02-05-2015, 07:50 PM
To try and set the tone, I consider this to be a discussion, not a debate. For my part, I am not interested in scoring points or taking sides, but trying to provide and review as unbiased information as is possible. That said, I do have an opinion like everyone else; I try to give links to the primary sources whenever possible to allow for fact checking.
opihikao - You will note, at the last meeting, Mike Kaleikini also reiterated that stopping drilling enhances the risk for a problem.
Noted and agreed. What the actual degree of added risk is probably a mix of known and unknown factors. For KS-10, drilling was stopped voluntary by PGV for several nights. So at that time, for that well, mitigating the noise issues were chosen over possible safety concerns. Again, stopping on some nights is not the same as stopping every night, and there may be other factors in the 1993 decision.
After being pressed on this topic, Mike K said "The number one reason why we drill around the clock is safety... Theoretically, can we stop? Sure... But we're not going to stop."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqIXrkCaVKw&feature=player_detailpage#t=1208
I have had a few conversations with Mike K and felt that he uses very guarded language and does not reveal anything you don't already know. No doubt he has a difficult job to do and a balance to maintain, but leaving out drilling details (such as converting KS-15, chemicals used in tracer tests, etc) appears evasive and promotes mistrust IMO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqIXrkCaVKw&feature=player_detailpage#t=831
Safety issue should be foremost for all; apparently it is not.
Strictly playing devil's advocate, the safest option would be not to drill at all. This is not my suggestion, nor a probable solution, but is a rhetorical device to show that the stated logic may also lead to other choices or conclusions.
Drilling has an associated set of risks; some clearly disagree that it is worth it. When those people may disproportionally bear the impacts and risks, such as round-the-clock noise or a blow-out, their opinion should hold additional weight IMHO. There are options for reducing the impacts and risks worth discussing.
{I} believe we need to get the hell off oil. My keiki and mo'opuna cannot afford to continue with our high HELCO rates
Given the current cheap oil, it may not be as easy to both get off oil-generated electricity and reduce rates. HELCO appears to believe this as the current 25MW RFP now has strict 12 cent/kWh cost controls for the geothermal electricity they will purchase.
Personal preference: off-grid solar is a good fit here for residential scale electricity. Yes the grid and baseline generation are needed, but greatly reducing the overall demand limits the need for industrial scale electrical generation. While converting to solar has an energy and monetary cost, it is recouped over a few to several years given our solar exposure. How valuable is getting off of oil and away from the high HELCO rates for you?
One might want to delve into the written testimony at the time, which included DLNR, and other entities involved in the safety aspect.
Thanks for the pointers regarding previous discussions - added to research list. Sorry to rehash. I'm not an expert, but trying to take a different tact than previous discussions.
If there is middle ground, it is unlikely to be found by another round of naming calling, spreading misinformation, or ad hominem attacks on knowledgeable sources. Working on suggestions to provide to our County Council reps may be productive and possible in this forum.
opihikao - You will note, at the last meeting, Mike Kaleikini also reiterated that stopping drilling enhances the risk for a problem.
Noted and agreed. What the actual degree of added risk is probably a mix of known and unknown factors. For KS-10, drilling was stopped voluntary by PGV for several nights. So at that time, for that well, mitigating the noise issues were chosen over possible safety concerns. Again, stopping on some nights is not the same as stopping every night, and there may be other factors in the 1993 decision.
After being pressed on this topic, Mike K said "The number one reason why we drill around the clock is safety... Theoretically, can we stop? Sure... But we're not going to stop."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqIXrkCaVKw&feature=player_detailpage#t=1208
I have had a few conversations with Mike K and felt that he uses very guarded language and does not reveal anything you don't already know. No doubt he has a difficult job to do and a balance to maintain, but leaving out drilling details (such as converting KS-15, chemicals used in tracer tests, etc) appears evasive and promotes mistrust IMO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqIXrkCaVKw&feature=player_detailpage#t=831
Safety issue should be foremost for all; apparently it is not.
Strictly playing devil's advocate, the safest option would be not to drill at all. This is not my suggestion, nor a probable solution, but is a rhetorical device to show that the stated logic may also lead to other choices or conclusions.
Drilling has an associated set of risks; some clearly disagree that it is worth it. When those people may disproportionally bear the impacts and risks, such as round-the-clock noise or a blow-out, their opinion should hold additional weight IMHO. There are options for reducing the impacts and risks worth discussing.
{I} believe we need to get the hell off oil. My keiki and mo'opuna cannot afford to continue with our high HELCO rates
Given the current cheap oil, it may not be as easy to both get off oil-generated electricity and reduce rates. HELCO appears to believe this as the current 25MW RFP now has strict 12 cent/kWh cost controls for the geothermal electricity they will purchase.
Personal preference: off-grid solar is a good fit here for residential scale electricity. Yes the grid and baseline generation are needed, but greatly reducing the overall demand limits the need for industrial scale electrical generation. While converting to solar has an energy and monetary cost, it is recouped over a few to several years given our solar exposure. How valuable is getting off of oil and away from the high HELCO rates for you?
One might want to delve into the written testimony at the time, which included DLNR, and other entities involved in the safety aspect.
Thanks for the pointers regarding previous discussions - added to research list. Sorry to rehash. I'm not an expert, but trying to take a different tact than previous discussions.
If there is middle ground, it is unlikely to be found by another round of naming calling, spreading misinformation, or ad hominem attacks on knowledgeable sources. Working on suggestions to provide to our County Council reps may be productive and possible in this forum.