Why open more land to drilling

[PLC1]

when most of the land already open is not being exploited?


Most oil leases on public lands go unused (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5111184)


WASHINGTON - Nearly three-fourths of the 40 million acres of public land currently leased for oil and gas development in the continental United States outside Alaska isn’t producing any oil or gas, federal records show, even as the Bush administration pushes to open more environmentally sensitive public lands for oil and gas development.


Alan Colmes kept asking his listeners that question Fox News (xm radio) while I was driving home last night. Not one listener was able to answer his question. Can you?

[Andy]

This is where people say there is a liberal bias, and get skewered for it. But look at this article!

The story makes the claim that “The aggressive leasing of public land pushed by the Bush administration is a land grab, pure and simple, giving industry more and more control over public land while costing taxpayers millions of dollars”

Leasing land (by bush) is a land grab that costs taxpayers millions. But wait...

Then you read the article and find that companies are paying $2-$3 per acre... but are not drilling... but their paying for drilling rights... but their not...

Are you getting this? These companies are paying our government for the rights to do something... they are not doing! And this lame liberal bias, anti-bush crap, article is claiming it's costing tax payers millions!

Let me ask you... if you rented a home to a person, who paid... but never showed up or ever used the home... how would that be 'costing you millions'? It is a ludicrous claim, just like the feeble minded article! "There's no liberal bias! blaw blaw!" You are a JOKE!

... but it doesn't end there. If this was a campaign contribution to Bush, what would they do? They'd be asking everyone. They'd interview everyone on the planet until they got answer and why this, and who that, and whatever.

Notice how they do not ask anyone anything in this article? Did they ask any energy companies why they are not drilling? Or any lease holders why they are not drilling? Did they ask anyone anything?

The answers could be numerous. Perhaps the environmental restrictions on some lands, makes oil production too costly to be viable. Here's a novel thought... did it occur to anyone perhaps there isn't any oil, or enough oil on those lands to drill for?

Or perhaps, as I have said before, Oil companies are not going to bother trying for new sources of oil, when the currently known sources, they are not allowed to tap. Why hunt for a new spot when they won't let you drill the spot you already know about?

That's bad investment. You pay for exploration, pay for drilling, and just when you hit a huge patch of oil, the government steps in and "oh you might harm the snot nosed lily weed bat... can't drill there!". Bad investment. That's why most oil companies are saying... forget this, until we can get the oil WE KNOW IS THERE... forget about looking elsewhere.

Why do you think most oil companies brave tariffs and crazy foreign governments, to invest outside the US? um... because of this issue RIGHT HERE!

[GenSeneca]

Not one listener was able to answer his question. Can you?

Say's something about his callers.

The date of the article: June. 1, 2004
In 2001, Bush and the Republican Congress opened up a great deal of leasing and exploration rights. By 2006, it was clear there was a new majority and Drilling was to be removed from Domestic energy options... as seen by the Democrat Congress repealing leasing rights after their takeover.

the leases, which companies can lock up for 10 years

You get leasing rights for 10 years... then that land goes to the highest bidder every 10 years after that. Whatever you build there, you will have to take with you or leave behind.... And you have to do it all within the confines of our strict environmentalist policies.

federal limit on the number of leased acres

So the simplest, most direct answer:

10 year leases, limited amount of acres your allowed to lease, environmental restrictions and a Democrat party majority thats flat out hostile to "Big Oil" and has openly threatened nationalizing the industry.

[Montesquieu]

when most of the land already open is not being exploited?


Most oil leases on public lands go unused (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5111184)




Alan Colmes kept asking his listeners that question Fox News (xm radio) while I was driving home last night. Not one listener was able to answer his question. Can you?

If we're not exploiting it what harm could come of opening more?
If not to encourage it just a little more

[Andy]

Say's something about his callers.

The date of the article: June. 1, 2004
In 2001, Bush and the Republican Congress opened up a great deal of leasing and exploration rights. By 2006, it was clear there was a new majority and Drilling was to be removed from Domestic energy options... as seen by the Democrat Congress repealing leasing rights after their takeover.

the leases, which companies can lock up for 10 years

You get leasing rights for 10 years... then that land goes to the highest bidder every 10 years after that. Whatever you build there, you will have to take with you or leave behind.... And you have to do it all within the confines of our strict environmentalist policies.

federal limit on the number of leased acres

So the simplest, most direct answer:

10 year leases, limited amount of acres your allowed to lease, environmental restrictions and a Democrat party majority thats flat out hostile to "Big Oil" and has openly threatened nationalizing the industry.

No one is going to install millions, if not billions of dollars worth of equipment on a leased land, to only lose their lease rights and end up losing all their investment.

Further if there is a limitation to the acreage, then it's possible you could purchase drilling rights with a lease, and end up not finding oil there, only to discover it's on another patch of land you can't lease now.

This whole thing is ridiculous if correct.

[PLC1]

What Ive gleaned from the discussion so far is that, in order to give the oil industry an incentive to explore lands already open for exploitation, the government needs to give them some assurance that they won't dump billions into a project just to see their lease expire.

If that is the case, why not start there instead of opening new lands, then imposing the same restrictions and having the same disincentives for investment in those lands?

Could it be that suggesting that the ANWR and coastal areas be open to oil drilling is just more political crap?

[Andy]

What Ive gleaned from the discussion so far is that, in order to give the oil industry an incentive to explore lands already open for exploitation, the government needs to give them some assurance that they won't dump billions into a project just to see their lease expire.

If that is the case, why not start there instead of opening new lands, then imposing the same restrictions and having the same disincentives for investment in those lands?

Could it be that suggesting that the ANWR and coastal areas be open to oil drilling is just more political crap?

We don't need to give them an incentive. We simply need to get out of their way. That's it. You don't need to give a businessman man a reason to do business... it's what he does. The problem is... our wonderful federal government has gotten in the way.

That said, clearly, yes. You are right, the government needs to either, sell the land completely (what i prefer), or write the leases in such a way that it makes good economic sense, with low risk.

Just think about it. The claim is that it requires roughly 5 years to go from exploration to drilling to well producing oil. So, if I offered you the option to lease a 2 acer plot of land to build a house on, that may cost you $250K to build, take 5 years to build, and you lose it all in 10 years... would you do it? Would anyone? Of course not. So this obviously is an issue.

Now granted, there is a reason to lease the lands though. Do you realize how much money the federal government is raking in on leased land? Lease land that isn't being used! Which is why I disagree with the whole thing. The federal government shouldn't be owning land. It should be sold to the public. If the states want to buy it, that's their deal. But there is nothing in our constitution about the federal government being in the real estate business.

I happen to find an article on this, and in that article, a letter from Senator Ernest Ishtook of Oklahoma. In it he states the following reasons that a company may not use a land lease.

1. A company may lease a plot, but never get the funds to properly explore or drill it.
2. A company may find after exploration tests like seismic, that the cost of the lease isn't worth the cost of drilling.
3. A company may hold the lease until such a time as the cost of oil rises till it's profitable, or new technologies allow economic drilling.
4. A company may purchase multiple tracts, and focus on one with given capital, and wait for the others in turn.
5. A company (this is shocking) might be blocked by government red tape, both federal and state, and/or lawsuits by eco-nuts (my wording here:D)
6. Finely, and most important, the federal government is pretty much selling drilling leases for random federal lands. There is not the slightest chance that all the acres have enough oil to be profitable, and in many cases, any oil at all.

So on the federal lands we know without question there is tons, if not trillions of barrels of oil, they are not leasing a single acre. But on a random plot of federal land in Idaho, sign up to purchase drilling rights. Then we whine they are not drilling?

[Sihouette]

Recipe for overcoming environmental law:

1. Create a crises jacking up price of gas to crazy levels

2. Rake in profits and party down..

3. Convince general public that alternative renewable energy that is already in place and working like a gem in most other developed nations is "silly and an unreasonable pursuit (that they cannot meter as easily and charge the public up the wazoo)..that we need more oil NOW".

4. Talk about nuclear instead to scare the pants off of them..

5. Then propose we open up Alaska and sensitive regions offshore in the lower 48.

6. People go for it in a panic.

7. Great success....Hi five!

[Andy]

Recipe for overcoming environmental law:

They are stupid, un-necessary, un-constitutional, and harm the American economy. That's my recipe.

1. Create a crises jacking up price of gas to crazy levels

No one controls the price of oil. Oil is sold on a free market. Learn some economics.

2. Rake in profits and party down..

That is what everyone does. You wouldn't work at your burger flipping fast food job, if you didn't take home a pay check, would you?

3. Convince general public that alternative renewable energy that is already in place and working like a gem in most other developed nations is "silly and an unreasonable pursuit (that they cannot meter as easily and charge the public up the wazoo)..that we need more oil NOW".

Um... it isn't. You don't have to convince people it isn't, because... factually... it isn't. lol Go read about Brazil. Their energy independance, isn't due to Ethanol, it's oil. Brazil found a massive cache of oil off it's coast, and currently Brazil had the most leased off shore drilling rigs in the world. Maybe you should take a look at what is working like a gem for them, and adapt it here.

4. Talk about nuclear instead to scare the pants off of them..

No idea what you are referring too here. Nuclear power is a great idea.

5. Then propose we open up Alaska and sensitive regions offshore in the lower 48.

6. People go for it in a panic.

I'm not panicked. I'm thinking, that's why I support getting rid of dumb eco-fruitbat laws.

7. Great success....Hi five!

Here's how to gain support by leftist nut balls:
1. Complain about energy companies.
2. Install horribly restrictive laws on energy companies.
3. Wait until horrible laws cause energy to spike in price.
4. Ignore your own involvement in the price spike, and event crazy fantastical theories as to how it's due to "Big XXX" and how there is a grand conspiracy to cause the spike in energy prices that you caused.
5. Then claim all attempts to reverse the horrible laws you supported, that caused the spike in price, as being proof that the grand conspiracy is true and it really is due to "big whatever".

[PLC1]

We don't need to give them an incentive. We simply need to get out of their way. That's it. You don't need to give a businessman man a reason to do business... it's what he does. The problem is... our wonderful federal government has gotten in the way.

That said, clearly, yes. You are right, the government needs to either, sell the land completely (what i prefer), or write the leases in such a way that it makes good economic sense, with low risk.

Just think about it. The claim is that it requires roughly 5 years to go from exploration to drilling to well producing oil. So, if I offered you the option to lease a 2 acer plot of land to build a house on, that may cost you $250K to build, take 5 years to build, and you lose it all in 10 years... would you do it? Would anyone? Of course not. So this obviously is an issue.

Now granted, there is a reason to lease the lands though. Do you realize how much money the federal government is raking in on leased land? Lease land that isn't being used! Which is why I disagree with the whole thing. The federal government shouldn't be owning land. It should be sold to the public. If the states want to buy it, that's their deal. But there is nothing in our constitution about the federal government being in the real estate business.

I happen to find an article on this, and in that article, a letter from Senator Ernest Ishtook of Oklahoma. In it he states the following reasons that a company may not use a land lease.

1. A company may lease a plot, but never get the funds to properly explore or drill it.
2. A company may find after exploration tests like seismic, that the cost of the lease isn't worth the cost of drilling.
3. A company may hold the lease until such a time as the cost of oil rises till it's profitable, or new technologies allow economic drilling.
4. A company may purchase multiple tracts, and focus on one with given capital, and wait for the others in turn.
5. A company (this is shocking) might be blocked by government red tape, both federal and state, and/or lawsuits by eco-nuts (my wording here:D)
6. Finely, and most important, the federal government is pretty much selling drilling leases for random federal lands. There is not the slightest chance that all the acres have enough oil to be profitable, and in many cases, any oil at all.

So on the federal lands we know without question there is tons, if not trillions of barrels of oil, they are not leasing a single acre. But on a random plot of federal land in Idaho, sign up to purchase drilling rights. Then we whine they are not drilling?

You are making a lot of sense there. Why not simply get out of their way, as you put it, and let the industry do what it does best?

The government is often the problem rather than the solution, anyway, and the federal government has gotten so big, so powerful, so expensive as to be a hindrance to meeting the challenges we face as a nation.

There is one more little problem, though, with the scenario of allowing the oil industry leeway to explore for oil and to profit from such exploration:

Where is the oil to be sold?

If it is sold on the world market, then the increased amount is likely to be small enough as to make little impact. In addition, all the OPEC nations would have to do would be to cut back production just a little, which, along with increased demand from China and India, would keep the price high.

If it is sold domestically, then it has a shot at making a real impact, at least in this country, but such a sale would have to be a part of an agreement with the industry, don't you think?

[GenSeneca]

Recipe for overcoming environmental law:

1. Create a crises jacking up price of gas to crazy levels

2. Rake in profits and party down..

3. Convince general public that alternative renewable energy that is already in place and working like a gem in most other developed nations is "silly and an unreasonable pursuit (that they cannot meter as easily and charge the public up the wazoo)..that we need more oil NOW".

4. Talk about nuclear instead to scare the pants off of them..

5. Then propose we open up Alaska and sensitive regions offshore in the lower 48.

6. People go for it in a panic.

7. Great success....Hi five!

Quite the international conspiracy...
1. International Commodity, the US alone doesn't hold anywhere close to enough oil on the market to affect the worldwide market.
2. Gas @ $4.00 - Of that money:
Exxon Profit 10.5% (0.42c/gallon)
Gas Tax (.18:Fed+.28:State=.46c/gallon) <---Direct tax
Indirect taxes - those levied on Oil Companies - are shown over a 25 year period to be 3 times what oil companies make in profits... thats $1.26 @$4.00/gal.
Total profit from one gallon of gas @ $4.00/gal:
Exxon made $0.42c
Uncle Sam raked in: $1.72
3. Other countries? Like France? Upwards of 80% of their power comes from Nuclear (Which the Eco's won't let us build) but their gasoline is STILL $9 a gallon. Alternatives that currently exist, and are currently available, are incapable of replacing Gasoline - much less replacing oil altogether.
4. Name the countries with - alternative renewable energy that is already in place and working like a gem - that are NOT using nuclear power.
5. Don't use fossil fuels, or any of its derivatives, if you can't handle the thought of drilling. Vegetarians don't eat meat for much the same reason.
6. You want to see a panic? Keep listening to Democrats for Energy Policy.
7. Here are just some of the things made from Oil:
Air conditioners, ammonia, anti-histamines, antiseptics, artificial turf, asphalt, aspirin, balloons, bandages, boats, bottles, bras, bubble gum, butane, cameras, candles, car batteries, car bodies, carpet, cassette tapes, caulking, CDs, chewing gum, cold, combs/brushes, computers, contacts, cortisone, crayons, cream, denture adhesives, deodorant, detergents, dice, dishwashing liquid, dresses, dryers, electric blankets, electrician’s tape, fertilisers, fishing lures, fishing nets, fishing rods, floor wax, footballs, glues, glycerin, golf balls, guitar strings, hair, hair colouring, hair curlers, hearing aids, heart valves, heating oil, house paint, ice chests, ink, insect repellent, insulation, jet fuel, life jackets, linoleum, lip balm, lipstick, loudspeakers, medicines, mops, motor oil, motorcycle helmets, movie film, nail polish, nylons, oil filters, paddles, paint brushes, paints, parachutes, paraffin, pens, perfumes, petroleum jelly, plastic chairs, plastic cups, plastic forks, plastic wrap, plastics, plywood adhesives, refrigerators, roller-skate wheels, roofing paper, rubber bands, rubber boots, rubber cement, rubbish bags, running shoes, saccharine, seals, shirts (non-cotton), shoe polish, shoes, shower curtains, solvents, solvents, spectacles, stereos, sweaters, table tennis balls, tape recorders, telephones, tennis rackets, thermos, tights, toilet seats, toners, toothpaste, transparencies, transparent tape, TV cabinets, typewriter/computer ribbons, tyres, umbrellas, upholstery, vaporisers, vitamin capsules, volleyballs, water pipes, water skis, wax, wax paper
How many of those are we going to replace with "Alternatives"? We will continue to need oil for a long, long, long time - even after we stop using gasoline.

[Sihouette]

Yes yes, I'm paranoid...lol

Very few people are aware of how easy it is to suppress someone by insinuating that they are paranoid.

When you get a minute, read up on domestic PSYOPS. It's a real phenomenon. Sorry, I didn't just make it up. And I doubt that BigOil has a hand at carving domestic and foreign policy. You're right, that does sound a bit outlandish...how silly of me...:rolleyes:

[NO Obamanation]

I get emails from various polling groups. Here is a new one from Zogby about off-shore oil drilling. I can not put a link to it because it was an email.

Zogby Poll: 74% Support Off-Shore Oil Drilling in U.S. Coastal Waters

Telephone survey finds 59% of likely voters favor drilling in ANWR; 25% of undecideds would be more likely to support McCain because he favors off-shore drilling

UTICA, New York – Three in four likely voters – 74% – support off-shore drilling for oil in U.S. coastal waters and more than half (59%) also favor drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, a new Zogby International telephone poll shows.

A majority of likely voters across the political spectrum support off-shore oil drilling, with vast majorities of Republicans (90%) and independents (75%) in favor of drilling for oil off U.S. coastal waters more than half of Democrats (58%) also said they favor off-shore drilling. Republicans (80%) and political independents (57%) are much more likely to favor drilling for oil in ANWR than Democrats (40%). The telephone survey of 1,113 likely voters nationwide was conducted June 12-14, 2008, and carries a margin of error of +/- 3.0 percentage points

Do you support or oppose drilling for oil off-shore in U.S. coastal waters?

Support Oppose

Republicans 90% Republicans 5% Democrats 58% Democrats 30%
Independents 75% Independents 20%

McCain benefits from off-shore drilling stance with undecideds
One in four likely voters (25%) said they would be more likely to vote for McCain if they knew that as president he would support off-shore drilling in U.S. coastal waters just 4% said McCains support for off-shore drilling would make him less likely to win their vote, while 57% said it made no difference and 15% were unsure. When undecided likely voters were asked about how likely they would be to support McCain if he favored drilling in ANWR, 23% would be more likely, while nearly as many (21%) said it would make them less likely to vote for McCain. Another 43% of likely voters said it would make no difference if McCain supported drilling in ANWR while 14% were undecided.

McCain recently restated his opposition to drilling in ANWR, but has dropped his opposition to lifting the moratorium on off-shore drilling along America’s coasts.
Among undecided likely voters, 78% support off-shore drilling and 58% support drilling in ANWR. The vast majority of those likely voters who intend to vote for Republican John McCain in November support both drilling off-shore for oil in U.S. coastal waters (91%) and drilling for oil in ANWR (82%). While just over a third (37%) of those who plan to vote for Democrat Barack Obama support drilling in ANWR, more than half (58%) of likely voters who favor Obama said they support off-shore drilling.

[Sihouette]

The eight-year plan to secure US control of foreign oil and circumvent environmental law to secure all domestic sources is nearly complete. The shove GOP/Big Media/Big Oil gave to Gore, Kerry and most recently, Hillary, was part of keeping it on track. Now The Trap (promoting Obama to be the democratic nominee) is necessary to secure a McCain win and eight more years of same.

Big Oil and their public and media servants know full well what a Clinton win would mean: a modling (finally) of our energy policies after progressive European countries that have been weaning themselves of the oil teat for decades now to great and amazing success.

Why are the texas smudgy cowboys so adamant we stay addicted to fossil fuels? Because you can't put a meter on the sun, the wind and running water. If they were smart they'd have switched their lazy butts over to centralized alternative energy and metered the output. I know they're trying to take over this industry but the problem is that individuals don't need to engage in the complex process of refining crude oil in order to get nearly instant and clean energy right at home. In other words, who is going to pay rate hikes to a central authority when they can have their own private system that never jacks it's rates up?

It's all about gouging and manipulating prices. Look, you don't expect those poor texans to subsist on only five yachts in their string... What if their neighbor has six! Agahst the thought..

All you have to do is look at Europe. Go on. It's not hard. Just search "europe alternative energy" and off you go. Then you can see what Big Oil has smudgescreened us away from all these decades. Try no to groan when you read about how long Europe has been at it (how long the technology has been around) and how every single life lost in Iraq was wholly unnecessary.

[NO Obamanation]

The eight-year plan to secure US control of foreign oil and circumvent environmental law to secure all domestic sources is nearly complete. The shove GOP/Big Media/Big Oil gave to Gore, Kerry and most recently, Hillary, was part of keeping it on track. Now The Trap (promoting Obama to be the democratic nominee) is necessary to secure a McCain win and eight more years of same.

Big Oil and their public and media servants know full well what a Clinton win would mean: a modling (finally) of our energy policies after progressive European countries that have been weaning themselves of the oil teat for decades now to great and amazing success.

Why are the texas smudgy cowboys so adamant we stay addicted to fossil fuels? Because you can't put a meter on the sun, the wind and running water. If they were smart they'd have switched their lazy butts over to centralized alternative energy and metered the output. I know they're trying to take over this industry but the problem is that individuals don't need to engage in the complex process of refining crude oil in order to get nearly instant and clean energy right at home. In other words, who is going to pay rate hikes to a central authority when they can have their own private system that never jacks it's rates up?

It's all about gouging and manipulating prices. Look, you don't expect those poor texans to subsist on only five yachts in their string... What if their neighbor has six! Agahst the thought..

All you have to do is look at Europe. Go on. It's not hard. Just search "europe alternative energy" and off you go. Then you can see what Big Oil has smudgescreened us away from all these decades. Try no to groan when you read about how long Europe has been at it (how long the technology has been around) and how every single life lost in Iraq was wholly unnecessary.

OK I looked up energy in Europe and it looks pretty good to me.


Nuclear Europe: Country guide
There are 173 nuclear reactors producing power in Europe (excluding Russia), with four under construction and others planned.
There is a wide divergence of approaches to nuclear power.
Some countries, like Germany and Spain, are committed to phasing out nuclear power; others, like Britain, are considering which way to proceed. Several others, including Ukraine and Finland, are building new power plants.


Working nuclear reactors 59
Reactors decommissioned/ out of use 11
Electricity from nuclear power 78% France has been Europe's most enthusiastic devotee of nuclear power, constructing dozens of reactors since the 1970s oil crises spurred on its desire for energy independence.

It has become the world's biggest net exporter of electricity, and is also a major exporter of nuclear technology. France began a public debate in 2003 on future energy policy, but the government seems committed. President Jacques Chirac has announced the fourth generation of nuclear reactors, using nuclear waste as a source of energy, while France will be the site for the international Iter experimental reactor.





http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4713398.stm

[GenSeneca]

Yes yes, I'm paranoid...lol

Very few people are aware of how easy it is to suppress someone by insinuating that they are paranoid.

When you get a minute, read up on domestic PSYOPS. It's a real phenomenon. Sorry, I didn't just make it up. And I doubt that BigOil has a hand at carving domestic and foreign policy. You're right, that does sound a bit outlandish...how silly of me...:rolleyes:

Are you FOR or AGAINST the follow alternatives:

1. Nuclear Power

2. Wind Power

3. Hydro Power

Democrats in Congress have OPPOSED the expansion of ALL 3.

Big Oil and their public and media servants know full well what a Clinton win would mean: a modling (finally) of our energy policies after progressive European countries that have been weaning themselves of the oil teat for decades now to great and amazing success.

Like Obama doesn't want to do just that, turn America into Europe, everyone on the left wants to...
I love America the way it is... Where in Europe have you ever been?

[Sihouette]

I'm sure Obama is for that. But if you'll visit the Obama thread you'll see why what he says he'll do for green energy is a moot point. He's patently unelectable. Doesn't do much good to have an energy policy when the GOP has your political epitaph planned-in-advanced down to every i dotted and t crossed.

I could give a fig what "the democrats" have rejected. Quite a lot of times the republicans will word-spin a Bill to make themselves look benevolent and then pork-barrel with unacceptable footnotes in order to get democrats to reject it, as they should. Net result is they look good and dems look bad.

I'm zigzagging past all that nonsense and getting right to the heart of the matter.

They rejected nuclear. Great. As well they and you should. Ever watch the Simpsons? All we need is one Homer at the control panel..

I am for Hydro, and solar. Wind is a bit unpractical unless it can be placed in reliable wind-zones. Plus it's unsightly. I think it's my least favorite of all the non-petrolium sources of energy.

Geothermal is the boy. Steam electric generators are some of the simplist and easiest sources of power there is...providing you have a steady heat source. I'd say all in all that the earth's internal heat could be relied on to be steady into the next Century or two...lol...or million...

At bubbling vents right at the surface all you do is add water, generate steam which turns a turbine that shoots out current. No offshore platforms, expensive drills, huge manpower, pollution, unbelievable maintainence problems, environmental disasters...nada...just easy, clean energy right on tap over a full 1/3 of the continental US.

And it just sits there even though scientists and developers have been BEGGING the goverment to fund development..

Bubble bubble bubble... Yellowstone alone could power half the US I'd wager.

But no, we need to keep after finite, dirty, nasty, National Security and environmental-threatening oil..

[PLC1]

I'm sure Obama is for that. But if you'll visit the Obama thread you'll see why what he says he'll do for green energy is a moot point. He's patently unelectable. Doesn't do much good to have an energy policy when the GOP has your political epitaph planned-in-advanced down to every i dotted and t crossed.

He is currently running ahead in the polls. Were it a horse race, I'd be betting on Obama just now.

I could give a fig what "the democrats" have rejected. Quite a lot of times the republicans will word-spin a Bill to make themselves look benevolent and then pork-barrel with unacceptable footnotes in order to get democrats to reject it, as they should. Net result is they look good and dems look bad.

Yes, that is correct. Of course, the Democrats do exactly the same thing. It is dirty politics, in other words, business as usual in Washington.

They rejected nuclear. Great. As well they and you should. Ever watch the Simpsons? All we need is one Homer at the control panel.

You get your scientific and political ideas by watching the Simpsons?

(c'mon, we need some laughing smilies on this forum. Just imagine my mirth.)

I am for Hydro, and solar. Wind is a bit unpractical unless it can be placed in reliable wind-zones. Plus it's unsightly. I think it's my least favorite of all the non-petrolium sources of energy.

Geothermal is the boy. Steam electric generators are some of the simplist and easiest sources of power there is...providing you have a steady heat source. I'd say all in all that the earth's internal heat could be relied on to be steady into the next Century or two...lol...or million...

At bubbling vents right at the surface all you do is add water, generate steam which turns a turbine that shoots out current. No offshore platforms, expensive drills, huge manpower, pollution, unbelievable maintainence problems, environmental disasters...nada...just easy, clean energy right on tap over a full 1/3 of the continental US.

And it just sits there even though scientists and developers have been BEGGING the goverment to fund development..

Bubble bubble bubble... Yellowstone alone could power half the US I'd wager.

But no, we need to keep after finite, dirty, nasty, National Security and environmental-threatening oil..

I'm for whatever is most practical and can give us the most bang for the buck. We produce a lot of hydro power here in California, and would doubtless build more plants if God would only grant us more rivers. Geo thermal works well in Iceland, which has an unusually large number of geologically active sites. I'm just imagining the outcry should a serious proposal be made to tap geo thermal power in Yellowstone NP.:eek: Nuclear is proven technology. Solar is becoming cheaper and more practical. Wind is producing where there is a steady supply of wind. Tides and wave action are possibilities, once the technology is developed.

I agree that we need to get off of oil, especially imported oil as quickly as is practical.
Why ignore any of it?

[GenSeneca]

They rejected nuclear. Great. As well they and you should.
You said look to Europe as a model... and nearly ALL their power comes from Nuclear. But because YOU don't like Nuclear, we should now look to the Simpson's as an Higher Authority on the issue.... You must work directly with the Democrats in Congress.
I am for Hydro, and solar. Wind is a bit unpractical unless it can be placed in reliable wind-zones. Plus it's unsightly. I think it's my least favorite of all the non-petrolium sources of energy.
Wind can power 150% of our electricity needs. But because you don't want to - maybe - have to look at them - we shouldn't do it. Anyone else think that sounds selfish? Total hydro capacity in the US is 80k, Kwh. In '06, we were at 50k and planning to reduce it to 30k - because the environuts didn't want to disturb fish.
Geothermal is the boy... clean energy right on tap over a full 1/3 of the continental US.
You forgot to mention where they have to be built: The most active geothermal resources are usually found along major plate boundaries where earthquakes and volcanoes are concentrated. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/renewable/geothermal.html#WhatIs)
Thats a major reason why Geothermal plants are not deemed cost effective.

And it just sits there even though scientists and developers have been BEGGING the goverment to fund development..
Waiting for GOVERNMENT = TAXPAYERS, to fund the development.... Anyone know why? The private sector can tell you.... Way too much risk involved.

Yellowstone alone could power half the US I'd wager.
We can't drill in ANWR where NOBODY goes, but we should convert a major national park and tourist attraction into a power plant... I cannot follow the logic of Enviro's.

But no, we need to keep after finite, dirty, nasty, National Security and environmental-threatening oil..
Yes, we HAVE TO because we get too many things from oil to stop using it.

What does geothermal have to do with replacing Gasoline? Nothing - we can't fill a gas tank with electricity - yet you talk about Geothermal and Oil as though they are interchangeable. Your geothermal plant... Will need oil products to operate: Gear oil, lubrication, plastics, circuit boards, PVC nearly everything involved with a Geothermal plant would have to be derived from oil.

Oil, although finite, is a natural resource that we cannot currently live without. Alternative solutions start at home, create a cheaper faster product and it will outsell the competition.

To speed up the development of technology - Enthusiasts go out and buy the latest processor or graphics card and it drives the technology to get better faster cheaper.
Environmentalists just promote technology without actually supporting it monetarily and shame others for not wanting the Government=Taxpayers to foot the bill for development.

[Andy]

There isn't a smiley face available to show my amusement by this post.

The eight-year plan to secure US control of foreign oil and circumvent environmental law to secure all domestic sources is nearly complete.

Good.

The shove GOP/Big Media/Big Oil gave to Gore, Kerry and most recently, Hillary, was part of keeping it on track. Now The Trap (promoting Obama to be the democratic nominee) is necessary to secure a McCain win and eight more years of same.

Why yes of course! Everyone everywhere supported Obama in order for him to lose! It's all so clear now!

Big Oil and their public and media servants...

Right those media servants that keep hounding big oil and supporting democraps, and those bought and paid for public servants who just threatened a governmental take over of the entire oil industry. Yeah... your theory has tons of support...

...know full well what a Clinton win would mean: a modling (finally) of our energy policies after progressive European countries that have been weaning themselves of the oil teat for decades now to great and amazing success.

They all use oil, and most pay 3 times as much as we do for gas. This is an improvement? Name one 'great and amazing success'?

Why are the texas smudgy cowboys so adamant we stay addicted to fossil fuels?

No one is forcing any of us to use oil. If we all choose to stop using oil, there is not a thing anyone anywhere could do to make us use it.

Because you can't put a meter on the sun, the wind and running water. If they were smart they'd have switched their lazy butts over to centralized alternative energy and metered the output.

You can go buy a solar panel if you wish, hope you have a big checking account. We already have hydro power, it doesn't provide enough to get off oil. Wind power is a scam.

I know they're trying to take over this industry but the problem is that individuals don't need to engage in the complex process of refining crude oil in order to get nearly instant and clean energy right at home. In other words, who is going to pay rate hikes to a central authority when they can have their own private system that never jacks it's rates up?

When your "clean instant energy right at home" costs more than the price of the house, and has to be replaced in 20 years... no one is going to do it. Instead they'll just buy cheap power from the power company like always.

It's all about gouging and manipulating prices. Look, you don't expect those poor texans to subsist on only five yachts in their string... What if their neighbor has six! Agahst the thought..

Why yes of course! With such hard evidence like "poor taxans with Yachts"! How could I have missed it! It's all so clear now!

All you have to do is look at Europe. Go on. It's not hard. Just search "europe alternative energy" and off you go. Then you can see what Big Oil has smudgescreened us away from all these decades. Try no to groan when you read about how long Europe has been at it (how long the technology has been around) and how every single life lost in Iraq was wholly unnecessary.

What exactly do you know about Europe? Anything? Anything at all? Do you know jack about anything your talking about?

Little bit of hint... ok? Just a small clue.
Europe's energy generation by source.
68.2% Oil, Gas, Coal.
25.3% Nuclear.
5.8% Hydroelectric.
0.7% (other) including renewable energy sources.

That's your model? That's your plan? Get a clue.
Department of Energy: U.S. Power generation by source.
7.1% Hydroelectric
2.4% Renewable Other. (plus 0.7% Other)

Of course, your theory is so obvious now! It's the evil US oil companies that are preventing us from having more than 2.4% of our energy from renewable energy sources, unlike the great wonderful Europeans who have proven the "renewable energy way" by generating a full three quarters of 1% of their energy from renewable sources! And spending billions more than us to do it! You convinced me! You got my vote for president now! Gimme your name, I'll write you in on my ballot!
Ignorance. Complete undeniable ignorance.

Here's another hint, Germany has been blowing $12 Billion a year on subsidies (corporate welfare) to boost these lame renewable energy sources that don't even cover 1% of their power needs. It's costing them so much money, Germany, Netherlands, and the Switzerland, are all cutting renewable energy subsidies.

How is the rest of EU paying for these lame technologies?
France 33% Capital Gains Tax, 40% Income Tax, 20% Consumption tax.
Iceland 26% Capital Gains, 45% Income, 25% Consumption.
Sweden 28% Capital Gains, 55% Income, 25% Consumption.

How would you like to lose more than half your pay check in taxes? THEN, get to pay 25% taxes on everything you buy?? That's assuming your company, paying 1/3rd it's profit in taxes, has enough money left to even hire you!

This is you brilliant plan? Model ourselves after them? Their economies are trash, their taxes are sky high, but o0o0o000h my! They have renewable energy... that's less than one freakin percent of their total energy generation... You are such a bright boy!

But hey, at least it doesn't cost them much to fill up! Oh wait... Germans are paying over $8 a gallon for fuel. It costs them $120 just to fill up their circus clown car sized VW buggys.

You are just soooo....
http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/brilliant.jpg
BRILLIANT!!!

[Sihouette]

Yes, that is correct. Of course, the Democrats do exactly the same thing. It is dirty politics, in other words, business as usual in Washington

Before you go thinking your teflon demigod Obama is an exception to the rule, please, before the GOP pastes it all over the evening news in September, read the Chicago Tribune article that outlines what Obama did to fellow minorities.. Please, before you sink your credibility any further on his behalf..

As to geothermal being along faultlines...actually....more geothermal is located near vulcanism. If a steam generator gets knocked off it's foundation, it's not a national disaster...it's a fixer job and back up in a week. At San Onofre we have a nuclear power plant poised dangerously near faults that are overdue to go. When a nuclear reactor shifts from its foundation the entire country will be poisoned by a cloud of radioactive death.

I'd say there is an Ocean of difference between the two. I used Yellowstone as an example because many people are familiar with the potent power of the near or at surface geothermal ducts. And the huge expanse over which they sit. In Yellowstone's case its atop a thin part of the crust of the Earth and so the internal heat is venting there.

There are unfortunately a lot of nukes in Europe, most in France. All it takes is one disaster. My reference to Homer Simpson was illustrative but apparently some missed the message so I'll spell it out and make it easier to understand: My point is that human error will be found to be the cause of the next nuclear disaster.

Why risk a disaster when the most that would happen from a geothermal plant "meltdown" would be some steam burns to a very isolated few people?


High level contamination
High levels of contamination may pose major risks to people and the environment. People can be exposed to potentially lethal radiation levels, both externally and internally, from the spread of contamination following an accident (or a deliberate initiation) involving large quantities of radioactive material....

... Some radionuclides may target specific organs and have much lower removal rates. For instance, the thyroid gland takes up a large percentage of any iodine that enters the body. If large quantities of radioactive iodine are inhaled or ingested, the thyroid may be impaired or destroyed, while other tissues are affected to a lesser extent. Radioactive iodine is a common fission product; it was a major component of the radiation released from the Chernobyl disaster...


Why even begin to contemplate risking such a disaster? Why? It's as if people (some selective people) are saying, "hey, the ONLY energy we're going to consider is the kind that has the potential to ruin the earth..no negotiation."

As odd as it may sound, the simple reason geothermal isn't being utilized is because it is so simple. If Iceland can do it, we can. You only need a small area that generates sufficient heat. The only limiting factor is the amount of water you can pour over it. That's it. And if you look at the map on the oil from bugs thread you can easily see that the potential for these areas is HUGE, not minimal.

Simple energy is hard to regulate. Harnassing steam to run turbines could be a backyard project. Leading scientists have sat for decades scratching their heads as to why (BigOil) politicians won't consider develpment on a massive scale. There are vast areas of the Owen's Valley alone that are just grazing cattle, the Owen's river flowing through it slowly like a snake. Bubbling pots ooze everywhere and wafts of steam snake upwards all over the Valley. The area is so desolate that it begs to be a source of power for California and Nevada at least. Why haven't we done anything?

I have never for one minute understood why people talk about nuclear energy with such a cavalier attitude. The horrible dangers when, and not if the next accident occurs at a plant are the stuff of sci-fi films and nightmares. The cost to develop a nuclear plant, to staff it, maintain it and dispose of the forever (essentially) toxic waste in someone else's backyard is ASTRONOMICAL compared to erecting a geothermal steam plant of equal energy output. It's just absurd. It's like people escaped from an asylum and run around ranting "nuclear nuclear" or "oil oil".

This one has flown over that cuckoo's nest.

[Andy]

As to geothermal being along faultlines...actually....more geothermal is located near vulcanism. If a steam generator gets knocked off it's foundation, it's not a national disaster...it's a fixer job and back up in a week. At San Onofre we have a nuclear power plant poised dangerously near faults that are overdue to go. When a nuclear reactor shifts from its foundation the entire country will be poisoned by a cloud of radioactive death.

Um... no the issue is that a Geothermal plant can actually CAUSE an earth quake. As far as Nuclear, there are instances where plants have been shaken with little to zero effect. New core designs are setup in such a way that even in a catastrophic failure, the core will remain cool and safe completely un-powered, by using natural convection.

Further, new containment systems prevent any radio activity from escaping the facility. New cores have thousands of gallons of water suspended above the reactor so that in the event that somehow the core case was cracked or broken in any way, the water would flood the core, immediately squelching the nuclear reaction, and cooling the core until it can be dismantled.

Who is fearmongering now? Evil companies? Or screwed up eco-geeks?

I used Yellowstone as an example because many people are familiar with the potent power of the near or at surface geothermal ducts. And the huge expanse over which they sit. In Yellowstone's case its atop a thin part of the crust of the Earth and so the internal heat is venting there.

The eco-nuts are preventing geothermal energy production in Yellowstone, and other geologically active areas.

Why even begin to contemplate risking such a disaster? Why? It's as if people (some selective people) are saying, "hey, the ONLY energy we're going to consider is the kind that has the potential to ruin the earth..no negotiation."

Why even begin to contemplate the risk of driving a car? You could be paralyzed for life or killed! Why risk such a disaster?

Why? Because the chances are low, and risks are minimal. The possibility of a huge "end of the world" nuclear disaster are nearly nothing. The French figured that out (amazingly), and didn't surrender (for once) to eco-fruit bats on this issue. Neither should we. The scariest thing about nuclear power plants in the US is, due to our stupid policies, we have the oldest, least updated, least safe nuclear reactors in the world. Unlike France, our nuclear power generation is still in the stone age.

As odd as it may sound, the simple reason geothermal isn't being utilized is because it is so simple. If Iceland can do it, we can. You only need a small area that generates sufficient heat. The only limiting factor is the amount of water you can pour over it. That's it. And if you look at the map on the oil from bugs thread you can easily see that the potential for these areas is HUGE, not minimal.

It's minimal. Pouring water over it is a bad idea. It's caused Earth quakes, and has potential negative repercussions. Further, in geologically active areas, putting in geothermal power causes those areas to cease being active, which angers eco-nuts who file law suits.

Simple energy is hard to regulate. Harnassing steam to run turbines could be a backyard project. Leading scientists have sat for decades scratching their heads as to why (BigOil) politicians won't consider develpment on a massive scale.

This is stupid. It's neither big oil, nor politicians who should be considering any of this. If there is money to be made in geothermal power, the private sector will provide it, as it already has in limited areas. Why limited? Because there is limited profit potential. If the leading scientists really are scratching their heads, it's because they are plain stupid about economics, and should stick to science.

There are vast areas of the Owen's Valley alone that are just grazing cattle, the Owen's river flowing through it slowly like a snake. Bubbling pots ooze everywhere and wafts of steam snake upwards all over the Valley. The area is so desolate that it begs to be a source of power for California and Nevada at least. Why haven't we done anything?

You really don't know? Eco-nuts file lawsuits against evil power company to prevent them from disturbing the environment of the stub-toed whombat. (random dumb animal). That's why.

I have never for one minute understood why people talk about nuclear energy with such a cavalier attitude. The horrible dangers when, and not if the next accident occurs at a plant are the stuff of sci-fi films and nightmares.

Well maybe some of us know that movies and sci-fi films are.. made up? Maybe we aren't living in terrified fear of the "fearmongering" rants of eco-fruit bats?

The cost to develop a nuclear plant, to staff it, maintain it and dispose of the forever (essentially) toxic waste in someone else's backyard is...

Don't know much about nuclear technology I see. New plants are designed so that they have nearly zero toxic waste what so ever. Old fuel rods can be reprocessed and reused dozens of times. Old systems of heavy water, with high radioactivity are replaced with new systems that use light water, and the water gives off zero radiation. New reactor cores have no build up of radioactive particles that must be disposed of. Instead, the particulate matter is broken down into harmless elements. No toxic waste. No maintaining it forever.

The reason we have a problem here in the US, is because we have not advanced like the rest of the world. Our nuclear power generation is stuck in the 60s, and we are dealing the problems of it being so. If we simply move forward, we can eliminate all these issues. In fact, the waste currently stored, can be reprocessed and used a fuel, free fuel. We only need to get rid of lame fearmongering eco-nut balls, and move into the next era of nuclear technology.

ASTRONOMICAL compared to erecting a geothermal steam plant of equal energy output.

Not according to the information I have. What I just read was that Nuclear power and Geothermal power is very similar in economics. Initial setup cost is roughly $2500 per kilowatt installed, and Nuclear varies from $2000 to $3000 per kilowatt installed.

Worse, Geothermal plants always drop off in production. For example, the largest Geothermal plant in the US, was built for 2000 MW, but now only produces 1000 MW. This presents a real draw back economically, since you'd pay a hefty price for a 2000 MW plant that now only produces half it's installed capacity.

Further, Nuclear can be built anywhere, while geothermal must be built in specific areas.

The facts don't seem to be supporting you (shocking).

[GenSeneca]

As odd as it may sound, the simple reason geothermal isn't being utilized is because it is so simple.... Leading scientists have sat for decades scratching their heads as to why (BigOil) politicians won't consider develpment on a massive scale... Why haven't we done anything?

Lets see what the EERE (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/faqs.html) has to say:

What does it cost to develop a geothermal power plant?

Answer: Costs of a geothermal plant are heavily weighted toward early expenses, rather than fuel to keep them running. Well drilling and pipeline construction occur first, followed by resource analysis of the drilling information. Next is design of the actual plant. Power plant construction is usually completed concurrent with final field development. The initial cost for the field and power plant is around $2500 per installed kW in the U.S., probably $3000 to $5000/kWe for a small (<1Mwe) power plant. Operating and maintenance costs range from $0.01 to $0.03 per kWh. Most geothermal power plants can run at greater than 90% availability (i.e., producing more than 90% of the time), but running at 97% or 98% can increase maintenance costs. Higher-priced electricity justifies running the plant 98% of the time because the resulting higher maintenance costs are recovered.

Now who might know something about drilling... pipeline construction... analysis of drilling information... Hmmmm. Since it involves drilling - which we all know destroys the environment - I bet the Evil, Greedy Oil Companies might be able to help.

Oh thats right, you've declared war on Oil. Part of that war is "NO DRILLING", so once again the environmentalists shoot themselves in the foot.

Actually, you don't give Geo enough credit, its not a backyard project. Its a $1.5 billion dollar industry thats looking at adding an additional 90 million over the next four years. Have you invested? Didn't think so.. but you think the rest of us should via the government.

Government didn't create big oil, American oil companies built their oil empires on their own, with their own money. Its not Governments job to create Big Geo either... and its Definitely not the governments job to force Big Oil to support Big Geo.

If the Geo's weren't so hostile to Big Oil, the two could partner up for drilling - that would be the sensible thing to do, make allies with big oil. I'd imagine it would be easier for both to cut deals and to work together in Congress, while navigating through the environmental obstacles and bureaucratic catch 22's they both face in drilling contracts.

Where do people get the crazy idea American Oil Companies are the enemy?

Government is the enemy.

[Sihouette]

Drilling for steam or just tapping it right at the surface is nowhere near as polluting as drilling for oil and then refining it. Water vs sludge, smudge and greenhouse producing carbon byproducts.. Yes, we graduated from gradeschool..try another tack..

As to the efficiency of one geothermal plant studied...yes, the technology for geothermal is dinosaur-like...kept there by BigOil politics. I'll say it again. Geothermal is easy to produce energy from. Steam turbines are like playing chopsticks on the piano instead of Beethoven's Fifth compared to obtaining and refining crude oil. Give geothermal five years and it will outshine your wildest imagnation. I'm all for opening the free market to exploiting this resource and watching the technology improve from competition.

That's what the US is all about.

Suppressing this resource is irresponsible. And that's exactly what BigOil has done via it's political gyrations. It cannot manipulate the price arbitrarily of an easy, clean and reliable source of energy. There's your reason right there.

Any entity that actively seeks to suppress a beneficial component to mankind in favor of a detrimental one, all in the interest of profit and greed is amoral, bad and wrong. There's no other way to slice it.

[Federal Farmer]

One of the problem with geothermal is that you simply can't just stick a geothermal plant anywhere you want to, so it's potential is limited by geology, and in fact, there are more places in the United States where you can't put a geothermal plant than there are where you can simply due to the geology. Now, that's not to say that we shouldn't pursue geothermal in areas where it is practical, but there are also other factors that need to be considered.

For instance, you can forget about building any geothermal plants virtually anywhere along the coastline of the Gulf of Mexico, and in most places for up to 100 miles inland, as all of that land is sedimentary, and is slowly sloughing off into the Gulf. For instance, New Orleans is expected to be IN the Gulf of Mexico in the next 200 years, not from erosion, but from the fact that the land is sloughing off into the Gulf. Access to any rock formations necessary for geothermal plant operation are too deep to easily access, and even if the bore holes were lined, the casings would eventually become so deformed that they would break, thereby necessitating a new hole to be drilled.

There is also the expense of drilling through igneous rock, as in much of the East Coast, and specifically in the area around Atlanta, in the Black Hills, in West Texas, and other similar locations, thereby making the location of a geothermal plant in those locations economically untenable.

Another example, if you're going to build them along geologic fault lines, you need to be prepared to have your source of energy shut off in an earthquake, possibly forever. Building geothermal plants in western California would be risky to say the least, as it's very tectonically activity, while making it relatively easy to access, could also result in a severe economic loss, not due to the destruction of the plant itself, that's easy enough to engineer for, but from tectonic shifting, which could easily cut off the source, which would require re-drilling the shafts.

Geothermal plants should ideally be places where the crust is thinnest, as the heat source (the core of the Earth) can more readily be replenished, whereas in areas where the crust is thicker, the plant will eventually cause the crust to cool to the point where it can no longer produce, for decades, if not centuries. Ideally, geothermal plants would be placed where known natural wet vents occur, many of which have been located by the very oil industry many seem hell bent on disparaging.

One other point that needs to be made is that the Oil Industry is NOT responsible, in any way, for the efficiency, or inefficiency of a geothermal plant. That responsibility lies solely with the Engineers who designed it. If, in their efforts to keep costs down, they used existing "off the shelf" technology, of course it's not going to be as efficient as it may have been by specifically designing a system from the ground up, but doing specific design is expensive, and the CUSTOMER may not have wanted to, or possibly been able to, afford the additional expense, deciding instead that it was more cost effective to have a less efficient system in place. You have to remember that energy companies, regardless of the source of that energy, are PRIVATE BUSINESS ventures, and they are in the business of generating a profit, as well as energy. Now, if you have a few hundred million laying around, need one hell of a tax write off, and want to help mankind in the process, by all means, build a geothermal plant and give the power away, otherwise, quit being obsequious, and stick to reality.

[Sihouette]

I always wonder when posters promote anti-exploration and are overtly dismissive of alternate energy sources. Sometimes I wonder if BigOil packs places like this with spindoctors who...

Nah?

Anyway,

One of the problem with geothermal is that you simply can't just stick a geothermal plant anywhere you want to, so it's potential is limited by geology

Very good.

Now here's a map of the "limited...geology" of geothermally active areas. Nevermind the fact that deep boring in marginal areas can also be utilized.

Here's the "geologically limited" US map of geothermally active surface or near-surface areas. No-brainer, the hotter the colors the more active the sites.

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n176/SSilhouette/Geothermalmap.jpg

God, you're right. We should just hang up the idea right here and now...

Friggin spindoctors..

[Federal Farmer]

Thank you for proving my point for me. Your own map clearly demonstrates that the vast majority (2/3) of the United States is geologically unsuited for geothermal energy production.

As I also said, which you blatantly ignored in your rush to attempt to label me as some sort of "BigOil spindoctor";
Now, that's not to say that we shouldn't pursue geothermal in areas where it is practical, but there are also other factors that need to be considered.
I'm all for putting geothermal plants where it's adventageous to do so, and I also support almost all forms of alternative energy (except for that non-starter 'corn ethanol'). I myself had one of the very first solar electrical systems installed on my home back in the '70's. The fact that it never really paid for itself wasn't the point, the point was that I wanted to promote the technology.

You also neglected to acknowledge that I'm approaching the problem of geothermal energy from the standpoint of a Civil Engineer, so, unless you are equally, or more qualified than I to analyze such challenges, I would suggest that you take your icy stares and mental daggers and shove them back into your witches broom closet. You see, I'm one of those people who is actually responsible for designing and building your geothermal energy plants, so how about not pissing in the Cheerios of the guys you need to hire to make your dream a reality?

[Andy]

I always wonder when posters promote anti-exploration and are overtly dismissive of alternate energy sources.

Please locate, where in the prior post, he was against exploration or dismissive of alternative energy sources? He was not. You are errecting a straw-man, which is your only course of action since you can't argue the points made. You are typical of so many ignorant people who think they know something. Hint: you don't know jack.

Sometimes I wonder if BigOil packs places like this with spindoctors who...

FEAR! Run! They are out to get us! Big Oil owns the planet and every person on this forum! *quakes in fear!* ...Take your fear mongering elsewhere. You are not scaring us.

Now here's a map of the "limited...geology" of geothermally active areas. Nevermind the fact that deep boring in marginal areas can also be utilized.

Here's the "geologically limited" US map of geothermally active surface or near-surface areas. No-brainer, the hotter the colors the more active the sites.

Look, if you want to play stupid games and run around with your hands over your ears, fine. The rest of us 'think'.

A: Drilling to the depths required to reach the temps on this map, which still only cover 1/3 of the U.S., is horribly expensive, and makes Geothermal power, in many cases cost prohibitive.

B: In the map on page 8, of the DOE's geothermal assessment (http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/drillingrptfinal_ext-05-00660_9-1-05.pdf), shows that cost effective short-depth drilling sights are fewer and far between.

C: There is real evidence that drilling can mess with the water table, cause pollution, and emit sulfur, CO2, and other trace gasses.

D: Just because there is heat located on your map, doesn't mean there is sufficient water at those locations to harness geothermal energy.

E: Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS), which must be used in order to generate power in locations that do not have the required water table, causes earthquakes and is potentially dangerous.

F: Lastly, and finely, despite your crazed fear and doom ignorant rantings about how Big (whatever dumb idea you have) is stopping Geothermal power, it flat out is not true. They have even opened up a Geothermal energy (http://74.54.115.114/node/959) plant UNDER New York city buildings. You can stop with the tin foil covered shack, "Big Blaw Blaw" is out to get us!, conspiracy routine. We don't buy it.

No one is against Geothermal power. I fully support Geothermal power, when and where, it makes good sense to do it. I am against EGS because I think it's bad idea to mess with the tectonic mantle of the Earth. That seems like a error in progress. We don't know what effect forcing water down on a continental plate, may cause.

That said, I'll all for using the existing heat sources that are readily available. However, it's complete insanity to think Geothermal power is going to completely take over our energy needs. We are not Iceland. They do not even use a small fraction of our power needs, nor do we have close to the geothermal potential they do. Time to wake up.

[GenSeneca]

Any entity that actively seeks to suppress a beneficial component to mankind in favor of a detrimental one, all in the interest of profit and greed is amoral, bad and wrong. There's no other way to slice it.

Can you come back to reality?

----->Oil cannot be replaced by Geothermal<-----

Big Oil would have ZERO reason to block Geo, its not a competitor!

You have ZERO PROOF Big Oil ever tried to stop Geo, because they never have... Politicians on BOTH SIDES support Geo - The public does not.
Geo's slow because its run by the Government - ever seen a commercial on TV about Geo power? In a paper or a magazine?

Government is the enemy, not Big Oil.