City Slickers

News & Analysis
In the News Gristmill Blog Muckraker Podcast Features

Columns
Ask Umbra Victual Reality Weekly Recipes The Bottom Line From A to Green The Grist List

Support nonprofit, independent environmental journalism.
Donate to Grist.

ADVERTISING POLICY

[Advanced]

Read more about: news | oil and gas drilling | United States | all of these topics

Tools: print | email | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS

High oil prices revive urban oil drilling

Posted at 7:55 AM on 21 Mar 2008

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

ADVERTISING POLICY

< Previous | Next >

Comments: (7 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Lap It Up

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.

by jabailo at 8:48 AM on 21 Mar 2008

This Is Good News

Urban areas are where oil drilling SHOULD take place if it takes place at all. Those who benefit from this ecocidal product should bear the brunt of the harms it causes, and most humans in the U.S. live in cities and suburbs.

by Wolverine at 1:14 PM on 21 Mar 2008

Carbon Footprint

The average urban dweller has a much smaller carbon footprint than the rural. So how about some love?

by eutopianow at 6:15 PM on 21 Mar 2008

Not Urban v. Rural People

The ones who suffer most from human use of petroleum are the non-humans, including the land, air, and water. If it were just a matter of how to drill with the least impact on humans, then of course drilling should be done as far from most people as possible. But humans are only one form of life, and not the ones impacted the most by oil drilling. By drilling in urban areas, maybe humans can get a small idea of the ecological destruction they are wreaking by doing things like driving.

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.

by Wolverine at 10:28 AM on 22 Mar 2008

Not Urban v. Rural People

>> "[t]he average urban dweller has a much smaller carbon footprint than the rural." What is your evidence of this?

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.

The future is a work of fiction that we write.

by stv57 at 10:46 AM on 22 Mar 2008

Urban exploration for oil/gas

I remember teaching at Texas A&M in the early '80's and seeing drilling rigs between campus buildings: the focus was on production, not research.

|-|-|--|---|-----|--------|-------------|... (The fibber's notchy pipe line.) When did the Age of Aquarius become the Age of Acquire-us?

by jimhadden at 12:51 AM on 23 Mar 2008

Urban v. Rural

First and foremost, a carbon footprint is not at all indicative of overall environmental harm or friendliness; it's only a measure of one type of harm. This thread is about oil, not the carbon footprint of a home or anything else.

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.

by Wolverine at 9:38 AM on 23 Mar 2008

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?