California electrical shortage audio

Chriskh, man are you SERIOUSLY misinformed. I am a physicist and geochemist by training. I worked for a major oil and gas research group over the past decade, mostly developing new ways (e.g., diagenetic modeling and well log analysis methods) to predict the locations of previously unknown oil and gas deposits, and also researching means such as CO2 injection to enhance production from tapped out fields (even after a field is tapped out, there is still a lot of oil left in the ground -- when it takes a barrel's worth of energy to get a barrel out of the ground, pumping is no longer worthwhile). It's largely because of this kind of research that a gallon of gas still costs less than a gallon of milk. I now work for and environmental organization dealing with ecological problems in the Rocky Mountain region, some of which are being caused by oil and gas field development. So that makes me one of the "environmentalists" you seem to want to blame for all your problems. Here is a little factual information in response to your baseless claim that "environmental wacko's" don't let oil companies "drill for oil anywhere" and are responsible for the high price of gas. First, nearly all the U.S. fields that had significant oil deposits have already been drilled and tapped out; the remaining fields are typically much smaller, deeper, and thus more costly to locate, drill and put into production. This is the main reason for low U.S. production. The second factor is price. When oil dips below $22 barrel or so (controlled entirely by global supply), it is no longer cost effective for oil companies to drill new wildcat or exploratory wells or to pay for seismic shots, core and well-log analysis (e.g, gamma ray, porosity, conductivity), and other research needed to help find new fields in the U.S. It is a lot cheaper for them to simply import oil from somewhere outside the U.S. where huge oil fields are already known to exist close to the surface. Check the U.S. rig count figures over the years and try to correlate them with oil price and environmental regulations -- you'll find the environmental regs have nothing to do with the level of U.S. drilling activity; it is entirely price-driven. Third, contrary to your claim, the vast majority of lands in the U.S. are actually open to oil & gas development right now, and they will remain so. A very small percentage of sensitive lands (e.g., lakes, wetlands, scenic areas, historic sites, etc.) presently have "no surface occupancy" stipulations which do not allow for drilling on-site but do allow directional drilling from outside the area. Another small percentage of land in the U.S. has been deemed so special it has been designated "wilderness" and is off limits to drilling. However, the vast majority of wilderness areas are "rock & ice" (i.e., high elevation alpine areas) and don't have any hydrocarbon recovery potential. (Essentially all oil & gas deposits are found in the sedimentary basins between mountain ranges, i.e., the same places where most highways are built.) For instance, the Bighorn Basin and Thunder Basin Grassland in Wyoming both have something like 98% of their lands classifed as fully or seasonally open to oil & gas drilling, and the remaining 2% or so of the lands are NSO and can be drilled directionally from off-site. The 60 million acres of land you refer to are "roadless areas" that have remained roadless over the past century of rampant development largely because they lack appreciable natural resources and are inaccessible. The few roadless areas that have oil and gas resources can still be drilled directionally. This policy won't "screw us in the future" as you claim. It is also worth pointing out that over a million people commented in support of Clinton's policy to protect these special areas -- more public comment than was submitted on any federal proposal in history. Maybe you think public comment shouldn't be used to decide how to manage the public's resources. Finally, I will add that there are, in fact, thousands and thousands of new oil and gas wells being drilled in the U.S. each year, with thousands of miles roads, powerlines, and pipelines to support this fast-paced development. For instance, in the Powder River Basin of NE Wyoming, some 5,000 new coalbed methane (CBM) wells have been built in the past few years, and another 5,000-10,000 wells are anticipated in the next 5 years. In the basins of SW Wyoming, 5,000-10,000 new oil and gas wells are also planned for construction, along with a host of new roads, etc. If you want to confirm these figures, I encourage you to call the Wyoming Oil and Gas Commission or the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in Rock Springs, Wyoming. In any case, you are just plain wrong to say that oil companies are not being allowed to drill anywhere; they are allowed to drill practically everywhere, and they are taking full advantage of it. If you're pissed off about the price of gas, blame OPEC for tightening its taps; blame U.S. oil companies for overcharging you and for tapping out our reserves when oil wasn't worth much; blame utility companies for poor management and for not being prepared for such a cold winter; blame Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan for not establishing sensible energy policies over the past 2 decades; blame the people of the U.S. for wasting $2 billion a year on needless nighttime lighting; or blame all those people who bought gas-guzzling SUVs, knowing full-well that oil is a finite, non-renewable resources. Just don't blame the handful of good people who are trying to keep a few places wild and beautiful for your children to enjoy. Since you are an audiophile, I would assume you also have a great appreciation for things of beauty, so I can't really understand why you seem to hate environmentalists. "Kill an Environmentalist"? I won't wish bad things on you -- it sounds like you've got a serious bout of ignorance to deal with already which is one of the worst curses of all. Fortunately, though, it's curable, but it will take some work on your part. You can start by actually researching the issues before you mouth off and try to incite others. In the mean time, please don't spew your baseless, inflamatory B.S. on this website -- especially under the guise of setting "some facts straight." Don

Ahhhhh. Catharsis.

Chriskh, I would beg to differ with you on what a brownout is. I have been involved with power generation for 15 years, operated a large utility base load generating station, am somewhat familiar with the agreements that utilities and regional power dispatchers utilize in the event of power shortfalls, and have in fact been working during periods when actions have been taken in accordance with such agreements . What you refer to a "brownout" is really a reduction based upon contractual agreement between commercial and industrial customers and their utility companies, or in some cases simply voluntary reductions to ease the grid load. Some industrial and commercial companies, in return for rate compensation, are contractually required to completely shutdown production during periods when load demand exceeds production. The colloquial term "brownout" applies to various stages of grid voltage reduction mandated by the governing agreements between the utility power generators and regional or local distribution organizations. The reductions occur in steps to limit the effect on end users, and if not successful in preventing demand from exceeding generating capacity, could result in local rolling blackouts to reduce demand to a manageable level. This step prevents uncontrolled blackouts resulting from extended long-term generation and demand mismatches. The New York City blackout is an example of what can happen during long-term mismatches, and while the cause of that problem had nothing to do with regional mismatches, the results were in fact the same. The New York City blackout caused national and regional distribution organizations to re-think and change their management strategies to deal with such problems.

don - thank you, *Thank You*, THANK YOU!!! :>)

Djjd, I would like to add another group of folks to your list that deserve some blame as well. Not that you really need many more, but I think one group of folks should get the finger pointed at them. I am talking about us. We are all partly responsible for the power shortfalls occurring in Ca. In our zeal to deregulate the electric utility industry, we overlooked the fact that if utilities are not lawfully mandated to ensure that sufficient power does and will exist it may not. Simply believing that if the demand is there, the desire of utilities to make money will ensure that supply will match it is flawed. Utilities found that more money can be made, with lower capital investment and greater profit margins simply by operating distribution and supply, rather than generation. Quite a few smaller companies simply wish to be in the “wires” business, selling or closing generating facilities while they can still recoup their capital investments through the present regulatory structure by passing it along to customers. A lot of companies simply don’t wish to take the risk that the fluctuating natural gas and oil prices may have on their return, and simply aren’t taking the plunge into huge capital investments that base load generating facilities require. Because of the political climate, companies are not building large nuclear facilities, and probably won’t for quite a few years to come. The deregulation of the utility industry hasn’t struck the country as hard as it has in Ca., but IMHO it’s coming.

I said that we, us, Joe and Jane Blow, should partly accept the responsibility because I believe we didn’t do our homework when we allowed our elected officials to pass laws permitting deregulation. Many people surely believed the hype that it would result in lower electric rates. When? In 10 years? 20? Doesn’t do many people in Ca. and the pacific northwest much good now. Did deregulation of the airline industry in the United States result in lower fares and safer travel? My opinion would be no to both. Anti-trust laws did in Ma Bell, but has phone service improved; have rates lowered; can you get anyone to come to your house to fix the service your dog chewed through without paying a premium for it? Stand by for Microsoft. It will truly surprise me if the breakup promotes competition, improves the computer industry, or makes anything cheaper. Don’t get me wrong. I love capitalistic free enterprise. I just don’t believe that we as consumers should chew on whatever our elected officials serve up. Climbing down off the soap box.

My opinion, for what it’s worth.