 |
HACKED BY CYBER-ATTACK - ALPERENBTN HACKED BY CYBER-ATTACK - ALPERENBTN
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tyler Site Admin

Joined: 09 Aug 2004 Posts: 954 Location: Corpus Christi
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 12:05 pm Post subject: More Than That |
|
|
Actually, the PINS's November 2004 Environmental Assessment says we may expect more than just those 5 wells to commence this winter and spring. The 5 the linked article mentions are just those at the Dunn-Peach site, which is accessed off the beach at MP 6.9. Also discussed briefly in the EA are the 2 wells, Lemon and Lemon Seed, which the PINS previously authorized at MP 12.5, and another well called the Novus Manzano, which would be somewhere near the Dunn-Peach wells. Although the latest EA has a picture of the Dunn-Murdock #1 well on the current EA's cover, and the last EA for the first Dunn-Peach well discusses the possiblity of redrilling the Dunn-Murdock #1 well at Yarborough Pass (MP 15), the new EA doesn't say if or when that would happen. Anyway, look for 8, maybe 9 more drilling operations over the next few months, and all kinds of big rigs on the beach as a result.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rabbit Member Order of The White Shrimper Boots

Joined: 11 Aug 2004 Posts: 715 Location: Flour Bluff
|
Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think the item I read said the US uses 1 billion cubic feet of gas a day and the gas under the island was supose to amount to about 1 million cubic feet. Either these figures were wrong or somebodys spending a lot of money for less than one days worth of gas.  _________________ Fishing and Kayaking its a rough life but somebody has to do it.
  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
FlakMan Honorary Bluffian
Joined: 11 Aug 2004 Posts: 257 Location: Portland, Texas
|
Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 12:27 pm Post subject: USA Gas Usage and PINS Gas Reserves |
|
|
The USA currently uses 21.9 Tcf (that's trillions of ft3) of gas per year. On the streets here in Corpus BNP has not found anything significant yet. They have lost significant $$ so far. I expect they will be luckly to find 10 to 20 Bcf (billions of ft3).
One thing to remember. The federal government did not buy the minerals just the land. BNP has the right to drill these wells as long as they do it responsibly. _________________ Ahh sand between my toes! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bluffer Member Order of The White Shrimper Boots

Joined: 15 Aug 2004 Posts: 780 Location: The Bluff...Anyone wanna buy some fresh shrimp?
|
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Im 4 it, we need to utilize the resources we have right here in TX. EPA stronger than ever on polluting. _________________ Fish hard, fish the Bluff. Surrounded by water!
-A quaint little drinking village with a fishing problem-
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cjlandry Horse Mullet

Joined: 07 Sep 2004 Posts: 279 Location: Corpus Christi, TX
|
Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Everyone do us all a favor and post any problems you see with the drilling operations.
I've been involved first-hand with keeping drilling operations clean in Wildlife Refuges and other sensitive habitats, and I'm proud to have been a part of it. I've been in the oilfield for many, many years and the U.S. operations are the cleanest in the world.
I'm in Egypt as I type this, and these ****s could learn a lot about environmentally responsible drilling from Americans.
And don't forget that most Oilfield employees, from the highest executives to the roughnecks who do the dirty work, love fishing and hunting as much as we do. Don't let CNN and other media outlets tell you otherwise. _________________ Chad Landry
"Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 10:38 am Post subject: No Bad Words for Wells |
|
|
cjlandry, I hear you. I was a mudlogger for Baroid on wells all around South Texas before taking a job with the Bureau of Natural Gas at what is now the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, for which I wrote EISs on natural gas gathering and transportation systems and LNG plants. Later, during 23 years with the USFWS, I reviewed hundreds of well applications, including those drilled on wildlife refuges and all over the bays. These wells did some damage to the environment, but nearly everyone cooperated, from the roughnecks to the CEOs and bureaucrats, to limit that damage and to clean up afterwards. The expectation is that BNG and the PINS will try just as hard to do the same with every well at the National Seashore.
My unresolved issue with the PINS drilling is with driving along the beach to get to the wells, not with the wells themselves, much less with letting BNG deliver the much-needed gas to this country and share some of the profits with the private mineral owners and Texas' schools. Connecting and extending the existing roads behind the dunes, while undoubtably causing environmental damage that must be minimized and mitigated just like at the well sites, seems a reasonable tradeoff for keeping the beach safe for enjoyment by visitors, human as well as endangered wildlife. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
FlakMan Honorary Bluffian
Joined: 11 Aug 2004 Posts: 257 Location: Portland, Texas
|
Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 1:03 pm Post subject: PINS Drilling Access |
|
|
If BNP cannot drive behind the dunes it is only becuase they are forced to drive on the beach. I expect the many regulatory offices that BNP must comply with will not allow behind the duneline access likely because of "wetlands" issues. _________________ Ahh sand between my toes! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 2:43 pm Post subject: One of Several Reasons |
|
|
FlakMan, wetland issues are indeed raised in the PINS Environmental Assessments among the excuses it gives for not giving the off-beach alternative what is known in the courts as a "hard look." Wetland issues are hardly unique; every Corps of Engineers well permit I ever reviewed for the FWS had to have wetland and/or navigable waters issues in order for that agency to have permit jurisdiction over them. In fact, well access roads and pipeline routes impact wetlands so routinely that the Corps issued Nationwide Permits for handling many of them without the public ever knowing; the existing and proposed BNG operations at PINS use these, for example, because, guess what, they impact wetlands, too.
What I keep doing when I comment to PINS on its EAs is to point out that despite several problems, like wetland impacts, to be overcome, there are advantages to the back-dune alternative that more than offset the unavoidable disadvantages, such as scaring the kids, turning off the tourists and crushing sea turtle eggs, of driving on the beach. Until the PINS completes an EA describing in detail and showing on a map where a reasonable attempt has been made to find a back-dune route that avoids wetlands and mitigates their loss to the extent practicable, just like any Corps-permitted well elsewhere would, I'm not going to stop questioning the excuses. One of these days, PINS may stop dismissing the alternative before giving it the serious consideration (that "hard look") the law requires.
This is such a complex and important issue that I don't want to hog the board further. Please continue to send in your comments to this forum, and try to get a look at the November 2004 EA so you can comment directly to PINS on that. Drop a request to my addy and I'll send you a copy of what I sent PINS this last go-round. jfrench@stx.rr.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|