The high price of oil has spurred many drillers to revisit formerly abandoned wells all over the country, including some in towns and cities. Suburban developments that have sprung up near old wells abandoned years ago are seeing oil drillers returning to their old 'hood, often using new techniques to extract every drop of oil possible. Even wells that will only produce five or so barrels of oil a day are being reopened due the high price of crude. Drillers are finding opposition from nearby residents and homeowners worried about noise, pollution, and the safety of old wells.
source: Associated Press
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
Delay And Deny Posted 1:48 am
21 Mar 2008
http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=6769
But it turns out that America may be sitting on a huge, 200 billion barrel oil field that has gone unnoticed and could make us energy independent.
New drilling technology could make it possible to pump the oil from the Bakken Formation, which covers North Dakota and parts of South Dakota and Montana.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 6:14 am
21 Mar 2008
Permalink
eutopianow Posted 11:15 am
21 Mar 2008
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 3:28 am
22 Mar 2008
Also, I don't agree that "[t]he average urban dweller has a much smaller carbon footprint than the rural." What is your evidence of this? Remember, if you consume products, you are at least partially responsible for all the harms caused in the creation of those products, and urbanites consume quite a bit. Additionally, most urban people drive, with the possible exception of New York City, and driving is one of the most environmentally destructive unnatural activities a person can do. With those facts in mind, I await your response.
Permalink
stv57 Posted 3:46 am
22 Mar 2008
The following website lists a state by state comparison of per capita carbon footprints. Those with the highest footprints are some of those states with the most rural populations.
http://www.eredux.com/states
Consider that housing costs per square foot are much higher in cities than in rural areas. Therefore more people live in smaller condos and apartments than in large single family homes. The density of population also makes mass transit economically viable. Not just NY, but also here in Chicago.
Permalink
jimhadden Posted 5:51 pm
22 Mar 2008
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 2:38 am
23 Mar 2008
A generalization of carbon footprints of states by how much urban and rural population they have shows nothing. Some rural people live in large houses, but so do some urban people. Most rural people are poor and live in modest sized homes. It is true that modern rural people drive a lot, because everything is far away, but urbanites often commute long distances to get to work, school, and shopping. And being generally wealthier, urbanites also consume more than rural people, thereby causing more environmental and ecological harms.
The point is that no one in the U.S. beside street people is innocent of consuming oil, though those who don't own cars, don't otherwise consume a lot, and don't work for industries that promote unnecessary consumption aren't responsible for much. Again, most people in the U.S. live in urban areas, which are already ecologically destroyed anyway. For both of those reasons, that's where oil extraction and refining should take place.
Permalink