Trump Order Helps Offshore Drilling, Stops Marine Sanctuary Expansion (arstechnica.com) 163
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: In an executive order signed on Friday, President Trump directed his secretary of the interior to review current rules on offshore drilling and exploration. This review is likely to result in a relaxation of the strict protections the previous administration put on offshore oil drilling in the Atlantic and in the Arctic. According to the Washington Post, a review of the rules is likely to "make millions of acres of federal waters eligible for oil and gas leasing." At the same time, Trump's executive order directed the secretary of commerce to cease designating new marine sanctuaries or expanding any that already exist. According to USA Today, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross is also "directed to review all designations and expansions of marine monuments or sanctuaries designated under the Antiquities Act within the last 10 years." The Post says this "includes Hawaii's Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, which Obama quadrupled in size last year, and the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts off Massachusetts." Although these reviews could take some time to complete, they put in motion a bid to favor extraction industries like oil and gas mining. "Today, we're unleashing American energy and clearing the way for thousands and thousands of high-paying energy jobs," Trump reportedly told the Associated Press.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, less and less ruffnecks (actually, the motorman would be doing it) know how to spin the chain because of those so call "ironruffnecks".
Re: (Score:2)
I had a crazy driller once. Instead of using 2 tongs to break the joint between pipes while pulling out, he'd only use one combined with the torque of the rotary table.
God, we broke all records with regards to efficiently pulling out.
The iron ruffnecks are almost an order of magnitude less efficient in term of speed.
Anyway, sure it makes workers safer and I have nothing against it.
We sure had to keep our heads down and hope for the best when the backup cable tied to the A-leg was handling all the load of br
Re: (Score:2)
Breaking out with the rotary motor only works if you've got more than about 300ft of pipe in the hole. Above that, you'll spin the slips on the pipe or on the bushing - neither of which is good for the pipe or the bushing. On the pipe you'll increase the likelihood of washing o
Re: (Score:2)
What about drill collars? They are much heavier than 10 pipes (300 feet of pipe)...
So I guess what you are saying depends on the weight of collars in the string.
Anyway, I already said that driller was crazy. Once, he got caught doing it by the toolpusher who ordered him to quit doing it and I was quite happy about that because if the backup cable tying the tong to the A-leg broke, we would have ended up with a flying tong revolving on the floor and killing everything in its path.
Re: (Score:2)
Typo. I should have typed "3000 ft." But it is that long since I saw (or cared much) about the practice that my memory may be fading.
Yes, weight of pipe in the string is the critical point. (Or it was when you had drillers who were allowed to do such things. Decades ago, or 5 years in Korea.) But by the time you get into the collars there isn't enough weight to the string to keep it locked in the slips.
Why isn't it allowed
Re: (Score:2)
(For those who don't know, the "spinning chain" technique cost an awful lot of people several joints off the tips of their fingers. That's why "iron roughnecks" - machines for torquing up and breaking out pipe connections - were invented.)
Re: (Score:2)
How many times have you spun a chain? I am just curious. Anyway, I have several times and I am wondering how you could cut a finger spinning a chain unless you intended to. On the other hand, I have seen injuries when the motorman would lose grip on the chain and we basically ended up with a flying chain whip flying around the drilling floor potentially making several rotation around the pipe thus several pass around our heads.
Basic move to avoid getting hit; crawl on the floor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
hehe! I just realized, FYI, it is spelled: "ruffnecks".
Re: (Score:2)
Not in Britain, Norway, Tanzania, Abu Dhabi, Russia, Korea, Holland or Canada. Or Benin, Gabon or Turkey. Where are you typing? Oh, I forgot Azerbaijan. And Ireland.
Re:Drill baby drill (Score:5, Insightful)
Offshore drilling is dying.
It is not because of regulation or marine sanctuaries.
It is because of fracking.
Offshore drilling is hecka expensive, with huge liabilities if something goes wrong.
Deepwater Horizon ended up costing $62 Billion [usatoday.com].
It is way cheaper to park a fracking rig in a North Dakota wheatfield.
So once again, Trump is pushing policies that make no difference in the real world.
He isn't going to revive coal mining.
He isn't going to revive offshore drilling.
Re:Drill baby drill (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He's after the appearance of *trying* to bring jobs back. If he has that, he'll keep his supporters even if the jobs never come.
Up to a point, I expect; the need of a lot of people is very real to them, even if Trump doesn't really know or care, and at some point they will probably begin to realise that he simply isn't going to deliver. It will, of course, always be somebody else's fault, but how long can you really stretch that? Promises that never turn into reality become disappointments, and who knows how angry these people will be when they realise that they have been taken for a ride? Hopefully they will know who to take it out
Re: (Score:1)
he isn't going to live long enough to suffer the effects of any of his boneheaded decisions, either. so what does he care.. he's not just rich, but OLD, too...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Offshore drilling is dying.
It is not because of regulation or marine sanctuaries.
It is because of fracking.
Offshore drilling is hecka expensive, with huge liabilities if something goes wrong.
Deepwater Horizon ended up costing $62 Billion [usatoday.com].
It is way cheaper to park a fracking rig in a North Dakota wheatfield.
What makes you think Trump isn't going to make short work with the huge liabilities? That way, the companies earn more when things go well and everybody pays when things go bad, the net effect being a diffusion from the pockets of the poor into the pockets of the rich. Which is what Trump stands for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You have simplified a lot of very very complex topics.
Offshore drilling is cheap as chips. Offshore drilling in incredibly deep water with unfavourable geology is expensive. Things constantly go wrong in offshore drilling. Barely a week goes by without another leak, spill or something. The difference is it rarely happens in the way that deepwater horizon did with known failsafe systems having previously unknown failure modes, and its worth remembering that this happened to the deepest offshore drilling well
Re: (Score:2)
As a gay miner, can confirm. Drilling holes of all types is always fun and arousing!
Re: Drill baby drill (Score:2)
Your momma said the same thing last night!
Okay. How about off Florida? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there oil off the coast of Mar-a-Lago? Trump pitched a fit [bbc.com] about a wind farm off the coast of Scotland near his golf course there. Wonder how he'd feel about a few oil drilling platforms or a spill?
Whoosh! (Score:1)
Idiot.
Thats just a stupid ass conspiracy theory. I bet you believe we didn't land on the moon too. Or Bush did 9/11 (oh wait, maybe not that one because it was by a republican lol)
Whoosh!
Re: (Score:1)
You should check out the recent rolling stone review (i.e. not a conservative "rag" or whatever) where her aides and supporters could not answer the question of why Hillary should be running.
Not casting doubt on the peculiarity of the DNC deaths right after the leaks, it's just that your point is out in the open.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there oil off the coast of Mar-a-Lago?
All wells drilled off Florida's east coast have been dry. There have been successful wells south of Florida, in the strait, and to the west in the Gulf of Mexico.
But Florida is a swing state, and it would be a political disaster to drill there. Instead, he can push drilling off the coast of Massachusetts, where he has nothing to lose, or in Alaska, which is so red that drilling is actually popular there. Alaska residents get an annual royalty check from their state government.
Re: (Score:2)
But Florida is a swing state, and it would be a political disaster to drill there.
I don't know if that's true. Miami-Dade and anything south is overwhelmingly blue. Drilling south of Miami or the keys won't change any hearts or minds.
Someone explain the actual economics to Dumpy (Score:1)
Not being able to drill for enough oil really isn't the problem with America's economy. Someone should tell this fucking idiot.
We deserve Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
You bet we did.... thank god every day that Hillary is not in power.
All the energy workers that moved to the NE in the last 8 years... (Pennsylvania) won the election for Trump.
We didn't vote for him (Score:1)
He wasn't the person chosen by 'we the people'. So all the "America deserve this"/ "this is what America has come to"/ "blame ourselves" bullshit, that's *not* what America is.
It's not even what the Republican party is. They were hijacked too. A combination of their rule rigging (remember the 2012 Teleprompter "the ayes have it"?). And the endless voter disenfranchisement and gerrymandering, means they don't have a solid majority to keep them pro-America.
At times, you could watch Fox and turn over to Russia
Re: (Score:2)
Tillerson is downsizing State Department employees by 9%. It's a start.
Re: (Score:2)
But Trump has proposed increasing the military budget by $54 billion (to $639B) which is more that the state department's entire budget, including all foreign aid. People keep electing republicans because they say they'll shrink the government but history has shown it never happens. If anything, republicans spend MORE than democrats but are less likely to pay for it. Just like today, where Trump has proposed a massive tax cut (mostly for the wealthy) while simultaneously proposing increased spending. Wh
Re:We deserve Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
You know that, right? We wanted this. Wanted the chaos. God help us all.
I wanted Bernie but was willing to settle for Hillary. I did not want this, the people who voted for Trump wanted this.
Re: (Score:2)
Bernie seemed good, but I had no interest in Hillary or Trump. Those of you who were willing to "settle" for Hillary bear some responsibility for this, too. She was a terrible candidate is probably the only person who could have lost to Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Those of you who were willing to "settle" for Hillary bear some responsibility for this, too.
That is one very dumb argument because "no, I'll vote for Bernie even if he's not the party candidate," or "I rather not vote than vote for Hillary," only results in a higher chance of Trump being elected in your district. Perhaps you don't know how the mathematics of elections work. I'm not saying I like it, I'm just saying how it is.
Purely symbolic (Score:3)
At $45 / bbl who is going to be doing any offshore exploring?
Re: (Score:2)
Exxon, Shell, BP, the list goes on. Just open a newspaper dedicated to the industry to see how investments in deep water are continuing. Exxon only awarded a contract to start on the Lisa deep-water field 3 days ago. BP announced a go ahead for Mad Dog Phase 2 (in the Gulf), Shell only just started up a new field in December and only 2 weeks ago Shell announced $13billion investment in a new deep-water field in Nigeria, that came hot on the heels of approving capital for the development of the Ursa basin (i
Re: (Score:1)
All you have to do is set yourself to -1 and you will experience /. in all its glory. Why is an overhaul needed? The answer is before your eyes and you still want to ignore it? Perhaps some inward soul searching is in order? For example, why would you want others to filter content that you are perfectly capable of filtering yourself?
Re: (Score:2)
For example, it is pretty obvious that any post that contains "SJW" or "snowflake" is not worth reading. People who use those terms put no thoughts into their posts and only spew out the hatred they hear from the like of Limbaugh and O'Reilly.
The Idiot and Chief (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change is behind quite a few of the wars in the Arab regions
SHUSH! That's not an argument against in their book, fool. Remember, we spend a shitload on "aid" to Israel which is spent keeping down the Palestinians. Our government does not want stability in the middle east any more than it wants it in Mexico.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds familiar (Score:1)
Like when Obama expanded offshore drilling (before the Deepwater Horizon disaster):
http://www.politico.com/story/2010/03/obama-expands-offshore-drilling-035223
RTFA -------- (Score:2)
Good (Score:1)
Re: Nice try Slashdot (Score:1, Insightful)
No.
This is very important. This is pushing is one step closer to environmental destruction. No more marine life, just so some oil companies can get richer even faster.
This is important.
And fuck Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear only looks cost-effective when propped up by large government subsidies and allowing the environmental impact to be someone else's problem.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was the right-wingers who were trying to prevent aid money from going for family planning?
Re: Nice try Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Because nearly everything he does is harmful to humanity in some way. Thats why.
Re: Nice try Slashdot (Score:1)
Trump bashing is important to help the people. Help the people.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Is there any lasting damage from Deepwater Horizon? No, not really. Nothing that anyone can easily point to. It was a worst case scenario come true, and a few years later you have to look really hard for evidence it happened at all.
That's the reality. Does the reality matter at all?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow you managed to respond to the wrong post or are mentally deficient. Either way, your post made no sense in regard to the discussion you replied to.
Re: (Score:3)
... Jim Web, left the race rather than take part in that sham.
Jim Webb didn't leave the race because of his "high principles". He left race because he had 1% if the vote.
Years ago, Webb actively campaigned to have women kicked out of the service academies. He resigned as Reagan's Secretary of the Navy because he wanted more money to buy even more weapons that we didn't need. And this guy expected to be elected by Democratic primary voters? He was in the wrong party.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Obama actually did set aside large areas of endangered habitat from such destructive activities - Like the arctic, a perfect example. Trump has no understanding of why Obama did that, only that BECAUSE Obama did that, it must be his retarded life mission to overturn that to please his moronic base, cost be damned.
And you fell for it? How? Seriously, you can't be stupid enough to try to compare Obama's record to Trumpy's can you? Honestly, lol.
Say what you will about Obama, mention every single failure f
Re: (Score:3)
Support freedom and US energy independence.
I support both things highly which is why we need to dump oil entirely. Solar, wind and nuclear (especially 4th gen reactors) could make us fully independent if we only invested in them.
Nuclear is stupid; here is why (Score:2)
I'm giving up moderating hoping to wake some people up.
1) Nuclear power takes 10+ years to build. This is fact not some next gen "in 5 years" magical nuclear power which can go from permit to power in a year. By the time they build nuclear power, the coal plants will have been running too long. Global warming has time limits... which we probably passed already (but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to minimize how much we are screwed.)
2) Solar is cheaper than nuclear, has been for years now. Wind I believe
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that the current reactor designs are not cost friendly which shouldn't be a surprise since they aren't designed that way. My interest is in the 4th gen reactors that congress refused the finance because it couldn't be used to make nuclear weapons. However, when you take radioactive materials out of the mix, you can make power generation totally autonomous and inexpensive.
Frankly, I would only want to keep nuclear around for the power hungry businesses and high density cities because if people had