And if you knew enough about offshore drilling, you'd also realize that it is a deterrent from natural seepage of petroleum and natural gasses into the marine environment that account for a high percentage of pollution as it is. Roughly 50% of it as a matter of fact. It actually relieves some of the natural, negative consequences of our own environment.

Really?? You are seriously saying that humankind is assisting mother nature by drilling?

Natural seepage of hydrocarbons from the ocean floor in the northern Santa Barbara Channel has been significantly reduced by oil production, according to two recently published peer-reviewed articles, one in November's Geology Magazine, the other in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Oceans.

Source: http://www.ia.ucsb.edu/pa/display.aspx?pkey=412

Earlier this year, University of California geophysics professor Bruce Luyendyk spoke to a citizens’ town hall forum at Santa Barbara. He told citizens that the oil mucking up Santa Barbara beaches was due to seeps, not spills. According to Luyendyk, the amount of oil escaping naturally from just one set of seeps in the Santa Barbara channel is equal to about 42 thousand gallons a day -- equal to an Exxon Valdez-size oil spill every 5 or 6 years.

Yea... Ouch. Based on a 2008 article: http://www.dailytech.com/How+to+Reduce+Pollution+by+Drilling+for+Oil/article12810.htm

It is a widely overlooked fact that natural hydrocarbon seeps generally have a larger impact on the marine environment than do oil and gas exploration and production. According to the National Academy of Sciences, 63 percent of hydrocarbon pollution in U.S. waters stems from natural seeps, while only 1 percent is due to offshore drilling and extraction. 3 Geologists believe that over the course of millions of years, more oil has seeped naturally into the
earth’s environment than currently exists in all conventional oil reservoirs combined. The Gulf of Mexico, for instance, is a major U.S. offshore oil and gas producing region where the environmental impact of natural hydrocarbon seepage appears to far exceed the environmental impact of accidental oil releases due to commercial extraction and transportation.

Source: http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2009/pdf/bg2341.pdf

Yes, I am seriously saying that humankind is assisting in controlling pollutants in our environment. Is that so unfathomable?

That is like someone saying they killed someone because they were a bad person. There may be some natural harm from something but there is also some natural things that offset that. The earth does not require man to do what it already has been doing millions of years naturally. The only thing that is required of man is to clean up his own garbage and mistakes without destroying everyone and everything and accept responsibilities for the consequences of doing dangerous things that are not even necessary any longer. Oil and gas have and will always be dangerous dirty substances. If we are in deed so technologically advanced than we should have moved past these things long ago. Changing a revenue stream is the only thing holding us back. Some people do not wish to let go of there money and power or change to other revenue streams and they would risk all life and in fact an entire planet to hold on. That is a great example of insanity.

That is a great example of insanity.

Yet an even more perfect example of complete hypocrisy. The idea of allowing nature take its course is not in humanity's best interest, nor will it ever be. Commodities, needs, desires, wants, modes of transportation, cell phones, electricity, fresh water, building materials for dwellings, etc. Honestly, the idea of "leaving nature be" is so far beyond the scope of the human capacity that the thought needs to just disappear. Everyone keeps stating that wind and solar energy are more efficient ways of energy - alright, what's it cost to produce the items to generate the materials necessary for it to work? I'm sure that also has some effects that are unnatural. Human's needs > Planets needs. That's how it is, and always will be. I imagine the planet will let us know when it has had enough (sucks to be a live to die breed, but that's life). As you stated though Danny, the Earth does not require man.

Fact is, you can't sit here and say that drilling is causing damage to the environment. You could say there MAYBE some impact on the earth's support system internally, but there is no guarantee or knowledge of that as it is, nor has it been foreseen by calculations to be an issue. The other half of it, we can either utilize the waste entering our oceans, or we can let it ruin our marine environment as it has done for millions of years, who knows, it might get worse! But that's ok with you, and it's perfectly acceptable to have naturally produced tar balls on beaches as opposed to one freak accident every two years, with years of not having tar balls. But from an environmental aspect, How about that for hypocrisy?

Just quoting

3 Geologists believe that over the course of millions of years, more oil has seeped naturally into the
earth’s environment than currently exists in all conventional oil reservoirs combined

That's the problem with geologists, they tend to think over eons and not over the course of a generation.

Can we really compare something done naturally as compared to something done by corner cutting, price gouging, profit seeking corporations? Isn't that like equating death due to natural causes as the same as being murdered?

Xaziol, the fault with your reasoning is that, while there are numerous locations that naturally spill methane, tar etc into the environment, the rate at which that is occurring is pretty consistent and relatively slow. When as humans we create a disaster from drilling we cause an enormous sudden impact. Wildlife is sensible enough to avoid natural spills but stands no such chance when we make mistakes and things go horribly wrong. You're also overlooking the pollution we cause consistently with refined products.

That's the problem with geologists, they tend to think over eons and not over the course of a generation.

So you're saying you didn't read the entire statement and you selected through nitpicking my comment to end up on the opposing side of the argument? I would say that over the course of millions of years compared to what is currently in existence in all conventional oil reservoirs makes it pretty clear that what we are not tapping out even a percentage of the oil that has been seeped out over millions of years. Now I do agree with you, in a shorter time span, the figures would be interesting to see, but according to NOAA, the seepage rate is still high.

Can we really compare something done naturally as compared to something done by corner cutting, price gouging, profit seeking corporations? Isn't that like equating death due to natural causes as the same as being murdered?

Get over the corporation nonsense. Do you have a job? You're a hypocrite if you do. Every business I know has one sole purpose, and if you're working, you're supporting their cause for your benefit too. Drop it. You're talking about producing an oil rig that is stabilizing a region for the benefits of those on the coast lines as well. So yes, it is comparable. Everything correlates, people tend to ignore that fact.

I could sit here and argue my side of the argument all day long and still get little to no where with the debate, simply because people don't account for the connections from the "problem spot" to the "end result". We base a few instances, perhaps 1-2 major ones (most of the minor ones don't even make the news, I wonder why... must be because they aren't significantly important) a year, and they're in different areas of the world. Last report I heard about the Gulf of Mexico, there were few traces left of that spill, fact most disappeared within a year after the accident. Hmm... Makes you think doesn't it.

You're also overlooking the pollution we cause consistently with refined products.

This matter is an issue, not saying it isn't. My argument has solely involved drilling and the benefits that it does bring. Alas, the human being doesn't care enough, even those who run around saying halt refineries and drilling. Hypocrisy runs amok in that matter.

When as humans we create a disaster from drilling we cause an enormous sudden impact.

Yet I made a clear reference above as to how minimal that impact is in comparison to a natural seep left unchecked. Perhaps you should fully read the points I have made before making an assumption, as I made mention of a seep being comparable to the Exxon Valdez. Granted though, the sudden impact of a man-made spill is by far more potent than a consistent seep. It's no different than a seep being as consistent as a massive man-made dump either. Only difference is the location and consistency in that particular location.

XAC U R puckin insane

R-sticker - Why? Because I'm a realist and I state the truth? Judging by your capability to spell, I'd say this entire debate is well out of your league. So please, let us big boys discuss this matter.

Granted though, the sudden impact of a man-made spill is by far more potent than a consistent seep

That was precisely my point. Comparing the emissions over years of a similar amount with instantaneous sudden catastrophic impact is something that needs to be taken into account. Nature cannot handle the latter without man-made intervention. Sadly however the dispersants we use are not always environmentally friendly either.

BTW some of those natural methane seepages up in Alaska are also speeding up with the retraction of the icecap which in turn of course will increase "natural" pollution.

Also Xaziol, we can't lose focus of the fact that while areas that are rich in fossil fuels, e.g the Gulf, obviously do have natural seepage as anyone can see if they've ever watched any underwater cameras around rigs, our man-made disasters are not always limited to those very same areas, e.g. Torrey Canyon oilspill in the late 1960's.

Also we need to take better precautions with abandoned wells. For example Taylor Energy owns a well that has been leaking in the Gulf since Hurricane Ivan in 2004.

BTW as a driller I've never considered my job environmentally friendly and quite frankly find it somewhat amusing you think we're doing a service to mother nature. As a responsible driller I can merely attempt to do my job with the least amount of negative impact.

Drilling and harvesting gas and oil is safer now than it ever has been. No matter the industry there are going to be accidents. The only thing the industry can do is provide ample regulations for safety and responsibility. Not one person in the oil and gas industry want more accidents. These companies have more safety regulations and take more precautions than almost any other industry in the world.

So keep making your snide comments about this industry...enjoy your heat and A/C, and have fun driving your car. Supply and demand. If you're THAT concerned, then quit using those products...otherwise you're just making noise and need to shut up.

Nature cannot handle the latter without man-made intervention. Sadly however the dispersants we use are not always environmentally friendly either.

No doubt, yet there are crews and by necessity we are humans and we make mistakes. As in any industry or accident, we are behind it. It's not exactly comparable, but when an accident occurs on a freeway causing toxic chemicals to spill, we hardly ever say that we need to stop the transportation of such chemicals. Yet those chemicals inevitably end up in the water supply and other habitable areas. There may never be a logical way to handle any particular situation without it impacting the environment, and that's just pure truth. The fact is, we're going to impact the environment, we're going to make mistakes and accidents, and the only reasoning left after the consideration of what we deem as "necessities", is how are we going to manage the problem once it has occurred? Drilling isn't going away, and I doubt there will ever be a reduction. Population is growing, demand is increasing, and supply is growing shorter, taps have been delayed, and Iran and some of its subsidies are now facing sanctions. Drilling isn't going anywhere.

Also we need to take better precautions with abandoned wells. For example Taylor Energy owns a well that has been leaking in the Gulf since Hurricane Ivan in 2004.

I 100% agree with you on this. I find it pretty disgusting that the wells we abandon are allowed to continually drain off without being sealed properly. The oil companies are making enough money off the product they are harvesting to be able to contain issues like this, and it's sad that it isn't taken care of properly.

BTW as a driller I've never considered my job environmentally friendly and quite frankly find it somewhat amusing you think we're doing a service to mother nature.

Not all the way. It does benefit those living along coasts as well.

Xasiol is a shill for big oil as I've ever seen. We have to drill for oil and NG so we can help stop natural oil seeps? Damn. That is frickin amazing!

Xasiol

It's not exactly comparable, but when an accident occurs on a freeway causing toxic chemicals to spill, we hardly ever say that we need to stop the transportation of such chemicals.

Apples to oranges really... It is SO much easier to clean up a finite spill on land than in the water and if the leak is in 5000 feet of water and continuing? Gee... You've been working this blog pretty hard, X. Who do you work for?

Looks like Xaziol is as concerned with off shore drilling as the person who wrote the two paragraph news story.......

Report: Oil spill culprit for heavy toll on coral among other things human caused

The mile deep riffs in the sea floor near Iceland have been theorized to have been cause by volcanic activity interacting with the methane hydrates...

Flight 19 and/or ships that have disappeared in the Bermuda Triangle have been explained by natural releases of methane...

The vast deep-water methane hydrate deposits of the Gulf of Mexico are an open secret in big energy circles. For the oil and gas industry, the substances are also known to be the primary hazard when drilling for deep-water oil. The Deepwater Horizon rig was lost by a force of nature scientists are still just getting to know.

Scientists are well aware of the awesome power of these strange hydrocarbons. A sudden large scale release of methane hydrates is believed to have caused a mass extinction 55 million years ago. Among planners concerned with mega-disasters, their sudden escape is considered to be a threat comparable to an asteroid strike or nuclear war...

http://pubsub.com/Did-Deepwater-methane-hydrates-cause-the-BP-Gulf-explosion_Guardian-Deepwater-Horizon-oil-spill-Environment-jFzy8hr6bWS,5R1vS9fkXeqE

Better to let man slowly release the pressure than waiting for NATURE...

That is exactly what it will take Mark. Some people would see us use oil until it is completely gone before we even think about switching. their rationale is if we have this source of cheep energy why waste trillions trying to make this other thing work? Why not just kick that can down the road and then when our cheep energy is gone then turn to alternatives?

The problem is that if you do not fund research no research is done. Business no longer act out of obligation but self preservation. If there is no quick pay off to be had for something they will not do it. Sure some funding will trickle in for alternative research but hardly enough to make any real progress compared to what the industry spends on opening new wells.

This is the same position as on global warming. They claim it is a natural process and that nothing we do can stop or alter it so just let it happen and be happy instead of wasting money trying to find a way to bring warming back into averages.

One side advocates spending in order to advance civilization and to better our environment while the other spends money to halt advancement and keep us on the same old track for as long as possible without considering the outcome of their actions.

Oil is going to run out, that is a fact not a hypothesis. The sooner we find ways to lessen our need for oil the sooner we can then supplement it and extend our supply. For example if we find a way to lower oil consumption to a tenth of our energy production our supply of oil lasts ten times longer while polluting less because less is thrown into the atmosphere on a daily basis and over that length of time new technologies are created that burn it more efficiently and cleanly.

The problem is spending, not platitudes. It is going to take the same, if not more money, to break out alternatives as it did to break out natural gas, which took 30 years of Government funded research. We either start seriously considering the research and development of alternative fuel sources, build new nuclear reactors and devise an innovative way to get rid of the waste (sending it into space for example), or when the time comes and we run out of oil civilization ends back in the dark ages because we no longer have the means to produce enough electricity. Those are our only options.

STexan, I guess according you millions of gallons of crude oil in the gulf is okay. All the animals from plankton to fish to seals to water foul that died pointlessly is just fine with you. All the fishing boat owners and coastal businesses that lost money should just suck it up.

I know I drive a vehicle that uses gas. I know petroleum products surround me as I write this. This does not make me a hypocrite though when I say no one, and I mean no one, can guarantee drilling for oil is safe and has no effect on the environment. Practically nothing mankind does has zero effect.

Careful now, next they will say that nuclear power is the answer. But then the folks near Chernoyl and Fukushima have no clue as to what they are talking about now do they.

Even, while Chernobyl and Fukushima were very horrendous accidents, they were just that preventable accidents. Over the forty years we have used nuclear power only three incidents have occurred and all of them because of human error.

We are actually constantly under the thumb of human error because we will not let them build newer, safer plants. Instead we insist they keep using unsafe reactor designs from over twenty years ago that are being pushed past their limits if they were brand new. If at anytime a reactor goes in America it is the American people's faults for impeding the decommission of old reactors and they will have to accept that fact.

Nuclear power is the only current alternative power source capable of generating the levels of power required by our continued existence. It allows us to extend our supply of oil and gives us more time to prefect it as well as other renewable sources of energy. Hydro, Nuclear, and Natural gas are all non-renewable sources of energy the only difference is the time it takes for those sources to run out. Hydro takes the longest because it requires decades of drought and global warming to completely drain a lake. Nuclear is second longest because there are reactor types that can use waste rods to produce energy and new technologies are being created every decade that help improve reactor designs. Natural gas is the shortest because. like oil, there is only a finite amount of it and to produce it you have to frack which can cause contamination.

If we do not focus on renewable sources of energy in the interim we re going to be up @!$%# creek when the time comes and those sources run out and we have no sustainable energy plan. It could be fifty years, it could be a hundred. The length of time does not matter because all that means is that the longer it takes to deplete our energy sources the longer we have to prefect renewables. Improving renewables leads to a lengthened supply of non-renewable energy as well so the two feed off of each other.

At one point in time internal combustion was thought to be too expensive to pursue. The same was said about natural gas. And now the same is being said about renewables. In each case the previous assumptions were proven false and the same thing will happen with renewables. Someone just has to have the balls to spend the billions if not trillions of dollars it will take to develop them, just as they did in the past with both internal combustion, oil, and natural gas.

why is it rising? How about that simple factor: cost to drill.

BTW yes it's "your" oil which is why they pay for leases to the government(s) on the off chance they hit paydirt. You want to profit, have at it. Bid on a lease, go out and buy or lease a rig, find yourself an oilman, and go to town making your millions. Of course don't come running back when you hit nothing. Or when it sinks in how much it costs to drill.

Voter-in-LA,

Gosh, is "cost to drill" the reason that the major oil companies are the most profitable companies on the planet? Don't think so. They are so profitable because they play the markets to rip ALL of us off.

Do you have ANY idea how much it costs? I should warn you I am a driller, so i do. The level of profit at drilling is nowhere near what you suspect.

Profits of major oil corporations are boosted because of turning profits at every stage, i.e. refining, wholesale, retail. Overall percentage returns on investment for oil companies are LESS than your local Walmart makes, or your friendly Wall St bank.

But feel free to continue uninformed and believe what you are bound to anyways.

BTW just to give you a hint, the last rig I was on in the Gulf was getting $530,000 a DAY. That's before you get people on board etc. The current one I am on off Brunei is getting $423,500/day

Voter, the "costs of drilling" are offset by taxpayers funding the tax subsidies for the oil industry. Somehow the "cost of drilling" got bunched into manufacturing costs.

Rubbish. Absolute contrived b/s.

Total actual subsidies (not tax credits taken which EVERY company can and does take) to oil companies are around $4.5Billion. Don't believe me, go look it up on the BOEMRE website. If you had some thinking process here, you'd comprehend there is NO foreign tax credit to offset for any drilling in the USA.

By comparison the Dairy Farmers get $4.9B and Agri Business as a whole gets $11B (check the Dept of Ag website). Those subsidies go to businesses just as large as many oil companies (e.g. Monsanto, Conti Grain, etc). And just to put things in perspective the oil industry contributes $39B a year in fuel taxes and $10.2B a year in royalties and lease payments (again check public info on BOEMRE).

Want to try again?

And btw addressing your "tax issues", the company I work for is a British company. The revenue from the rig in the Gulf I was on earlier this year will be taxed here in the USA. When my employer files its taxes in England, they'll offset taxes paid here against taxes due in England. That's how taxes work internationally.

That will also be how the Brazilian company Petrobras (recipient of $2B in subsidies thanks to Obama's intervention and relationship with George Soros) files its taxes.

If that's beyond your comprehension level, then maybe you need to find different topics to discuss.

And I suggest you make your comment under the appropriate thread like any intelligent individual would do. However, let's get to the real problem here.

Being that I am not *thinking* that it is corrected by human error, and stating a fact to this matter, you've already erred with your attack. Secondly, I not once stated that humans do not make errors themselves. And since you wish my family death, I think I'll be a little more unrelenting now - Take your unrealistic, uncharacteristic, ridiculous ass out of the gene pool.

You seem to think that the world is so damned perfect, well explain to me where, and in every manner you are? How about since you obviously drive a vehicle, you go stick your mouth over the tail-pipe and inhale the exhaust your car produces? Or if you drive an electric car, once the battery has been wasted, why don't you ingest the battery acid, as it doesn't fully deteriorate after being used. That is about the extent of your what you told me. Now, Backing off.

Drilling isn't going away, you want to have a coronary over it, be my guest. But facts are facts, if you don't like it, that's just tough. That's the world we live in and not everyone gets what they want. Ya don't like occasional mishaps from human error? Don't live in areas that they might happen (good luck...).

oppie, do you really want to start the argument about subsidizing?

Take the "Glorious Chevy Volt", it costs $47,000 to produce, they sell it for $42,000 plus the purchaser gets a "Green" credit of $10,000. If I ran my business like the government does than i wouldn't be in business.

If you think you're going to get rid of oil and gas or fossil fuels or hydrocarbons or what ever you name them, you're nuts. Your wind powered turbines.........where do you think the materials come from? Copper - mining, carbon fiber housings - oil and gas, steel support towers - ore mining, the energy to produce all of the combined components - coal for electricity, transporting it from over seas and hauling it to the base site; do i need to go on?!!!?? By going "Green" you are expanding your carbon footprint so exponentially it's insane, but that fact is left out because the common citizen is honestly to stupid to research or even question what is spoon fed to them daily.

I work in the energy industry and I'm proud to provide the raw materials for everything you own, yet you're to narrow sighted to see what a hypocrite you are. If you own anything that you haven't made from flint, sticks or animal furs than you killed with your bare hands than the oil and gas, coal, lumber and mining industry thank you for your ignorance.