[Howsithangin]

MADGestic, on 26 April 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

We're talking about the market my friend; you know, price at the pump? (See topic.) Efficiency of production is unquestionably and inarguably part of the equation.

BUT ONCE AGAIN, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PROVEN RESERVES, WHICH WAS WHAT YOU WERE CLAIMING! EFFICIENCY OF PRODUCTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PROVEN RESERVES.

MADGestic, on 26 April 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

Your comment is not the rebuttal that you apparently think it is. Unsurprisingly, producers are chasing the money. That's why they're in the game; to make money. If the cost of fighting governmental proscriptions (including lobbying) cuts too deeply into their profits then they will go somewhere else.

So you are not denying that governmental actions drive up the cost of oil/gas by driving oil production offshore. And as costs go up, the oil companies will continue to pursue the product as long as there is a demand, because they can pass the costs along to the consumer.

MADGestic, on 26 April 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

Remember, I'm one of those who think the longer you leave it in the ground the more valuable it becomes.

Which is why I have supported the idea of milking the Middle East cheap oil while we can. Now that the cost (i.e., regional stability and war) is getting a bit much to handle, we need to focus on our own reserves.

MADGestic, on 26 April 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

Barring miraculous discoveries of large sweet and easy fields, the end is in sight for "traditional" oil production. It will be used up; perhaps not in our lifetimes but not too far in the future. Pump prices will continue to fluctuate but the trend is going to be upwards.

I don't believe anyone has stated otherwise.

[pict]

MADGestic, on 26 April 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

I'm still waiting for anyone to address the supposed "moving" of oil rigs; that barely happens at all. Most rigs are abandoned, sunk, sold as scrap, repurposed, or otherwise deliberately/unintentionally destroyed. The "mobility" of oil rigs is largely a myth; they get parked and that's about it. This has been going on for decades (it's part of the business) and therefore, trying to blame it on a particular administration is quite obviously political and shallow.

Your ignorance is astounding, and you don't want to learn. You think all rigs are fixed in place, well here's a hnt, they aren't. Only relatively few are.

And there's no "supposed' about it. Rigs were relocated from the gulf in order to drill elsewhere, due to Obama's illegal drilling moratorium. Look it up your own damn self if you don't believe me, nobody here is going to play at being your secretary because of your ignorance.

And while you're at it, type in 'types of oil rigs and production platforms' in Google search. You'll learn something and hopefully stop making a bloody fool of yourself with regards to oil production.

Now, the cheapest and safest method of drilling is on land, the second safest method of drilling is in shallow water, the most risky method of drilling is in deep water. The latter is done because the EPA doesn't allow the oil companies to drill using the two safest and cheapest methods.

Finally, oil has been discovered below the fossil record, do you know what that means? It means oil isn't only formed from dinosaur bones, it also means there's a chemical reaction going on way down there producing oil all by itself.

And for your further education, some wells which were previously thought 'tapped out,' replenished themselves. As oil was being produced naturally way below the fossil record, pressure forced it back near the surface and hence, the underground oil reservoir was once again drillable.

You know nothing about the subject, and because of your pro-Obama greenie stance you're unwilling to learn. You don't fool me at all, you feign ignorance because you support the inefficient and costly greenie agenda, just as all the other socialist fools do.

This post has been edited by pict: 28 April 2012 - 09:38 AM

[pict]

Madge, I've decided to show you up as the ignoramus you are with regards to offshore platforms:

Quote

Five rigs left the Gulf since the moratorium. Noble Corp (NE) client Royal Dutch Shell took the Clyde Boudreaux, an ultra-deepwater semisubmersible it leases from Noble, to Brazil this winter. It starts drilling for Shell in Brazil in April. Their corporate communications director said that they have to go where their clients ask them to go, and Shell, because of the slowdown getting permits approved in the Gulf, chose to go to Brazil.

Investor relations of Diamond Offshore (DO), another driller, told Forbes Wednesday that they only have five rigs in the Gulf of Mexico now and moved three out last year because of the moratorium. One went to Africa. One went to Egypt. And the other went to Brazil, where Diamond has had an office for decades in Macaé, Rio de Janeiro. Diamond in Brazil is nothing new.

Why U.S. Oil Rigs Left Gulf of Mexico for Brazil

You should start acknowledging information given to you by those who know what they're talking about. Because your commentaries of constant denial merely proves your ignorance. It also proves you're unwilling to learn because you're a pro-Obama greenie 'know-nothing.'

Just for the record, I've worked on the construction of oil platforms, and you know sod-all about the industry. Maybe in future you'll digest what I'm telling you instead of harping on and making bloody a fool of yourself.

And they didn't relocate until Obama enacted the moratorium. Now, why does it cost more to drill in American waters than does to drill in foreign waters, Madge? After all, they aren't doing anything different if they drill elsewhere.

This post has been edited by pict: 28 April 2012 - 08:50 AM

[pict]

Oil platforms:

Illustration: U.S. Minerals Management Service

They float in deep water and can be towed, they are among the largest movable structures constructed. Some have the ability to power themselves to a new location, just like a slow moving ship.

This post has been edited by pict: 27 April 2012 - 10:40 AM

[Whitey]

MADGestic, on 20 April 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

Yeah I suppose that's an "answer" albeit it just raises more questions (and a desire for some citations).



How is the EPA "dictatorial" now? Was the EPA (which was created at least a couple of decades ago) "dictatorial" during prior administrations? What makes "Obama's" EPA different?



Yes, of course "green" technology is new(ish) and therefore expensive but what has that got to do with the global oil market? The fact that new technology is expensive only highlights the profitability of old technology. Last time I checked, fossil fuel producers were still raking in enormous profits (due in part to massive tax breaks at the federal level). Oh wait, I get it… since more folks are driving hybrids the oil concerns must jack up prices to make up for lost revenue… something like that?



Please provide citations for "more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia"… that is highly counterintuitive especially since Middle Eastern reserves are still relatively sweet and easy to access.



The Deepwater Horizon disaster was indeed an eye-opening tragedy which emphasized the still extant cowboy culture of drill early and often; but when "drill, baby, drill" became "spill, baby, spill", I think many reasonable folks realized that "drill at all costs" shouldn't include our food supply and the lost lives of loved ones. I may be a capitalist but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm cruel, uncaring, and immune to enlightenment.



And do you really think that the rigs went "elsewhere"? Do you know what it costs to move one of those things? It's like moving an office tower… on water! They didn't move; they're still out there; hundreds of rigs, many of which are abandoned rusting hulks.





I am well aware of the overabundance of coal and natural gas supplies; in another thread I referred to their market prices as being in "a race to the bottom". But this thread is not about energy prices; we're talking retail gasoline prices. I'm happy to help you vent your ire but now it's time to focus.





Yeah, sure, I'm not arguing that… especially since it has nothing to do with retail gasoline prices!





See above re: "[N]othing to do with retail gasoline prices!" Clearly you want to rail against President Obama; go right ahead, that doesn't bother me. I was just wondering how much influence the POTUS has on retail prices; and, so far, I don't feel that I've received much compelling information.

Once again you strain and strain to pretend that no one has answered the question, but you are just a dishonest liar.

What can a president do to affect the RETAIL PRICE of gasoline? How about

REMOVING THE FEDERAL GAS TAX????

Now c'mon, pretend that somehow a president could never ever get that to happen. As the LEADER of his party that had a supermajority in congress for over the first year of his presidency, he certainly could have at least PROPOSED it.

[satellite66]

Odd how now oil is global commodity and mid east turmoil contributes to it. Yet when Bush was president it was all him and his buddies in big oil driving the price up for financial gain. Halliburtion. Speculators and the mid east didn't exist I guess when Bush was president. Bush left office with gas at $1.80.
Now the most awesome Obama is powerless.

[pict]

See this platform:



This is the Hibernia production platform 300 miles off the Newfoundland coast. What it's sitting on is a GBS (gravity base structure), which means it's that heavy it anchors itself by its weight alone and it's made of reinforced concrete.

Now, even that thing can be pumped out and it'll float, it can be moved theoretically. But it probably won't be until it's spent as it's a major production platform. But what will happen with this rig, is other floating rigs will join it in order to assist and increase production of the field.

So much for all rigs only staying in one place and never moving...

This post has been edited by pict: 28 April 2012 - 09:09 AM

[pict]

Oh yeah, and the Hibernia platform in my previous post is the heaviest floating structure ever built. Not the largest but the heaviest, it was an engineering feat recorded in all the engineering and science magazines and hasn't been surpassed to this day.

So much for the silly assertion rigs can't be moved...

[MADGestic]

FIVE rigs?!! Are you friggin kidding me?!! There are hundreds if not thousands of rigs in US waters in the Gulf of Mexico, and your evidence of them being driven away is an editorial mentioning the movement of FIVE rigs?! Even as spillmeister BP reportedly opens 3 more? The supposed "hammering" of oil producers is histrionic; at this time theirs is the only big 3 energy source that is profitable. (I'll search for the citation if you insist but natural gas producers are on the verge of shutting down production because they're running out storage capacity for the excess; recent WSJ IIRC.)



Why does it cost more than it used to? You mean aside from the fact that there's no sweet and easy domestic oil left? Well duh I think public outrage over the Deepwater Horizon disaster might have something to do with that. Oh wait a second, now I see what you mean: Corporate negligence leads to soiled environment and lost lives and wellbeing; public is outraged and demands government intervention; sitting president understandably moves to protect environment and citizens; so therefore… IT'S ALL OBAMA'S FAULT!



That is such an obviously stupid argument that I cannot stand to spend any more time even thinking about it.

[pict]

Quote

name='MADGestic' timestamp='1335840885' post='684937220'
FIVE rigs?!! Are you friggin kidding me?!! There are hundreds if not thousands of rigs in US waters in the Gulf of Mexico, and your evidence of them being driven away is an editorial mentioning the movement of FIVE rigs?! Even as spillmeister BP reportedly opens 3 more? The supposed "hammering" of oil producers is histrionic; at this time theirs is the only big 3 energy source that is profitable. (I'll search for the citation if you insist but natural gas producers are on the verge of shutting down production because they're running out storage capacity for the excess; recent WSJ IIRC.)

You need to check out what an oil production platform does? You also need to check out the difference between leases and permits. And it doesn't surprise me about your comment regarding excess natural gas, I know there's lots of it down there. And guess what creates natural gas about 95% of the time?

Here's a hint, what is it you think burns from the flare booms of oil production platforms? You aren't doing yourself any favors, you know.

Quote

Why does it cost more than it used to? You mean aside from the fact that there's no sweet and easy domestic oil left? Well duh I think public outrage over the Deepwater Horizon disaster might have something to do with that. Oh wait a second, now I see what you mean: Corporate negligence leads to soiled environment and lost lives and wellbeing; public is outraged and demands government intervention; sitting president understandably moves to protect environment and citizens; so therefore… IT'S ALL OBAMA'S FAULT!

I asked why does it cost more to drill in American waters than it does to drill in foreign waters? Why is this when the job they're doing is the same regardless of the location?

The soiled environment at the last gulf oil spill was caused by Obama and his minions. I suggest you look up the procedures signed into Federal law by Clinton in 94, regarding containing an oil spill. Those procedures signed into law were dismissed by Obama and the EPA. You really shouldn't harp on about something you know sod-all about.

Quote

That is such an obviously stupid argument that I cannot stand to spend any more time even thinking about it.

Is it as stupid as your assertion oil rigs can't be moved? I notice you didn't address my burning your arse with my knowledge on that subject.

But I don't expect a greenie pro-Obama supporter to admit when he's wrong, because it would mean as far as you're concerned, admitting you're an idiot.

This post has been edited by pict: 30 April 2012 - 10:02 PM

[pict]

MADGestic, on 30 April 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

because they're running out storage capacity for the excess; recent WSJ IIRC.

This is a flare boom on a production platform. What do you think they're burning?

Do you think it's excess methane from the crappers?

[MADGestic]

pict, on 30 April 2012 - 10:01 PM, said:

You need to check out what an oil production platform does? You also need to check out the difference between leases and permits. And it doesn't surprise me about your comment regarding excess natural gas, I know there's lots of it down there. And guess what creates natural gas about 95% of the time?



Here's a hint, what is it you think burns from the flare booms of oil production platforms? You aren't doing yourself any favors, you know.

So there's so much of an overabundance of natural gas that it just gets burned off instead of captured? Thank you for supporting my position.

Quote

[…] I asked why does it cost more to drill in American waters than it does to drill in foreign waters? Why is this when the job they're doing is the same regardless of the location?

Hasn't this been the case for long before President Obama took office? After all, that is the inflammatory rhetoric that I am addressing, that this is somehow all Obama's fault; whereas I believe that the situation would not have been much different if anyone else was secretly farting in the Oval Office.



Why does it "cost more to drill in American waters"? Amongst various reasons, we don't have the "sweet and easy" reserves of other places; comparatively, in the Middle East, you could figuratively stick your finger in the ground and strike sweet crude. Venezuela still has relatively easy fields but their crude is not as sweet. (I.E.: It requires more processing.) Here in the USA we're pretty much done with the easy part; that's a significant reason why it costs more to produce here.



And yes, here we are at least somewhat concerned about such mundane and unprofitable things like occupational safety and not soiling our natural resources… (don't s*** where you eat)… so yeah, things tend to cost more here. Well, except for gasoline; as the original and ultimate "car culture" we Americans insist upon cheap fuel for our personal transportation… hence this topic.

Quote

[…] The soiled environment at the last gulf oil spill was caused by Obama and his minions. I suggest you look up the procedures signed into Federal law by Clinton in 94, regarding containing an oil spill. Those procedures signed into law were dismissed by Obama and the EPA. You really shouldn't harp on about something you know sod-all about.

Wow… boy was I fooled. I thought it was greedy corporations… (including a foreign entity: BP)… taking shortcuts and risking lives in order to marginally increase profit margins. But it was actually "Obama and his minions" that somehow forced these entities into negligence?



I can just imagine the President in a super-secret, deep-diving submersible… (and an impeccably tailored blue jumpsuit)… using articulated robot arms and claws to plant underwater explosives that deliberately sabotage the Deepwater Horizon blowout valve. Then the Secret Service (in black skintight Ninja suits and masks) swoops in and douses the entire rig with purple stupid knockout gas so that everyone reacts in entirely the wrong manner. And when the flying, black, stealth limousines make the rendezvous, they are all quickly spirited away, bestowed with carefully fabricated alibis and plausible deniability… and cocktails.



Who knew?

Quote

[…] Is it as stupid as your assertion oil rigs can't be moved? I notice you didn't address my burning your arse with my knowledge on that subject…

Where did I say that they cannot be moved? You are perhaps alluding to my post (to someone else BTW):

Quote

… I'm still waiting for anyone to address the supposed "moving" of oil rigs; that barely happens at all. Most rigs are abandoned, sunk, sold as scrap, repurposed, or otherwise deliberately/unintentionally destroyed. The "mobility" of oil rigs is largely a myth; they get parked and that's about it. This has been going on for decades (it's part of the business) and therefore, trying to blame it on a particular administration is quite obviously political and shallow.

I never said that they cannot be moved; I said that "barely happens at all". Out of the hundreds or thousands of rigs that sit in (or lay at the bottom of) the Gulf of Mexico, you offered evidence of five being moved. That seems to support my assertions of it barely happening at all and of "most rigs" staying pretty darn close to wherever they were originally installed. I think that the rhetorical inference of a huge fleet of oil rigs being towed across the seas in search of greener pastures is absolute nonsense. Do you know how much it costs to move one of those things?

Quote

[…] But I don't expect a greenie pro-Obama supporter to admit when he's wrong, because it would mean as far as you're concerned, admitting you're an idiot.

Debate-losing ad hominem noted.

[pict]

Quote

name='MADGestic' timestamp='1336012008' post='684937748'


So there's so much of an overabundance of natural gas that it just gets burned off instead of captured? Thank you for supporting my position.

There's nothing to support, where there's an abundance of oil there's also gas.

Quote

Hasn't this been the case for long before President Obama took office? After all, that is the inflammatory rhetoric that I am addressing, that this is somehow all Obama's fault; whereas I believe that the situation would not have been much different if anyone else was secretly farting in the Oval Office.



Why does it "cost more to drill in American waters"? Amongst various reasons, we don't have the "sweet and easy" reserves of other places; comparatively, in the Middle East, you could figuratively stick your finger in the ground and strike sweet crude. Venezuela still has relatively easy fields but their crude is not as sweet. (I.E.: It requires more processing.) Here in the USA we're pretty much done with the easy part; that's a significant reason why it costs more to produce here.



And yes, here we are at least somewhat concerned about such mundane and unprofitable things like occupational safety and not soiling our natural resources… (don't s*** where you eat)… so yeah, things tend to cost more here. Well, except for gasoline; as the original and ultimate "car culture" we Americans insist upon cheap fuel for our personal transportation… hence this topic.





Wow… boy was I fooled. I thought it was greedy corporations… (including a foreign entity: BP)… taking shortcuts and risking lives in order to marginally increase profit margins. But it was actually "Obama and his minions" that somehow forced these entities into negligence?



I can just imagine the President in a super-secret, deep-diving submersible… (and an impeccably tailored blue jumpsuit)… using articulated robot arms and claws to plant underwater explosives that deliberately sabotage the Deepwater Horizon blowout valve. Then the Secret Service (in black skintight Ninja suits and masks) swoops in and douses the entire rig with purple stupid knockout gas so that everyone reacts in entirely the wrong manner. And when the flying, black, stealth limousines make the rendezvous, they are all quickly spirited away, bestowed with carefully fabricated alibis and plausible deniability… and cocktails.



Who knew?





Where did I say that they cannot be moved? You are perhaps alluding to my post (to someone else BTW):



I never said that they cannot be moved; I said that "barely happens at all". Out of the hundreds or thousands of rigs that sit in (or lay at the bottom of) the Gulf of Mexico, you offered evidence of five being moved. That seems to support my assertions of it barely happening at all and of "most rigs" staying pretty darn close to wherever they were originally installed. I think that the rhetorical inference of a huge fleet of oil rigs being towed across the seas in search of greener pastures is absolute nonsense. Do you know how much it costs to move one of those things?





Debate-losing ad hominem noted.

You can't admit you've been proved wrong even when you've been blown out the water. Now as to your quote: "I never said that they cannot be moved; I said that "barely happens at all":

Quote

I'm still waiting for anyone to address the supposed "moving" of oil rigs; that barely happens at all. Most rigs are abandoned, sunk, sold as scrap, repurposed, or otherwise deliberately/unintentionally destroyed. The "mobility" of oil rigs is largely a myth; they get parked and that's about it.

So, you're a liar and I proved it. Not that it was hard to do since I know what I'm talking about.

Also, it costs more to drill here because of excessive EPA regulations, that's all.

Now regarding the cost to move a rig, it's cheaper to do that rather than have it sitting doing nothing. What a surprise, eh?

As to your dismissal of the Federal laws signed by Clinton in 94, this only further proves you ignore the truth and reality of what actually happened in the Gulf.

And I'll say it again: But I don't expect a greenie pro-Obama supporter to admit when he's wrong, because it would mean as far as you're concerned, admitting you're an idiot.

And you've also proven yourself to be a liar, all your questions have been answered.

[satellite66]

I guess Axlerod must be a right winger because he says they move from place to place.

hear him say it

[pict]

satellite66, on 03 May 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

I guess Axlerod must be a right winger because he says they move from place to place.

hear him say it

Yeah, of course they do. Rigs move around all the time, if they didn't it would mean building a brand new rig for every location. Only idiots would suggest "The "mobility" of oil rigs is largely a myth."

Also, when a production platform is put in place they don't just drill from one reservoir. They can drill from multiple locations at the same time using multiple drill heads. The drill heads are multi-directional.

This post has been edited by pict: 03 May 2012 - 08:00 AM

[pict]

MADGestic, on 02 May 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

I can just imagine the President in a super-secret, deep-diving submersible… (and an impeccably tailored blue jumpsuit)… using articulated robot arms and claws to plant underwater explosives that deliberately sabotage the Deepwater Horizon blowout valve. Then the Secret Service (in black skintight Ninja suits and masks) swoops in and douses the entire rig with purple stupid knockout gas so that everyone reacts in entirely the wrong manner. And when the flying, black, stealth limousines make the rendezvous, they are all quickly spirited away, bestowed with carefully fabricated alibis and plausible deniability… and cocktails.

I'm enjoying myself showing you up as a pro-Obama greenie who refuses to acknowledge the truth:

Quote

The massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill has moved within 20 miles of the Louisiana coast, and to hear Obama administration officials tell it, "from Day One" they have been utilizing every weapon available to contain the spill. Now word is emerging that the administration at first dismissed the severity of the spill and then chose not to utilize its most effective weapon in controlling it.

On April 23, three days after the accident that caused the oil spill, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded to reporters' questions by saying, "I don't honestly think it opens up a whole new series of questions, because, you know, in all honesty I doubt this is the first accident that has happened and I doubt it will be the last."

That doesn't sound like all hands were on deck, fully focused, employing every available weapon "from Day One."

Even so, an environmental catastrophe may have been quickly and easily averted if the administration had implemented a federal oil spill response plan drawn up by the Clinton administration in 1994. The Clinton administration formulated an "In-Situ Burn" plan calling for the immediate use of fire booms to contain major spills in the Gulf of Mexico.

Obama Administration Neglected Oil Spill Containment Plan

Your long winded diatribes aren't doing you any favors on this thread, sunshine.

I suggest you stick to informing us about dick rings, at least you have experience and know what you're talking about.

This post has been edited by pict: 03 May 2012 - 08:22 AM

[The-Stig]

pict, on 03 May 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

I'm enjoying myself showing you up as a pro-Obama greenie who refuses to acknowledge the truth:

you guys still trying to educate this maroon????

[pict]

The-Stig, on 03 May 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

you guys still trying to educate this maroon????

Nah, I realize a greenie won't learn, they aren't interested in facts, they're only interested in promoting an ineffiecient 'feel good' technology.

But I enjoy publicly showing them their idiocy.

[oki]

pict, on 03 May 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

Yeah, of course they do. Rigs move around all the time, if they didn't it would mean building a brand new rig for every location. Only idiots would suggest "The "mobility" of oil rigs is largely a myth."

Also, when a production platform is put in place they don't just drill from one reservoir. They can drill from multiple locations at the same time using multiple drill heads. The drill heads are multi-directional.

As you have a far greater degree of understanding in structural construction, correct me if I am wrong here.

1. Oil rigs be they floating platforms or fixed are non the less structures or buildings.

2. A moveable/floating rig is largely constructed on land, be it constructed in pieces and then the large components assembled in the water it is still by in large assembled either on shore or near shore and then later on moved.

3. The costs, logistics, dangers, and ease of constructing near or on land are far better than building a fixed rig hundreds of miles out.


4. The further away from land you set up a rig the more it requires in both logistics support, structural engineering, and safety.
Safety because you are drilling deeper with a longer connection between the rig and ocean floor.

5. It costs more to drill further out because ships need to travel farther out to retrieve the oil of the rig.
Plus added logistics costs for support, IE it costs more to send the guys Toilet Paper and Food.

6. The danger is increased for the workers because it takes longer or may even become impossible to quickly respond to an accident or injury due to distance.
IE a Rig 150 miles of shore will be out of range for most Medi Vac helicopters. And, at best would require people who do nothing other than sit around waiting to put an injured rough neck on the whirly bird.

Am I mistaken on any of these?

Oki

This post has been edited by oki: 03 May 2012 - 03:00 PM

[pict]

oki, on 03 May 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

As you have a far greater degree of understanding in structural construction, correct me if I am wrong here.

1. Oil rigs be they floating platforms or fixed are non the less structures or buildings.

2. A moveable/floating rig is largely constructed on land, be it constructed in pieces and then the large components assembled in the water it is still by in large assembled either on shore or near shore and then later on moved.

3. The costs, logistics, dangers, and ease of constructing near or on land are far better than building a fixed rig hundreds of miles out.


4. The further away from land you set up a rig the more it requires in both logistics support, structural engineering, and safety.
Safety because you are drilling deeper with a longer connection between the rig and ocean floor.

5. It costs more to drill further out because ships need to travel farther out to retrieve the oil of the rig.
Plus added logistics costs for support, IE it costs more to send the guys Toilet Paper and Food.

6. The danger is increased for the workers because it takes longer or may even become impossible to quickly respond to an accident or injury due to distance.
IE a Rig 150 miles of shore will be out of range for most Medi Vac helicopters. And, at best would require people who do nothing other than sit around waiting to put an injured rough neck on the whirly bird.

Am I mistaken on any of these?

Oki

Everything you said is correct. Rigs are built on land in different pieces, then floated out and assembled. And the deeper you're forced to drill then there are more chances of something going wrong.