.
The report won't cover the causes of the explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, which killed 11 men and triggered the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, the spokesman said, as this will be covered by another BP internal report expected to be released later this month.
"This report focuses in particular upon the key equipment, facilities and planning tools that were successfully deployed in responding to the spill," BP said in a statement. "The purpose of this report is to assist BOEMRE in assessing the capabilities that are now available to respond to oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico region." [more]
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=98153&hmpn=1
 
Oil rig explodes 80 miles off Louisiana coast; 12 people reported overboard and one missing, the Coast Guard says.:(
 
Temporary Cap Removed From Blown-Out Gulf Well

Published September 02, 2010
Associated Press
Aug. 3:
In this image taken from video provided by BP PLC, the new 75-ton cap sits atop the site of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
NEW ORLEANS -- Engineers removed a temporary cap Thursday that stopped oil from gushing into the Gulf of Mexico from BP's blown-out well in mid-July. No more oil was expected to leak into the sea, but crews were standing by with collection vessels just in case.
The cap was removed as a prelude to raising the massive piece of equipment underneath that failed to prevent the worst offshore oil in U.S. history.
The government wants to replace the failed blowout preventer first to deal with any pressure that is caused when a relief well BP has been drilling intersects the blown-out well.
Once that intersection occurs sometime after Labor Day, BP is expected to use mud and cement to plug the blown-out well for good from the bottom.
The April 20 rig explosion killed 11 workers and led to 206 million gallons of oil spewing from BP's well. BP was leasing the rig from owner Transocean Ltd.

As the cap was slowly removed at 4:25 p.m. CDT, hours after a pipe latched to the top of it, there was no sight of anything spewing into the water. Undersea video feeds showed the cap suspended in the water. BP planned to place the cap on the seafloor nearby.
With the cap gone, the old blowout preventer can be removed and a new one put in place before engineers try to seal the well for good deep underground.[more]
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/02/temporary-cap-removed-blown-gulf/
 
The courts are neutered by corruption!:nuts:

Opinion:
A CEO Fights Feds, But Feds Don't Fight Fair
by Al Lewis
|
Dow Jones Newswires
|
Friday, September 03, 2010

Todd Hornbeck beat the Obama administration once again on Wednesday, and yet he is still losing.
Hornbeck was first to challenge the administration's industry-crippling moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf. He handily won an order striking down the moratorium in federal district court. He won again in federal appeals court.
Yet with the stroke of a pen, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar simply imposed a second moratorium after the court blocked his first.
For Hornbeck, it's been like getting an eviction notice from the landlord, and successfully fighting the landlord in court, only to see the landlord write the eviction notice all over again.
Salazar's second drilling moratorium "is substantially the same as the first one," Martin Feldman, U.S. District Judge in New Orleans wrote Wednesday.
After throwing up this second moratorium, Salazar had the additional temerity to argue that Hornbeck's suit should be dismissed since it is only about the first moratorium, not the second, and the second is what counts, so na-na-na-na-na-na.
Doesn't it cost millions to keep suing the feds only to watch them do whatever they want, anyway, despite what the judge says?
"Yes, it's expensive," Hornbeck said. "But we've got billions of reasons to do it."[more]
 
Last edited:
An article everyone needs to read...

http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/james-quinn/peak-denial-about-peak-oil

The U.S. was warned in 2005. Its own Department of Energy commissioned a report by Robert Hirsch to examine peak oil and its potential consequences to the US. The introduction stated:
“The peaking of world oil production presents the U.S. and the world with an unprecedented risk management problem. As peaking is approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase dramatically, and, without timely mitigation, the economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented. Viable mitigation options exist on both the supply and demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking.”
​

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/joe2010.pdf
The US Military issued a Joint Operating Environment report earlier this year. They have no political motivation to sugarcoat or present a dire picture. This passage is particularly disturbing:
A severe energy crunch is inevitable without a massive expansion of production and refining capacity. While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India. At best, it would lead to periods of harsh economic adjustment. To what extent conservation measures, investments in alternative energy production, and efforts to expand petroleum production from tar sands and shale would mitigate such a period of adjustment is difficult to predict. One should not forget that the Great Depression spawned a number of totalitarian regimes that sought economic prosperity for their nations by ruthless conquest.
​
http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/joe2010.pdf
Click to expand...
I'm glad I'm doing what I can now to reduce need for home electricity and nat gas. skylights, insulation, roof ventilation airflow improvement. I don't know how long I'll be in this house, but what I've done is longterm investment looking to future energy shortages/prices, it'll pay off for whoever lives here.

where's the $ going to come from for the capital investments to reduce dependence on o&g?

The president wants to fund research and development tax credits to business, read that this morning. I applaud.

But he wants to pay for it by stopping the tax cuts to multinationals and o&g companies. I think its the wrong tradeoff myself. we need to transition sooner than later, but what he's proposing may create deeper faster crisis when people can least handle it, by eliminating the tax credits for o&g companies now. Wish I could believe the r&d tax credits would pull us out of the hole fast enough to get the cap investments done that need to be done for energy production, but I have strong doubts.

​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good job, a penny saved is a penny earned!:D

09/07/2010 - Updated 9:32 AM ET
1.gif
Crude oil futures slump on European concerns
1.gif
By Nick Godt, MarketWatch

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Crude oil futures fell in synch with stocks on Tuesday, as U.S. traders returned from a long holiday weekend to be met by concerns over European banks and economic growth.[more]
http://markets.usatoday.com/custom/usatoday-com/html-story.asp?markets=COMMODITIES&guid=%7BDDE60E4B%2D8055%2D4009%2DB507%2D3A1C6CC054A7%7D&loc=interstitialskip
 
Last edited:
alevin said:
I'm glad I'm doing what I can now to reduce need for home electricity and nat gas. skylights, insulation, roof ventilation airflow improvement. I don't know how long I'll be in this house, but what I've done is longterm investment looking to future energy shortages/prices, it'll pay off for whoever lives here.


​
Click to expand...
Good Job Kat..But you can add to your list of energy savings..and one big low cost item around the house is using CFLs in all your lighting fixtures inside and out...;)
 
You know, I installed 47 of those lights in my house in one day! I know they last longer and I may be making out in that respect, but I didn't see a difference in the electric bill, unless it was less than $3 or $4?:confused: Cost a bunch for 47 CFLs Ya know.
 
nnuut said:
You know, I installed 47 of those lights in my house in one day! I know they last longer and I may be making out in that respect, but I didn't see a difference in the electric bill, unless it was less than $3 or $4?:confused: Cost a bunch for 47 CFLs Ya know.
Click to expand...

Well you may have increased the use of something else, subconsciously thinking you saved in another area...but simple electrical values will prove the savings.

I.E., Standard incandescent light bulb rated at 60 watts, consumes 60 watts of power...vs. a 13 watt CFL which puts out the same lumens of a 60 watt incandescent, but consumes only 13 watts = a savings of (47 watts not used or consumed) x (47 LIGHT BULBS REPLACED, assuming they were all 60 watt bulbs) = 2209 WATTS PER HOUR SAVED @ an average Georgia cost of 10.26 cents/KWH = $.22/hour savings..now multiply that times an average 8 hour day of light usage times 30 days = (240 hours) x ($.22) = $52.80 / month savings.....I can't explain it any simpler...Turn up the temp on your beer cooler then..
 
Last edited:
Buster said:
Well you may have increased the use of something else, subconsciously thinking you saved in another area...but simple electrical values will prove the savings.

I.E., Standard incandescent light bulb rated at 60 watts, consumes 60 watts of power...vs. a 13 watt CFL which puts out the same lumens of a 60 watt incandescent, but consumes only 13 watts = a savings of (47 watts not used or consumed) x (47 LIGHT BULBS REPLACED, assuming they were all 60 watt bulbs) = 2209 WATTS PER HOUR SAVED @ an average Georgia cost of 10.26 cents/KWH = $.22/hour savings..now multiply that times an average 8 hour day of light usage times 30 days = (240 hours) x ($.22) = $52.80 / month savings.....I can't explain it any simpler...Turn up the temp on your beer cooler then..
Click to expand...
That's all well and good and seems reasonable to me, BUT I know I would have noticed that much of a savings, no not $10 a month less. I would have messed in my long johns if it dropped $50 a month.:laugh: You know we don't use many of those lights very often so your estimate could be off because of that and other variables?
 
nnuut said:
That's all well and good and seems reasonable to me, BUT I know I would have noticed that much of a savings, no not $10 a month less. I would have messed in my long johns if it dropped $50 a month.:laugh: You know we don't use many of those lights very often so your estimate could be off because of that and other variables?
Click to expand...

True enough..It's all linear based on what you usually used with the standard bulb and how many...If you only used a few lights at time, then your savings would be proportional.

You wear long johns in GA???:laugh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top