Don’t Allow Drilling Under the Great Lakes – Oil and Water Don’t Mix

In: Miscellaneous

16 Jun 2010

As I continued to watch the unfolding horror in the Gulf of Mexico, it dawned on me that the repercussions of the disaster would be magnified ten thousand times if the problem had occurred in a major fresh water source such as the Great Lakes.   While the effects of the events unfolding in the Gulf are horrendous, they would be a proverbial drop in the bucket compared the consequences if a similar oil spill in the Great Lakes. 

Forty million people depend upon the water from the Great Lakes for drinking water, while nobody drinks the water from the ocean.   Since people can only live for about three days without water without serious consequences, the results of an oil spill in fresh water would be catastrophic.   

Did you know that Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Canada allow drilling for oil in the Great Lakes.   BP and several other oil companies have shown interest in drilling for oil and natural gas under the Great Lakes.  Geez, doesn’t that just warm your heart.  

You don’t see oil rigs or platforms in the lakes themselves like you do in the Gulf of Mexico, but slant drilling for oil under the Great Lakes does exist.  Slant drilling takes place from oil rigs on shore, which drill at a slant under the bottom of the lake. 

While a 997 report form the Michigan Environmental Sciences Board concluded that slant drilling poses “little or no risk” to the lakes, the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has proven that we should all be concerned about the fallout from an oil rig disaster.  While the oil from a slant drilling rig should not ever actually be transported through the water, try to imagine the consequences if there was an earthquake or some other “accident” that rapidly spilled large quantities of oil to be spilled into the Great Lakes.   Millions of people could be without drinking water and the death toll would be unimaginable.  I don’t imagine our governments have contingency plans in place to handle that type of disaster scenario.

There is nothing good about the Gulf oil spill.  If one were looking for a silver lining to the event, it would have to be based upon the hope that our society will stop, or reduce the foolish practice of burning hydrocarbons for energy.  Alternatives are available, but we have to put safety and the environment ahead of corporate profits. 

It doesn’t appear that there is any imminent danger to the Great Lakes from oil drilling laws, but lets make sure that our fresh water lakes can never be subjected to the same fate as the Gulf of Mexico.  Drilling for oil under fresh water lakes should be permanently banned.  There are other places to find oil in the short term until we finally do something intelligent about implementing alternative fuel sources.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

  1. Why are you still drinking bottled water? Part 3 – Environmental Issues If you are upset by the oil spill caused by...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

5 Responses to Don’t Allow Drilling Under the Great Lakes – Oil and Water Don’t Mix

Avatar

David Quick

June 16th, 2010 at 12:36 pm

What most don’t realize is that the ‘the foolish practice of burning hydrocarbons for energy’ actually is a rather small part of our dependency on oil. Just look around your house or place of work–flooring, countertops, paint, clothes, etc, etc. Where do you pull the plug? We enjoy so much from the production oil. Do you really want to be living like some tribe in a third world country? Almost everything we touch is a product of the oil industry.
That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t conserve, use alternatives, research for more alternatives, and definitely recycle, it is just that when it takes putting windmills to cover the whole state of Connecticut in order to just power the city of New York you can see that wind energy is not the full answer. Neither is solar, as it takes around 100 square miles of solar to power just the city of Phoenix. And you can bet the environmentalists would scream about that–they already do when these alternatives are used. But if each house or building had some solar or wind energy capability it would help, even though it might only be ~25% or so.
As frustrating as it is, it is also frustrating when people scream for alternatives when they have no idea what they are talking about and what it entails. No offense intended there please. But think about it. Nuclear is probably one of the best ways to get energy and much safer than it used to be, but then someone has to bring out 3 mile island scare so that we stay dependent on the oil. Maybe someone should take a trip to France to see how they use nuclear energy to supply close to 60% of their needs before they scream too much more.
And also when it comes down to it as new technology comes into play jobs are lost as others are created and those who lose the jobs probably cannot make the transition to the new ones. Sometimes it just makes you want to scream. But, as long as the market–interpret that as capitalism–reigns these new technologies will be implemented slowly but surely.

[Reply]

rob Reply:

Hi David:

Thanks for your thoughts….all valid and good points.

My cousin used to work for a company called Ballard Power. The company was based in BC and produced a hydrogen fuel cell. My cousin told me that they were capable of producing fuel cells that would generate 100 miles per gallon of gas, and that was at least 20 years ago. So what happened to Ballard? Seven (or perhaps it was 9) of the auto makers each paid Ballard $500 million to become partners. The shareholders took the nearly half billion dollars and just slowly disappeared. You would have to think that the auto companies supported the disappearing act as they would have to be the decision makers with that kind of invenstment.

I don’t want to get into the whole “conspiracy theory” stuff, but there is absolutely no question that society could make a fundamental shift to more enviromentally friendly decisions that would benefit everyone. Yes, there would be a cost, but the cost is nothing compared to the cost that our planet is experiencing under its current strategy.

[Reply]

Avatar

David

June 16th, 2010 at 5:56 pm

Rob,
Those kind of stories are out there and there are enough to warrant that there is some truth involved. One of your own, Charles Nelson Pogue, developed a 200mpg carburetor back in the 30s. Yep, bought out and buried–it is an interesting story. They found out that by adding additives that the Pogue carburetor doesn’t work.

On another note, Rob, have you ever looked into the benefits of H2O electrolysis? That is what these water machines do though they use the Hoffman voltameter to separate the pH. Just bubbling the air produced from electrolysis into a quart of water changes that water. I don’t know what the pH is but there are health benefits from it and most can make one of these for less than $50.

All of these ideas could add up to alleviating dependency on oil but I’m not sure that we could ever get completely away from it unless we discover how to manipulate the carbon molecule as never before.

Lastly, does your cousin happen to have one of those fuel cells?

[Reply]

rob Reply:

Hi David:

Water ionizers are really simple. The process is electrolysis as you mentioned, whereby water is run over electrically charged plates. When the charged minerals in the water are drawn to the cathode or anode, the ionization of the water takes place. In theory, people could make their own water ionizers, but there is a lot more to it than meets the eye. A water ionizer consists of three significant operating parts including the SMPS (switch mode power supply), the ionizing chamber with the titanium/platinum plates, and the keypad. All the other parts are the body molds, inexpensive hosing, and connectors.

Water ionizers are overpriced, but so is everything else that isn’t either food or gas/oil. The profit margins for water ionizers are very high for an electronic machine, but the industry is still in its infancy in North America. As the industry matures, prices will come down. One of my long term goals is to drive the price of good quality water ionizers down under $1,000 if the units are purchased through direct sales, or under $1,500 through normal marketing systems. I expected the process to take five years, but with the internet on our side, it looks like the industry is maturing much faster. The distributors of the leading products in the States are not real happy with my efforts, but the increase in sales that will take place as the machines become more affordable will offset the reduced profit margins. Eventually, the superior operators will take over from the fancy marketing efforts, which will be good for everyone.

I wonder where the fuel cells ended up? Coffee table decorations????

[Reply]

Avatar

David

June 18th, 2010 at 7:05 am

Fuel cells. They are in the same storage unit with Chevy’s electric car just down the aisle from the high mileage carburetors.

[Reply]

Comment Form

About this blog

My name is Rob Thomas. I’m 53 years old, retired, and I live in a small town near Toronto, Canada

I created this blog to share my knowledge and experience with alkaline ionized water. The water changed my life by eliminating my acid reflux and osteo-arthritis in 2008.

This blog morphed into something far greater than it was ever intended, as others began to share their experiences... learn more about me
  • rob: Hi Claude: You are correct that the current review sites are built to convince viewers to purchas [...]
  • Claude Jardin: 2nd trial. I had just completed my mail when, God knows on what button I have clicked!, the entire m [...]
  • rob: Hi Jamie: Thanks for returning to the blog. I think this blog serves its greatest purpose when it [...]
  • rob: Hi Joanna: I don't know much about Bawell. I took a look at their site. I like the low prices a [...]
  • joanna: What about Bawell ionizer. They are very affordable. Are they good? [...]
  • Jamie: Thank you Rob for answering my post. I was elated to hear of something in the natureal therapies th [...]
  • rob: Hi Jamie: Thanks for bringing this important topic to our attention. It is a subject close to my [...]
  • Jamie: Has anyone had a postive expenrience with ionized water during or after chemo? The hardest part of [...]
  • rob: Hi Marilyn: Thanks for stopping by and adding your thoughts. Same old same old for Enagic...it wor [...]
  • marilyn: Like everyone else I am looking for the right ionizer that will do exactly like the enagic claims it [...]
Skype Me™!

Top Commentators

  • rob
  • Jamie
  • Claude Jardin
  • joanna