California panel rejects new offshore...

California panel rejects new offshore oil drilling

There are 645 comments on the story from Jan 29, 2009, titled California panel rejects new offshore oil drilling. In it, reports that:

A state panel rejected a proposal Thursday that could have led to the first new oil drilling project off the California coast in 40 years.

Join the discussion below, or


Apopka, FL

#52 Jan 30, 2009
We don need no stinkin oil ... we got somthun called "alternatives" ... goin to be much better and make your car much faster ... these alternatives. Ya ... no more stinkin gas stations ... we goin have alternative stations.

“"I'm A Great American!"”

Since: Sep 08

Obama Nation! USA! USA!

#53 Jan 30, 2009
carey529 wrote:
<quoted text>
it may be the 5th largest economy, but, right now, they're, what $75 billion in debt, cancelling state income tax refunds and on the verge of taxing breathing!
the "braintrusts" in california have screwed the state blue, and with another blinding jab at intelligence and reason, they reject an opportunity to actually make some money while still devoting billions a year to help illegals...
why am i not surprised you agree with them?
Blue ain't so bad. California is 11th in the nation in per capita income. That's factoring in all the farm workers who don't make so much. The state with the lowest per capita income? You live there.

So keep talking about "intelligence and reason", and tell us what's "brilliant". If stupidity and nonsense could be exported, you'd be an economic engine.

Thanks for the laughs.
Federalist Papers

United States

#55 Jan 30, 2009
PooPoo Platter wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Consumer state? California consumes a great deal. But it also exports over $125 billion a year in goods and services. It has significant high tech and computer industry, aerospace, agriculture and wine production, entertainment and communications. Mississippi? Some agriculture. Some casinos. Nowhere near $125 billion in exports.
Water is a problem? California brings enough in, along with $125 billion in exports. Mississippi has that river, but natural resources don't necessarily translate into economic advantage, do they?
2) The house is not divided. There are a lot of malcontents who wish it was. Fortunately they are a tiny minority most Americans roll their eyes at and ignore.
It exports but does not produce that much. The fact is that you are taking a number that is a result of them having the shipping points for overseas. The large percentage of the $125 billion is not even produced in California, its just a waypoint leaving the country.

“Purple girl in a purple world”

Since: Apr 08

Plum, Purplonia

#56 Jan 30, 2009
Blackinjun wrote:
<quoted text>
don't mix culture with language...remember the mexicans are christian and love european spain.
Like you would know the difference, let alone comprehend what I was saying.

Houston, TX

#57 Jan 30, 2009
seedtick wrote:
<quoted text>
Add in the fields in the Bakersfield area...production is probably diminishing, but still a lot there. And, although it is expensive to refine, shale oil has great potential.
The other issue is refining capacity...California environmental rules drastically hurt it there. See the following story:
Many people are doing what they can to improve the development of new processes that will help us toward energy independance.
See the following:
Both of these two programs would not be possible in California. Maybe at the unversity level, but would be killed by liberals and environmentalists.
Arnold has been trying to cut spending, but the the liberal politicians kill any plan to cut social programs that demand more and more each year.
I truly believe that California has a lot to offer, but the focus there has nothing to do with helping the United States as a country.

The last data I have is from 2006. California produced 223,449 million barrels and the Alaskan North Slope, 264,225. Production has been declining in both areas. Texas produced 397,220 onshore and 474,000 were produced offshore in the gulf, nearly all off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas.

I don’t believe oil shale is found in California. Colorado is the state of greatest interest. Shell has been researching a new and novel method of producing a “crude substitute” quite similar to light, high quality crude from kerogen in oil shale but politics have again entered the game. The governor and one of the Colorado Senators have succeeded in getting new leases prohibited in the areas of greatest interest. Shell is getting “fed up” and may discontinue that expensive research.

“Did U plug the damn hole yet?”

Since: Jan 08

Dallas, TX

#58 Jan 30, 2009
BigDan wrote:
We should stop supplying them with electricity and oil.
There are still a lot of good people living in California.

It's too bad their state has been taken over by a bunch of raving lunatics.

Houston, TX

#59 Jan 30, 2009
Quite Frankly wrote:
There is a huge cache of oil underneath west central North Dakota, extending up into Canada. But its under a huge thick shale ceiling. They've already got some black gold out that has made some ranchers zillionaires.
Quite Frankly,

There is indeed a huge quantity of crude (and of natural gas as well) in those deposits. It is known as the Bakken for the man who first discovered it. However it is in what are known as “tight sands.” Until horizontal drilling was developed it was impossible to produce it at all—at least economically. Even WITH horizontal drilling the fraction that can be recovered is far lower than from the more porous sandstone. The oil companies have been aware of those deposits for years.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#60 Jan 30, 2009
Stop big oil business from hindering progress of efficient cars once and for all.

Portland, OR

#61 Jan 30, 2009
Dumbass Californians!

Do you think that they could get a buck or two royalties per barrel of oil? Wouldn't that help with their budget problems?

They deserve brown-outs!

Houston, TX

#62 Jan 30, 2009
Seeking Truth wrote:
Shine, Baby, Shine. Blow, Baby, Blow.
Harvest the sun and wind. Invest in hydrogen. STOP polluting GOD's creation.
Seeking Truth,

YOU invest in solar voltaic and hydrogen—I’ll stick to fossil fuels!

Solar voltaic is still FAR too expensive. NASA probably knows more about it than anyone else. The space station has those “wings” of solar cells. If I recall correctly they have an area of 27,000 square feet and produce enough electricity to supply 6 or 7 homes. And the space station is in sunlight about two thirds of the time while every place on earth is in sunlight only half of each year.

How do you propose to make hydrogen (much less store and distribute it)? Production today is nearly all from fossil fuels, either “on purpose” from natural gas or as a byproduct of gasoline production. Though it can be produced by hydrolysis that requires more electrical energy than is produced by burning the hydrogen and most electricity also is generated from burning fossil fuels.

Generation of electricity by wind power IS economically feasible when costs for fossil fuels reach the heights we’ve seen recently. Texas generates more than any other state. There are places where the land is relatively flat, there are few people and the wind blows rather consistently. T. Boone Pickens was prepared to invest in wind power when gas and crude prices were at their peak but wanted rights of eminent domain to run roughshod over property owners. Even he has “pulled back” since oil and gas prices declined. PETA objects since those wind turbines do kill birds and Ted Kennedy objected to a project in Hyannis because of noise.
Quite Frankly

Eden Prairie, MN

#64 Jan 30, 2009
Seeking Truth wrote:
Shine, Baby, Shine. Blow, Baby, Blow.
Harvest the sun and wind. Invest in hydrogen. STOP polluting GOD's creation.
Let the four winds blow,
let em blow blow blow
From east to west,
I love you the best.

{from a SKinny Dynamo song}
I AM A1ACharles Dammit

West Palm Beach, FL

#65 Jan 30, 2009
Say it ain't so!!!!

That oil was supposed to supply us with .00000345% of our energy needs for the next 10 years!!!

Are they crazy??!!

With that oil off the market be ready to pay a half cent for more gas is all I can say.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#67 Jan 30, 2009
Mothra wrote:
Dumbass Californians!
Do you think that they could get a buck or two royalties per barrel of oil? Wouldn't that help with their budget problems?
They deserve brown-outs!
Exactly...that's what your going to get when the oil fields dry up...we need to conserve whats left if we is a matter of direction not a buck or two.

Since: Dec 07

United States

#68 Jan 30, 2009
thought_police wrote:
"You KNOW without a doubt the videos are fake,right ??!!" - senior aerospace engineer Joseph Keith remarking on the Hezarkhani and other videos purporting to show "UA 175" penetrating the South Tower.
Joseph Keith is an idiot trying make a buck. You on the other hand, are just an idiot.
Quite Frankly

Eden Prairie, MN

#69 Jan 30, 2009
Oil is THEE energy source for motorized vehicles. Forget the bullshit wingdings that run on batteries or wind power.

There are huge oil fiends under USA soil. And private business men with hair on their asses and balls are going after it.
cali-dontCareAbo utTypos

Torrance, CA

#70 Jan 30, 2009
i cant think of onething the CA state govt isnt doing to cut us taxpays down at the knees in this recession.

were treated like credit cards no limit and the rates suck.

the ca govt is completely out of hand. how can they not know how to balance a budget. as taxpayers we really need to put our foot down and make the govt serve us again....

the dushbags in office will fight it....we just need to get a longer memory span and vote them out.

Since: Dec 07

United States

#71 Jan 30, 2009
Largest economies in the world.(Sorry everyone, wikipedia is all I could come up with.) I do think with it's problems, California may drop in a few years.
Al Bore

West Columbia, SC

#73 Jan 30, 2009
They dont need to drill....cause Osama will bail them out.
Charlie P

Detroit, MI

#74 Jan 30, 2009
Brilliant! There is no reason to try to get more oil when we have such a large abundance of it right there in the Saudi's back pocket. California is doing so well in their economy that they don't need any more cash flowing through.

No wait. It seems that Governor Arnold was recently crying about needing a bail out. It seems like he would be able to tell these limp wristed, tree hugging, squid sucking libs where to go. But then again, he wants to be as green as the earth and most likely believes all of the greenies about the dangers that oil drilling used to cause 50 years ago.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#75 Jan 30, 2009
Drill HERE Drill NOW wrote: =x71iZK5uW1EXX&feature=Pla yList&p=16D8C7A97B15E6FC &playnext=1&index=14
We have all the oil we need to be energy independent on our own soil!
Washington and Sacramento do not have the will.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Oil & Gas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Violence follows California Trump rally, about ... 2 hr Chilli J 992
News Cheney's Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq... (Mar '13) 4 hr Oil Barron 51
News Texas prison labor drives Lufkin factory out of... (Jul '08) 20 hr KandM Guttering 7
News Possibility of "Bandido" Biker-Gang Members in ... (Dec '09) May 12 wesley 40
Super Tech full synthetic Apr 30 09ray90 1
News Climate Collusion? AGs accused of working with ... Apr 23 goonsquad 12
Texas Panhandle And Artesia New Mexico Strike B... Apr '16 John Hawk 1
More from around the web