Petition to protect or coast

i dont know enough to weigh in on the environmental impacts, but one concern that will surely be ignored is the impact on surf. Depending on where they put the drilling stations and how much space they take up may impact surf breaks.

Like I said though, none of the majority cares about that.

 

True. No doubt it would be ignored, which is unfortunate for us. That being said, I'm not sure a drilling platform 20 miles off the coast would impact surf, but your right, no one is going to study that.

 

Is LNG cryogenically maintained when it trvavels through the underwater pipes?

 

could it really mess surf up that badly??? i mean im all for the environment ....but waves too...im not sure which way to lean because i dont know enough on how much the platform would really impact the waves

 

i don't know anything about the structures, but I would guess it would have breakwater characteristics on the swell. So, how much surf is effected would be dependent on the size of the structure.

 

It has to be to be in a liquid state and even if it is gaseous there can be no 'spill'. If you stop the hysterics and stick to facts you make a much better case.

 

start a revolt

You know what sucks. I HATE the fact that every aspect of each and everyone of our lives is dependent on energy and transportation. EVERYTHING. Even the board that you ride, the board that takes your mind to the highest states, was made in some polluting factory and shipped to your shop using dozens of gallons of dirty oil. No one can dispute that without energy and transportation we would be f*****. BUT it's time to change the energy that we use to more reusable and LESS POLLUTING sources. . .solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear. I don't see how spending billions of dollars in wars thousands of miles away is getting us there, I don't see how subsidizing oil companies is going to get us there, I don't see how allowing gas giants to merge is going to get us there, I don't see how powerful people in the oil industry leaving their posts to take up powerful politcal positions are going to get us there, I don't see how NASA wasting billions of dollars on going back to the moon is going to get us there, and I don't see how building more infrastructure off the monmouth county coastline is going to get us there.

 

'I don't see how NASA wasting billions of dollars on going back to the moon is going to get us there'

Ever hear of Helium 3?

Plus there are already problems with wind in that nobody wants the winds farms anywhere near them!

I would imaging the same issues would apply to solar.

You have to deal with REALITY. alternative sources are great but take time to develop. So to give that time with the least disruption to society the only real option is to expand fossil fuel development.

 

I think you've got the right idea ritecoastsurfer, but unfortunately that's the world we live in. Not to mention, none of those changes we need to happen can happen overnight. We still need fuel in the interim. On that same note, important to realistically consider things before assuming and jumping to conclusions, such as with offshore oil drilling. It's not always bad. I still haven't seen any facts on this one, so it could be bad, but just saying, it's not always...

 

so many problems so little time

if our world ran off of totally non-polluting renewable energy that would be great but not feasible anytime soon, if it ran mostly off of renewable energy and still supplemented with fossil fuels that would be the country and world id like to live in and throwing out boatloads of money on r&d and feasibility studies and engineering and construction of ANOTHER fossil fuel facility is just reaffirming the fact that we will be using fossil fuels for a long time. . .my gripe with nasa and the wars(besides all other terrible consequences) and oil subsidies is just that our government is just throwing money away at the staus quo and not giving enough funding for what will be the "most important task of our time" which is "energy independence" and clean energy . . .find a way to reduce fossil feul consumption for the masses and we won't be having this discussion at all. . .portugal will have fueling stations for electric cars all throughout it's country in the next few years and here in american government and corporations will be drilling and drilling. . .the time is now. .

 

But the electricity has to come from SOMEWHERE and you can't compare a small country like portugal to the US. The driving distances here make electric cars impractical for the short term. Plus you have all those super toxic batteries to contend with at some point.Then you factor in politics which really screws up the issue!

 

I completely agree with you ritecoast. Completely. Unfortunately that's not the reality though, which sucks.

 

I'm not sure what the point is here, but we don't have the spare acre-age nor the conditions to grow sugar cane as Brazil does (which is why we are using Corn ethanol). Not to mention the fact that Brazil is routinely destroying rain forests and other farmland to plant additional sugar cane. It is harming the environment far more than it is helping it.

I agree with your other points about being spoiled, but so many people are misinformed about the fuel situation. Especially with biofuels.

 

The messed up thing about Brazilian sugar cane ethanol is that it is MUCH more efficient and cheap to make than corn based ethanol. So what do we do? Tariff the imported ethanol from Brazil so it costs as much as the corn based ethanol (price supports for midwestern US corn farmers). So as a result, the ethanol costs more, and corn based food products cost more. But hey! gotta win that first primary in Iowa! I guess if New Hampshire voted first we'd all be buying $5 ethanol made from Maple syrup. But none of that Brazilian ****!

 

Why do you think our food costs have been rising so rapidly lately? Because of the use of corn and sugar cane based ethanol. Since these forms of agriculture are more profitable, farmers are switching from soybeans, wheat, barley, etc. to corn and sugar cane (in other countries).

A couple of facts I read in a recent TIME mag:

-The amount of corn it takes to make 1 tank of ethanol gas for a standard SUV could feed 1 person for an entire year.

-In 2007 alone, the amount of rainforests cleared/razed/destroyed by Brazil was equivalent to an area the size of Rhode Island.

 

Yep! Very true you guys. Yay politics!

 

the reason we put the tariffs on the sugar cane ethanol is so the american corn producers can stay in business. if we were to import sugar can ethanol we the consumers would buy the suger ethanol over the corn ethanol because it is cheaper; thus, causing corn producers to go out of business causing many to lose their jobs therefore hurting the economy overall. not only that but once the corn producers go out of business the brazilians would have somewhat of a monopoly on ethanol and would be able to raise prices because the demand for the ethano would increase greatly. although, if we did import sugar cane from brazil it would introduce other factories such as candy factories to the united states possibly filling in the lost jobs

 

Thats rediculous...

 

Candy Factories? I forgot there was that much demand for candy in the world... even more so than corn.