Ken wrote on June 23, 2008 08:44 PM: Good answer John F.

My Question: Then why havent they drilled there.

I bid jobs alot of times using boring samples afforded to me. Never, have I NOT run into problems in between the samples.

John F wrote on June 23, 2008 07:48 PM: Pete,

The oil companies fully survey the land before they bid on the leases. They know what's there when they take possession of the land.

Ken wrote on June 23, 2008 07:20 PM: I agree with fridhem: We need to tap into renewables. But how much does he make an hour. At $5.00 a gallon. How many jobs will be lost to single mothers giving up on thier job because they cant afford to drive to work? How many people in general will have to go with out a meal because people like you have stopped the drilling off or shores for decades. Saving the planet at the cost of humans is not the answer.

Pete wrote on June 23, 2008 05:44 PM: John F, about those 68 million acres that are setting idle. Have you looked at why they are idle?

Those leases are for 7 to 10 years, it takes 5 to 8 years to get permits to drill. So if a company is lucky, they may end up with 2 years that they can drill. However, they just do not run out and start putting holes in the ground, hoping to get lucky enough to find oil.

They have geologist go out and look for certain signs that may mean oil, then they have a seismic tests done, but that is another permit that needs to be had, to pin point the best place to look for oil, but there is no guarantee that there is oil.

So most of that 68 million acres it is unknown if there is oil or not and the company's have a lot of hoops to jump through and many years to wait, just to find out. Plus it is kind of hard to justify sinking millions of dollar in to maybe 1 year of drilling if they are lucky, which may not be enough time to get the money invested back.

In the mean time the places that are known to have oil, are setting idle.

Patte Purcell wrote on June 23, 2008 02:54 PM: How about totally self sufficient houses instead of being on the grid?
True freedom!

Jim Nance wrote on June 23, 2008 01:20 PM: If one is buying energy from the Nordic Energy Exchange or Mix then only up to 12% of the engergy will come from wind.

http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=74583&lan=en
In the above link, it says that Nordic mix in 2010 is projected to only have 12.1% energy capacity that comes from renewable energy and they are predicting that wind component will stop increasing. Nearly 50% of Nordic power comes from Hydro. The rest comes from Nuclear and Thermal sources.
In the study listed below talking about Nordic wind power, it says: “The intermittency of wind may in some cases limit the applicability of wind power when integrated directly into the distribution network.”

http://users.tkk.fi/~patte/pub/conf_2006_NWPC_Espoo.pdf
In this pro-wind study, it says, “Two of the strongest challenges to wind power’s future prospects are the problems of intermittency and grid reliability.”
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/22/37/34878740.pdf

fridhem wrote on June 23, 2008 11:46 AM: There are so many negative attitudes when it comes to renewables. Too expensive, too much water, too far away from transmisions lines, then its too little wind, too little sunlight, even too little water. With attitudes like this, even in your own government, the USA will still plod along like nothing is happening in the world. If you could only close in yourselves like in a big ballon, then we could just forget about you, unfortunately thats not possible. All your pollutants are exported to the rest of the world, if only you could take payment for these exports, that would solve your economic problems. Am I being a bit too cynical or???
Talking about wind energy, I buy 100% wind energy and it costs 6 cents per Kwh at source, and my emissions are, guess, 0 grams per kwh, compared with your own coal powered energy, about 2400 grams per Kwh

douglas wrote on June 23, 2008 10:19 AM: individuals and countries must consume what they have.

i'll have for dinner what's in the pantry.

countries such as iceland which have significant geothermal activity, use heated water for home heating. many irish use peat for home heating.

those who would demand excessively priced "alternative" sources, no matter the cost, would spend the money as long as it's everyone else's. that's typical of the communist philosophy, let some other dude pay for their agenda.

Jim Nance wrote on June 23, 2008 09:05 AM: Leslie and JohnF storing energy is expensive whether it is in batteries or in "oil".

Coal plants can be built near existing power lines.

There will be times when neither solar or the wind is available to give us power. That is a fact of nature.

That federal land for drilling is not located in Nevada or anwhere near Nevada. So, I am not sure what you are talking about here.

As for water for use of power systems, it is one thing to build systems for Nevada power. It something else to build much more systems to supply California and other states. Do we have the water to spare for that?

Leslie wrote on June 23, 2008 08:23 AM: Mr Nance is very FUNNY!

"Solar and wind tend to be in remote areas"...unlike those coal buring power plants we see in Sun City and down on nthe Strip!


"Solar thermal plants require large quantities of water and if placed in the desert require a water pipeline system. (Can Nevada spare this water?)"...unlike coal plants that require enourmous acre feet of water or nuclear plants that require 30 million gallons a day!

"Since neither [wind not sun] are 24/7 systems...." Wind don't blow at night?! Solar thermal energy is stored in oil so can provide power at night.

..and John F nails it "10" when he lets you know that 68 million acres of land and sea are dedicated to oil!

Nance, go back to your Bob Beers for goofball cartoon website!

Read All Comments