Offshore drilling the answer?

20 comments

Think again.

Gas prices suck right now.  I don’t think there’s anyone reading this who could disagree with that statement.  $4/gallon prices are painful, especially for those of us that commute to work every day.  Add into that the rising food costs, and it makes it even harder on everyone to just get by.

The Republicans want to give the OK for more offshore drilling and for drilling in the Arctic.  There’s estimated to be somewhere in the range of 18 billion barrels of oil in offshore reserves that are currently off-limits and possibly up to 12 billion barrels in the Arctic, which is a significant amount, no doubt about it.  But would drilling in those places really help us with the crazy oil prices today?

The short answer to that question is “no”.

First of all, many oil companies aren’t even drilling in offshore areas where they’ve already leased the rights to drill.  Right now, oil companies have leased around 90 million acres of offshore sites.  Of that 90 million, around 70 million acres is not producing any oil at all.  Basically, the oil companies are asking for access to MORE public lands before they’ve even tapped into the ones they already have.

The argument is that many of those sites are in deeper waters and would take longer to develop than sites closer to shore that are currently restricted under legislation from the 70’s.  Based on how much oil is right now, I don’t think the oil companies are going to get very much sympathy from ANY of us about having to spend more money.

The lag time of exploring, developing, and then pumping oil from an offshore site is another reason that lifting the offshore ban will do little to nothing to ease our pain at the pumps right now.  It can take up to 10 years to fully permit the area, get the equipment ready, and do the exploration to actually start getting ANY oil from the site, and even then, the amount of oil that would be available would likely do nothing to affect global oil prices.

If those sites offshore were fully tapped and producing oil, we could expect to add around 2-4 million barrels/day to the oil supply…again…10-12 years from now.  Currently, in the US alone, we use around 21 million barrels/day.  You also have to factor in that over those next 10-12 years it will take to fully develop those offshore sites, the capacity at current sites will start to diminish, which means that basically they would just be taking up slack for the amounts that we are losing.

As for the world oil market, OPEC can easily keep prices inflated by simply choosing to reduce their productivity by whatever amount we INCREASE it.  So, if we add an additional 2 million barrels/day to the market, OPEC can simply scale back by 2 million barrels/day to keep the amount of oil available on the market unchanged.

Plain and simple, all of this is just a way for big oil to make more money, while making many of us feel all warm and fuzzy that gas prices are going to drop.  That simply is not what will happen.

What we DO need as an actual ENERGY POLICY in this company that was not drawn up by big oil executives.  We need to decrease our dependence on not just foreign oil but on oil PERIOD.

This is what Obama’s campaign position on the subject is:

“If offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term strategy for energy independence, it would be worthy of our consideration, regardless of the risks. But most experts, even within the Bush Administration, concede it would do neither. It would merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for thirty years. Senator Obama believes Americans need real short-term relief, which is why he has proposed a second round of stimulus with energy rebates for working families. And over the long-term, Senator Obama understands that our national security and the survival of the planet demand a real strategy to break our dependence on foreign oil by developing clean, new sources of energy and by vastly improving the energy efficiency of our cars, trucks and our economy. He is ready to lead such a transformation.”

Well said.

Features
  • dhunley

    What BUNK, Dave!! Seriously man…you’ve drunken the cool-aide for far too long…lol. It boggles my mind that someone will steadfastly hold to opinions that can be debunked in a dozen different ways.

    About this post. There are soooooo many holes in this post that I don’t even know where to begin. I’ll hit a couple then let you decide which ones you want to try to refute and we’ll focus on those.

    K?

    This?

    “The lag time of exploring, developing, and then pumping oil from an offshore site is another reason that lifting the offshore ban will do little to nothing to ease our pain at the pumps right now.”

    BUNK. The immediate effect would be to reduce the price by speculating. Immediately!! If it were assured that oil companies would be allowed to drill where there is KNOWN OIL, then it would immediately reduce the idea that there will be higher energy prices in the future.

    This?

    “..,we could expect to add around 2-4 million barrels/day to the oil supply…again…10-12 years from now. “

    BUNK! RIDICULOUS! We put a man on the moon from scratch in less than 10 years. A drilling rig operator would be laughed out of the business if they couldn’t move any faster than that. Within 2 years we’d be seeing oil from anywhere we want to go after it.

    This?

    “As for the world oil market, OPEC can easily keep prices inflated by simply choosing to reduce their productivity by whatever amount we INCREASE it. So, if we add an additional 2 million barrels/day to the market, OPEC can simply scale back by 2 million barrels/day to keep the amount of oil available on the market unchanged.”
    BUNK! OPEC isn’t going to sit and watch us provide the world with oil. But even if they did…at least the money would be kept here at home instead of supporting tyrants and theocratic thugs.
    And more BUNK??

    “Senator Obama believes Americans need real short-term relief, which is why he has proposed a second round of stimulus with energy rebates for working families.”

    My…my…how times change, eh? Who was it just a short while ago belittling a certain stimulus package, eh? Now that your man Obama is proposing it, it’s a GREAT idea. Just one of the more obvious signs of your willingness choose to believe what you want to believe.

    But you know what is BIGGEST BUNK of all? This…
    He (Obama) is ready to lead such a transformation.
    Obama is like a deer I in the headlights. He doesn’t have a clue how to operate in the real world—as evidenced by his constantly changing positions. Has there been ONE issue he hasn’t reversed himself on?

    Uh…yeah…maybe one. Abortion—he’s always been quite willing to allow the murder of our children. Gotta give him that one.

  • dhunley

    Long time so see, eh?…How’s things been going?

  • admin

    wow, long time, no see indeed! i thought you had dropped off the face of the earth…figured maybe this changing political climate that is almost certain to culminate in an historic election this Fall had you running for the hills. 😉

    good to see you…even if your argument above is flawed. lol

    and hey…things have gone NUTS over at Rowan Review…had to call a timeout and settle things down a little bit. it has just drifted so far away from your original intentions for it, which is sort of sad, but i guess these things progress with a mind of their own some times.

    now…on to the good stuff!!

  • admin

    I’ll try to take your BUNKINGS and UNBUNK them here. 🙂

    dhunley:BUNK. The immediate effect would be to reduce the price by speculating. Immediately!! If it were assured that oil companies would be allowed to drill where there is KNOWN OIL, then it would immediately reduce the idea that there will be higher energy prices in the future.

    it is true that the prospect of producing more oil would make the speculators nervous, but it is doubtful how much of an impact it would make for a while. first of all, saying you are drilling where there is “known oil” is a dangerous proposition. you can do all of the above ground work necessary to make sure you’ll be successful when you drill, but until you actually FIND the oil, it is still a prospecting game, and the speculators know it. on top of that, just imagine the reaction of the speculators if there’s some sort of accident/mishap/dry hole…it could serve to drive prices even higher.

    but this argument isn’t really one that we can prove one way or the other until it happens, so let’s move along, shall we? 🙂

    dhunley:BUNK! RIDICULOUS! We put a man on the moon from scratch in less than 10 years. A drilling rig operator would be laughed out of the business if they couldn’t move any faster than that. Within 2 years we’d be seeing oil from anywhere we want to go after it.

    RIDICULOUS is the right word, but it should have been used to describe your statement. it is a KNOWN FACT, even within the current administration, that it would be close to 10 years before ANY activities started now produced oil into our supply.

    first off, drilling in the Arctic or offshore isn’t exactly like poking a hole in the ground in Texas. there’s an endless list of things that have to take place to produce a new well, let alone pumping the oil and delivering it to market.

    http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/05/23/arctic-drilling-wouldnt-cool-high-oil-prices.html

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/38223.html

    i may follow up with some more later.

    dhunley:BUNK! OPEC isn’t going to sit and watch us provide the world with oil. But even if they did…at least the money would be kept here at home instead of supporting tyrants and theocratic thugs.

    do you know how minimal 2 million barrels/day is to our supply? we CURRENTLY use 21million barrels/day in this country alone, and that number will continue to rise. and as i stated above, in the time it will take to produce these new wells, the current ones will continue to lessen in their production, so the new ones will only be taking up the slack of the aging ones.

    however you want to look at it, we have a failed energy policy that depends on oil WAY too much. my main fear at this point is that we are fixin’ to come up with another bad idea that is destined to fail, which is an energy policy based to heavily on corn as an energy source.

    but i’m ready for SOME kind of change…and i think most of America is, too.

  • http://www.cyberhillbilly.blogspot.com Cyberhillbilly

    David:

    Was this before or after Obama caved on this issue?

    The Wall Street Journal has looked at this and here’s what they say:

    Unlike perishable agricultural products, oil can be stored in the ground. So when will an owner of oil reduce production or increase inventories instead of selling his oil and converting the proceeds into investible cash? A simplified answer is that he will keep the oil in the ground if its price is expected to rise faster than the interest rate that could be earned on the money obtained from selling the oil. The actual price of oil may rise faster or slower than is expected, but the decision to sell (or hold) the oil depends on the expected price rise.

    … If the price of oil is expected to rise faster, they’ll keep the oil in the ground. In contrast, if the price of oil is not expected to rise as fast as the rate of interest, the owners will extract more and invest the proceeds.

    The relationship between future and current oil prices implies that an expected change in the future price of oil will have an immediate impact on the current price of oil.

    Thus, when oil producers concluded that the demand for oil in China and some other countries will grow more rapidly in future years than they had previously expected, they inferred that the future price of oil would be higher than they had previously believed. They responded by reducing supply and raising the spot price enough to bring the expected price rise back to its initial rate.

    Hence, with no change in the current demand for oil, the expectation of a greater future demand and a higher future price caused the current price to rise. Similarly, credible reports about the future decline of oil production in Russia and in Mexico implied a higher future global price of oil – and that also required an increase in the current oil price to maintain the initial expected rate of increase in the price of oil.

    Of course, a rise in the spot price of oil triggered by a change in expectations about future prices will cause a decline in the current quantity of oil that consumers demand. If current supply and demand were initially in balance, the OPEC countries and other oil producers would respond by reducing sales to bring supply into line with the temporary reduction in demand. A rise in the expected future demand for oil thus causes a current decline in the amount of oil being supplied. This is what happened as the Saudis and others cut supply in 2007.

    Now here is the good news. Any policy that causes the expected future oil price to fall can cause the current price to fall, or to rise less than it would otherwise do. In other words, it is possible to bring down today’s price of oil with policies that will have their physical impact on oil demand or supply only in the future.

    Technical stuff, but pretty persuasive.

  • admin

    again, ALL of these arguments, either for or against opening up new areas for drilling, just avoid the real issue, which is that we should be doing everything we can to decrease our dependence on oil, period.

    continuing to rely on oil and to trying to convince the American public that drilling in new places is going to make everything A-OK is just completely misleading and really is doing nothing to address the problem.

    these alternative energy sources will take a while to develop, but in the end, they offer our best hopes of having a stable energy supply. it is sort of like deciding on January 1 that you are going to lose weight, but then by February you get a little discouraged because you’ve only lost like 4 pounds, so you give up.

    then, in December, when you are thinking about your weight again, you realize that if you’d just kept going, you’d have lost almost 50 pounds by then.

    it is hard to get started, and it is hard to see the progress right off, but in the long run, it is the best solution.

  • http://www.cyberhillbilly.com Cyberhilbilly

    David:

    Does this mean you now concede that prices will go down in the short term as new oil drilling is announced?

    You seem to have fallen back to the only defendible spot of ground for environmentalists in this debate:

    QUOTING: ALL of these arguments, either for or against opening up new areas for drilling, just avoid the real issue, which is that we should be doing everything we can to decrease our dependence on oil, period…. continuing to rely on oil and to trying to convince the American public that drilling in new places is going to make everything A-OK is just completely misleading and really is doing nothing to address the problem.

    I don’t disagree that IN THE LONG TERM the solution is less oil. Even American oil will still be subject to the whims of the global market. But IN THE SHORT TERM drilling for more will start moving the price down.

    We can do both: invest in new technologies and drill for more oil. Don’t you watch Paris?

    Seriously though, she’s right. Let’s drill now but let’s not lose sight of the ball. Ultimately I agree that renewables and alternatives are the solution.

    But let’s not break our budgets in the short run either. As you say, it takes a while for the dieting gains to develop. Let’s not starve ourselves in the meanwhile.

  • admin

    No sir, i absolutely do not concede that prices will go down in the short term if new oil drilling is announced.

    On the contrary. These oil speculators know the TRUTH that dhunley doesn’t seem to be able to accept, which is that in the best case scenario, it would be YEARS before any of this drilling activity actually produced ANY oil at all. And even when those wells started producing, the amounts would do little to nothing to have an effect on the global oil market.

    On top of this, as I’ve stated before, production from these new areas would likely only offset the decline in production of CURRENT wells that is going to take place in the years leading up to the production of oil from the NEW wells.

    There’s a marketing side to this, absolutely…but there’s also the physical realty of the situation. I know that you, and possibly dhunley, are looking at this from a marketing standpoint, but I’m coming at it from a Geological perspective. There are things that you can speculate about, such as market prices and what not…but there are certain things that are stone-cold facts (no pun intended, of course).

    Oil exploration and production is a lengthy prospect, to say the least. The companies have to drill exploratory wells in order to FIND the oil, and then, if they DO manage to find the oil, they have to drill discovery wells around and near the first well in order to show that the field is viable for production. Add to that the fact that once any oil is found offshore, construction will have to begin on new drilling platforms, which is about a 3 year process. That wait is made longer by the fact that the shipyards that actually BUILD those platforms are already booked solid.

    Speculators will give a big, “so what?” to any announcement to open up new areas for drilling, because they know the facts about the process, and they know that any activity now will not really do ANYTHING to affect the global oil market now, or very much at all in the future. We just do not have the juice to really be any kind of player in this game.

    Sure, it might make us feel all warm and fuzzy about ourselves for a while, but the truth of the matter is, the oil companies are already only producing oil from a small percentage of the areas available to them to drill, so what does it matter if we open up more areas? They can’t drill all of the ones they currently have!

    I’ll now throw in a little info snarked from the interweb to back me up:

    An analysis performed by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the independent statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy, found in a report published in 2007 that opening up the outer continental shelf in the Pacific, Atlantic and eastern Gulf regions would result in production no sooner than 2017, and would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil production before 2030.

    The EIA also researched the impact of crude oil production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. To put it in scale, ANWR is believed to have a potential for 10.4 billion barrels of crude oil, a little more than half of the projected potential for the offshore areas McCain has proposed opening.

    ANWR would add only 1 to 2 percent to the overall world oil supply, said Philip Budzig, who authored the report for the EIA. The report concluded drilling there would subtract anywhere from 41 cents to $1.44 per barrel of crude oil around 2025. That translates to a savings of just a couple pennies per gallon at the pump. Again, in 2025.

    Budzig noted that the report was prepared when oil was going for about $65 a barrel. It’s now double that. So, in theory, savings might be double what he projected last year.

    I won’t argue that in the long run, it probably will be wise to start opening up some areas for exploration at some point, just so we continue to keep our domestic supply constant.

    Then again, if we can just start moving away from needing so much damned oil in the first place, we wouldn’t even have to move down that path.

    I’m sure the Democrats will back down and make some sort of concessions about opening up new areas for exploration, just like I’m fairly sure they’ll keep pursuing the ethanol-from-corn idea, even though it is just not a good move at all.

    However, with the alternative plan by the Republicans to just start poking holes in the ground everywhere instead of actually coming up with a reasonably sound energy policy that doesn’t depend so much on oil, I think I’ll go with the Dems on this one.

  • dhunley

    Hey guys! Man…I just can’t seem to find time to properly respond. But I’m trying…lol

    Dave, about this:

    “These oil speculators know the TRUTH that dhunley doesn’t seem to be able to accept…”

    The proof will be in the pudding. In fact, I think we’re already seeing the result of what even you pointed out with this.

    “I’m sure the Democrats will back down and make some sort of concessions about opening up new areas for exploration,”

    What’s the price of gas today? The speculators agree apparently. Now all that’s left for the democrats to do is to spin it so that they can take credit. I’m sure they’ll manage with the media’s help.

    And all this arguments about drilling for new oil not having an impact on prices is the same argument your side has been giving us for 30 YEARS!! It’s the same-old-same-old with people on the left.

    Oh…and Dave, I think you DID concede the point with this:

    it is true that the prospect of producing more oil would make the speculators nervous,

    although you tried to qualify it with this:

    “…but it is doubtful how much of an impact it would make for a while.”

    That, my friend, is conceding the point.

    And about the time it takes to get oil to the market. Again, the proof will be in the pudding. If we get the boneheads in our government to get out of the way, you’ll see oil within three years.

    Check out the links below, also.

    http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/The_U.S._Poised_to_hit_New_Oil_Gusher_080317.html

    http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/bakken-oil-production/613

  • dhunley

    Cyber…LOL…you mean Obama is now saying we should provide medical treatment to babies born alive after failed abortion attempts? That these babies shouldn’t be allowed to lay and die?

    Ohhhhhhhhh Nooooooo? Oh poor me! Now I won’t have a choice but to vote for Obama! I mean, he’s changed his position so much he’s practically more conservative than McCain. We’ve just mis-understood the poor man all this time. And we need to stop asking him questions….HE’S FOR CHANGE!!! That’s all we need to know.

    The man’s a joke!

  • dhunley

    Dave,

    I’d like to start out agreeing with you on several issues that I think is important.

    First about future energy sources. Indeed I do think we will move to different energy sources. We have a solid history of doing so. We’ve gone from wood to coal to oil. I strongly suspect it will be in the direction of solar energy.

    But I believe we should allow the market and the America people decide in which direction we should go. Because the government never fails but to screw things up—by, as you’ve pointed out, chasing after things as foolish as ethanol. Which leads to my next agreement with you. I do indeed believe governments are influenced by special interests…whether they’re big oil, environmental extremists, or HMO’s. The inherent desire of people who want power is to increase their power…republican, democrat, or independent doesn’t matter.

    And another agreement. This will surely be a historic election. No matter which candidate wins, whether it’s McCain with his half steps toward socialism…or Obama’s long-legged strides, we’re about to elect a candidate who will move us towards the same kind of poverty and desperation that most of the world suffers—toward socialism.

    We thought Jimmy Carter was bad, you wait until Obama has had a few years in power. Instead of just gas lines, we may even wind up with bread lines. The sad part of it is, the republican candidate is only marginally better.

    I’ve heard persuasive arguments that it is better to go ahead and elect Obama and hope that we can recover from a short Obama-disaster than slowly bleed under McCain. I’m not sure I yet agree with this or even if I have a choice.

    But Obama simply isn’t fit to be president. He’s a clueless individual who’s accomplished NOTHING.

    I don’t suspect I can get an agreement with you on this—but he’s not even a candidate YOU’d support if you truly believe in what you say.

    What does he stand for right now? Do you know? He’s reversed himself on every position from abortion to marijuana decriminalization, to withdrawal, to drilling, to the Cuban embargo. And didn’t he just reverse himself on the current Russia/Georgia crises?

    So exactly what do you agree with him about—and at what time period did you agree with him?

    But one and final thing I will agree with you on—-and that’s that there is no way true conservatives can win this election.

  • http://www.naahhidontthinkso.info Required Voluntary Compliance

    The jury is out on oil’s origin
    several types of rocks under pressure make
    hydrocarbons and that stuff is all over the
    solar system as NASA has proved, haven’t
    found any Dinosaurs or microbes yet to
    blame the methane and such on.

    The whole damb dumb show is a manipulation
    George Soros says it about 40.00 per barrel
    is due to the speculation bubble not justified by
    the supply and demand so when a potential for
    a increase in supply is percieved the bubble will burst
    HOWEVER, the inflated “dollar” of today is worth less
    so the 50per barrel range of 10years ago on the high
    end is now more close to 65-75per barrel in
    “today’s” dollars, it seems painfully obvious that
    desil is being used to buffer the gas price.

  • http://www.naahhidontthinkso.info Required Voluntary Compliance

    we have been enduring socialism since the 1930s on the
    bottoms of the economy and corportism for the government
    and market, there is so much cross ownership and revolving
    doors for the corporations and the government regulation agencies
    is hard to separate the inc. from the govt.

    We are not on the verge of socialism, we are enduring all ten
    planks of the communist manafesto, so much for “free enterprise”

    Lots of oil has been put off limits under “national security” and
    lots of declining production fields were capped back in before
    the embargo of the early 1970s. It is widely known that letting
    a oil field lie dormant for a few years brings back up production,
    it is theorised that the rocks perculate up more oil from
    the utra-deep abiotic sources that predate the fossil
    record, this has been know since the 50s proven by Russian
    experiments, confirmed by others, so all players are in
    a political and profit and tax making manipulation skeme
    parasiting off of the wee people human resourses.

  • dhunley

    Did I not tell you Obama is clueless??? Is there ANYONE in this world who thinks that China’s infrastructure is “vastly” better than ours? Oh for CRYING OUT LOUD!

    I mean, someone of Obama’s stature cannot be this stupid! What can he possibly be trying to do here?

    Dave…I don’t care how determined you are to believe what you want to believe—surely you’re not buying this. And after all the position reversals I’ve pointed out—and I can point to plenty more if you’d like—you have a choice of thinking Obama is a liar and merely trying to get elected and you’ll vote for him anyway; or you can say he’s no longer your candidate.

    Which is it?

    I’m more than ready to trash all the current candidates and start over. Want to join me in the search for another candidate?

  • Thank God, I’m not dhunley

    A 2007 report from the U.S. Department of Energy found that offshore drilling would not lead to lower gas prices until 2017.

    Drill here,Drill now,Pay less=======BS

  • dhunley

    (dumb)anon, you spreading your ignorance on here too?…lol As I’ve said before, this is the same argument you dummies have been using for 30 YEARS!!! And in 2017—if man is still alive, if woman can survive—you’ll be saying the same thing. Only by then, you’ll probably be back to screaming GLOBAL COOLING again like chicken little.

    Why are you and your kind so afraid of drilling? Are you afraid it will help the average person and, thus, reduce their perceived dependence on politicians who depend on their being afraid?

    I’m talking to YOU (dumb)anon, you and politicians like Obama, Pelosi, Biden, and Reid who MUST convince people they’re being cheated in life. You’re a bunch of frightened children who want to feel safe by sticking their head under the covers when a “boggey man” might be around.

    You guys are racists, sexists, and determined to engage in class warfare. I can only hope there are enough common sense people who can see through YOUR junk.

  • Thank God, I’m not dhunley

    dhunley, thank you for your well thought out , and factual(?) reply.

    Someone has to be around to push aside your, and Cyber’s, BS.

    You haven’t had an original thought since Limbaugh and Hannity hit the air waves.

  • http://www.nahhidontthinkso.info TechKnoman

    There are good reasons why wind and solar cannot provide more than ~40% of our power at any given time on a massive scale;
    it cannot (yet) be stored and you cannot count on consistant output for peak times,
    a combination of wind and solar might improve them as a suppliment as some times the
    wind blows when the sun aint shining. Peak natural gas turbines can close some of
    the gap also but unless we tear down the big national electric grid as we rebuild county
    by county and even neighborhood, subdivision and home by home off the grid
    power sources, we will always have this built in linelosses and peak blackout potential;
    Small hydro, sure, lets do it, but beware here comes some rare minnow to
    get inthe way of that damb dam. Birds will fly into that home turbine
    if it is protected bird, well, big fine for you!
    Don’t spill any of that battery acid or improprly dispose of that solar cell
    that broke when the tree that the greenines would not let you cut fell on your
    home power station you placed in the last sunny spot in your yard as
    the “forrest be with you foundation” bought out all your neighbors with
    “donations” they say came from individuals?

  • http://www.nahhidontthinkso.info TechKnoman

    It may not matter at this point as the

    globalony freetrader socialist one worlder order consensis
    crowd
    has achieved a global slowdown if not a soon to be global recession or even
    depression or meltdown. The goal is to stairstep down to “sustainablility”

    Let all the tribes of man have their special skills,

    Japs Chinese and mongoloids copy and manufacture,
    India: Customer service &White colar labor at the cheepest price

    Crazy Americans Entertainment and innovation
    and GM “breadbasket”(thankyou terminator seeds hehe)

    French &EU, diplomancy and complaining

    Brits, shipping and complaining about the tea.
    Italians, shoes of course (oh and fish head hats).
    Affrikans mining and mundaine labors
    Jews, finance and control

    The rest of the worthless eaters should be culled
    logically for the sake of guya or just for the
    logic of it.?

    The Georgia Guidestones were put up a generation ago
    as fair notice???

  • http://www.nahhidontthinkso.info TechKnomen

    Oops just notices this browser has the moniker spelled wrong it is the original
    the one and only globally known on the WWW as TechKnomen.

    I picked that spelling without knowing noone else on the planet was
    using that particular AKA (yet?)
    I have found no other yet
    although I do hve couple of look a likes around town?