Sure,the only way to know 1000% that commercial amounts are down there for an exploratory well is to drill.Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
|
|
|
|
|
Sure,the only way to know 1000% that commercial amounts are down there for an exploratory well is to drill.
A better place to look is IHS (nee Petroleum Information) scout databases. If a well does not have production casing and/or a liner set you may not see anything on it in typical newspaper reporting on drilling activity. And for that to happen, the data gathered from the drilling and logging operations must look pretty good to justify that decision, otherwise the hole is plugged and abandoned at that point.
There are still dry holes and some are indeed at 20k and deeper!!!
BillPup, I read an interesting factoid a few days ago.....In 2001 an average gas well was depleted 19% in its first year of production. Today, that depletion rate is 31%. Any comments?
Yes, this just had to be posted under this thread as well.
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/2...wHK_e9pbzw --
POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH'
Mon Feb 26 2007 17:16:14 ET
Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:
Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.
Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.
“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.
In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
NO! Al Gore CAN'T be a hypocrite! I KNOW he BELIEVES his doomsaying!!!AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
30,000. That is sick! Has he ever heard of the postion of "off" on a lightswitch?
Actually, it seems you and TT are being hypocrites since you don't limit your energy use (or do you?).
The guy lives in a mansion filled with a lot of electronics. Maybe you should post the $$$$ amount of energy used by the White House every year because we are paying for it but Al is paying for his own.
Ayn wouldn't have any problem with Al being a successful guy that wants to live in a big house.
Correct in one respect, but Ayn would hate him for his methods. Think James Taggart, Scudder, Orrin Boyle, Wesley Mooch, and others. Gaining power by coercing others (philosophically, through business, through government, etc.) is certainly NOT moral.
How am I a hypocrite? I just pointed out that this guy CLEARLY does not believe the message he is preaching. Why should you?
And I don't have problem with a successful person living in a big house and consuming mucho electricity.
Your logic is faulty. He believes that AGW is happening but uses fossil fuels like everyone else. That is not being a hypocrite. It is not that he has a choice in which fuels he uses. I don't ever remember the AGW crowd saying that energy use needs to be reduced, only that the amount of CO2 emissions need to be reduced. And that is something that we can only truly do as a society and not as an individual.
The point being is that we, as a world, need to use fossil fuels responsibiliy. I don't think Ayn would have a problem with that, or are you saying that Ayn promotes irresponsibility?
Morality is for sisses.
It's certainly interesting that the fact that the "world" needs to use fossil fuels responsibly seems to eliminate the need for the individual pushing the idea (Gore) to use fossil fuels responsibly. This is true of all COLLECTIVE goals. There's no need for the INDIVIDUAL to make a well-reasoned decision on anything.
FWIW, Rand would certainly not be opposed to R&D on PV cells, wind energy, hybrid vehicles, etc. Would also not be opposed to industries (or individuals) finding ways to minimize energy inputs (which they do) to cut costs. Would also not be opposed to exploration for other drilling locations, etc. Would also not be opposed to an individual deciding that he didn't want to let the oil company onto his property to drill for the last drop of oil on the planet, because he found more market potential in the trees above it which would have to come down to build the oil infrastructure. She would have a problem with the collective imposing any of these decisions on that individual - there's NO responsibility in that.
If he believed what he said he would consume less energy because the more energy he consumes, the more CO2 goes into the atmosphere.
Of course the world needs individuals to show leadership. It is always the great leaders who make great changes. Why? Because the collective cannot make the bold decisions necessary for change. Collectives suffer from fear of failure, and they oppose change. From what your are saying it appears that you are against the legality of corporations since they are a collective but exist as an individual merely because of a legal fiction. And yet they are responsible for the advancement of science and technology that we see today. So randerizer, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
The collective will always impose its will on the individual because that is what collectives do. Society has rules and regulations which indviduals have to obey.
Big difference between a corporation and government. They serve completely different moral roles.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote