DoD Confirms What Joe Bouchard’s Been Saying All Along
And Bob McDonnell is still nonetheless in denial.
Writes the Virginian-Pilot: “Rep. Jim Moran, an opponent of offshore drilling, wrote a letter Tuesday to Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, urging him to back off on his push for offshore drilling. ‘I trust you would agree that the presence of the Department of Defense in the Commonwealth is of greater benefit than anything that could be derived from offshore drilling,’ Moran wrote.”
No Oil & Gas Activity area concerns:
- Live ordnance release and impact:
–Air-surface missile/bomb
- Preservation of sensitive undersea & surface operations
- Combined Shipboard Systems Qualification Trials
- Developmental, Operational and Follow-on Testing and Evaluation
Give it up Bob!
Join us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
May 19th, 2010 at 5:04 am
My favorite quote from today’s article:
Gov. McDonnell’s plan to fund transportation with revenue from offshore drilling was always a fantasy. As I commented 12/31/2009:
May 19th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
I have reservations about off-shore drilling as an environmental issue.
However, rationalizing that there isn’t enough ocean and operating area for at-sea training is a bit far fetched. The VACAPES OP Areas are more than sufficient to conduct local operational training without the concern of the minimal percentage of area that would be obstructed by drilling platforms or windmills.
May 19th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
I just don’t understand. The ocean is very big and ships can move.
May 20th, 2010 at 4:18 am
Wally Erb: You think the Pentagon report is just “far fetched” rationalization? I’m willing to take the Pentagon’s word for it, but maybe you need to read the report before casually dismissing it.
“The minimal percentage of area that would be obstructed by drilling platforms” would be dispersed thoroughout the Navy’s training area. You don’t foresee any potential problem with live fire exercises among oil drilling platforms?
Don’t mix “drilling platforms or windmills.” The area for oil drilling is in the same area as the Navy’s training area, the area for windmills is in shallow water and would not interfere with Navy operations.
May 21st, 2010 at 10:05 am
David Campbell,
In light of the “it’s official” piece and this one I will volunteer these comments:
I find it difficult to believe that the Navy can rule against offshore oil drilling while approving numerous sites for wind power. Sounds more to me like a selective rational. Wind power would involve numerous wind turbines with each site having a large footprint by virtue of the numerous turbines at each site. The site thus proposed for offshore drilling is tiny and not every inch of the proposed area need be covered with oil platforms due to the ability to cover large areas of crude oil deposits with slanted drilling from a single location.
If by chance my hunches are proven wrong then I propose this: Every area approved for offshore wind power should also receive approval for offshore oil drilling. If a few oil platforms are included within the boundaries of the wind farm the Navy should not have a problem with it.
May 21st, 2010 at 11:04 am
The explanation is really quite simple. There are two completely different locations. The area designated for offshore oil drilling is more than 50 miles offshore, dispersed throughout the Navy training area. The area designated for offshore wind is less than 20 miles offshore, outside the Navy training area. Therefore, the Navy opposes offshore drilling and favors offshore wind.
May 21st, 2010 at 12:00 pm
The Navy still needs oil to fuel the majority of their vessels. Does the Navy insist that the majority of this fuel come from foreign sources or will they object that enough of it comes from domestic sources so they still have enough in war time?
May 21st, 2010 at 12:55 pm
“The majority of this fuel come from foreign sources” regardless of where we drill. The U.S. consumes 24% of the world’s oil, but only has 3% of the world’s oil reserves.
The Navy has set a goal of obtaining half of its onshore power from renewable sources by 2025.
May 22nd, 2010 at 4:50 am
Onshore facilities powered by renewable sources are great and I applaud the effort. But the reason for the Navy’s existence is all those ships out at sea most of which are powered by crude oil.
It is foolish for the Navy to insist as large a percentage as possible of the fuel it needs for her vessels comes from foreign sources.
“The U.S. consumes 24% of the world’s oil, but only has 3% of the world’s oil reserves.” Does that 3% figure take into account the massive deposits of oil shale out west? I am not saying we should exploit these deposits, just saying they are out there and available. The only thing that has prevented exploitation thus far is that it is not economical to do so, but if the price of crude oil climbs and remains over $100 a barrel a profit can be made by doing so. Ever heard of peak oil?
I understand you, like I, will not be in favor of that but what about the Navy? If the Navy points out we do not need offshore oil because of the availability of all that oil shale are you going to nod in agreement or will you then start to stop pointing to the leadership coming from the Navy when that leadership disagrees with you?