TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Anwar
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Anwar

Woohoo.

Drill baby, drill!

This ought to piss off a few people and cause a few others to celebrate.

quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Wednesday voted to keep, in a broad federal budget legislation, the language that would open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling. The Bush administration wants to give energy companies access to the refuge's billions of barrels of oil to boost domestic supplies and help reduce U.S. dependence on crude imports. Although the Senate vote on Wednesday was a major step forward for supporters of drilling in ANWR, it remains unclear if the measure will win the full support of Congress. The Senate is expected to vote on its budget bill later this week. The House of Representatives, which has approved drilling in the refuge in the past, would still have to adopt the Senate's drilling language when lawmakers from both chambers negotiate a final budget bill. However, House Republicans have cautioned that it will be difficult for both chambers to negotiate an overall budget deal this year.

And another off the newswires

quote:

March 16 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Senate voted to allow Exxon Mobil Corp. and other companies to tap into an estimated 6.3 billion barrels of oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an area Congress placed off limits to oil companies in 1980. An amendment to strip the drilling provision from a $2.6 trillion 2006 budget resolution failed by a vote of 51 to 49. The government can offer BP Plc, ConocoPhillips and others oil and natural gas leases in the refuge if the U.S. House and Senate agree on a final budget plan, which they failed to do last year. Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, said the refuge can provide 1 million barrels of oil a day at a time of record energy prices and growing U.S. reliance on foreign supplies. The drilling provision opens part of the 19 million- acre refuge, which could hold more than $30 billion worth of oil after development costs. ``Oil just hit 56 bucks a barrel and we're 58 percent reliant on foreign oil,'' Murkowski said. ``It's enough oil to save America from writing a $54 million check to OPEC every day at our current prices.'' Senator Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat, said the area's oil potential, equal to roughly six months of U.S. demand, isn't worth the risk to the region's sensitive environment. Most Americans favor conservation over new drilling, she said. ``We may be very divided here in the United States Senate but the American public is consistent,'' Cantwell said citing a poll by the Gallup Organization. ``Americans by a two-to-one margin say the United States should emphasize greater consumer conservation over existing energy supplies rather than production of oil, gas, coal or other supplies.'' Crude oil surged to an all-time high of $56.35 a barrel today in New York as a promise of higher output by members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries failed to ease concern that demand is rising faster than supply. ``We have an energy policy which discourages production and encourages consumption,'' J. Robinson West, chairman of Washington-based energy consultants PFC Energy said in an interview. ``This is unsustainable. The United States is the only country that withholds substantial areas from oil gas exploration.''

Thanks for the most part to our wanton self-absorbtion, our planet's malignancy is spreading with increasing and unremitting virulance - engulfing anything in it's path.

I will never understand those who cheer for the destruction of our beloved planet.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Thanks for the most part to our wanton self-absorbtion, our planet's malignancy is spreading with increasing and unremitting virulance - engulfing anything in it's path. I will never understand those who cheer for the destruction of our beloved planet.

I can certainly appreciate that, though we're not talking about the most inhabitable part of Alaska. And it's not really that large of a space, relatively speaking.

Okay, who's got the NONBIASED goods on the details of ANWAR? By that I mean one that�s not sponsored by the oil companies, political think tanks, etc. that verifiably demonstrates exactly how much oil is up there, the benefits and consequences of drilling? Anyone?

�Cause this is what I�ve heard � the benefits are supposedly bogus. There�s no verification as to whether or not this will reduce oil prices because:

-At most the reserves up there give about 6 months worth of oil supply at full capacity
-It will take approx. 10 years for everything to be fully operational up there, which has a pretty serious negligent effect on today�s problems.
-It doesn�t address our dependency, nor the rest of the world�s dependency on Middle East oil very well at all
-Bush is still not doing jack shit about renewable energy supplies, and this doesn�t address that in any way�

And what�s worse, I have heard that this bill essentially gives us free reign to drill in ANY and ALL wildlife preserves. IOW, we now have full reign to drill in Yellowstone, Yosemite, etc. if we so desire.

So what�s the skinny? Am I correct or incorrect here? I haven�t followed this issue too close, so I welcome any corrections to what I�ve heard.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I can certainly appreciate that, though we're not talking about the most inhabitable part of Alaska. And it's not really that large of a space, relatively speaking.

Relatively speaking, our planet's not that large of a space either, but it's the only habitable space we have as human beings.

It's a shame that, given of our ever increasing knowledge of science, we aren't better able to live 'symbiotically' with nature; as we continually choose to destroy it (rather than preserve it.)

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Okay, who's got the NONBIASED goods on the details of ANWAR? By that I mean one that�s not sponsored by the oil companies, political think tanks, etc. that verifiably demonstrates exactly how much oil is up there, the benefits and consequences of drilling? Anyone?

Admittedly, I don't. Like you, I have heard plenty of statistics, but don't have any hard numbers to give you.

quote:

�Cause this is what I�ve heard � the benefits are supposedly bogus. There�s no verification as to whether or not this will reduce oil prices because:

I'm curious where you heard that--not that I want to dispute it, but just to read more on it. I know it is true that it takes a long time to actually scout out the fields, drill the wells, extract the oil, ship it to the refinery, and then refine it, so you are not incorrect to say that this won't necessarily reduce oil prices--at least not yet(on a fundamental basis). However, the longer it sits in the ground, the further behind we would be on getting to it, thus only prolonging the long-term negative. Also, I believe that a lot of what has been driving prices sky high is purely speculation and psychological issues--not to mention some price manipulation that I can't prove, but that I have to believe is going on in the futures pits.

Two of our biggest problems are that we don't have enough refineries. I'm sure it has been said before, but there hasn't been a new refinery built in the U.S. in 25 years or so. Without more refining capacity, there could be 5 zillion barrels of oil sitting outside the door, but without the ability to refine it efficiently, oil demand will continue to outstrip supply.

The other problem is the numerous specialty blends of fuel that have been demanded by everyone from environmentalists to politicians. It creates massive inefficiencies and refining costs which only add to the ultimate consumer cost.

quote:

And what�s worse, I have heard that this bill essentially gives us free reign to drill in ANY and ALL wildlife preserves. IOW, we now have full reign to drill in Yellowstone, Yosemite, etc. if we so desire.

I don't know about that. Where did you read that? I'd have a hard time believing something as broad and non-explicit as that could actually pass, but I could be wrong. I don't think anyone is going drilling in Yellowstone or Yosemite--I thought this was specific to ANWR.

quote:

So what�s the skinny? Am I correct or incorrect here? I haven�t followed this issue too close, so I welcome any corrections to what I�ve heard.

Who knows, but I paid $30 to fill up my friggin gas tank last night. The cost is noticeable. Between me and my wife, we spend well over $150 a month on gas for our cars, and neither of us drives very far to get to work.

In any event, here's some commentary from a top-notch energy research/analytics firm in Texas.

quote:

Dave Birsa, Chevron exploration manager for Alaska, said: "The ANWR coastal plain is very special. It is on trend with the prolific oil fields of the central North Slope and has significant geological potential. It is also an area where the arctic environment must be protected. Because of our relationship with ASRC and the native villages on the north slope, we feel we have the unique ability to explore, an ultimately develop, the resources of the area in an environmentally responsible manner that takes into consideration the needs of everyone involved." "ANWR offers the greatest potential for a world-class oil discovery on the North Slope," added Neil Ritson, exploration vice president for BPX in Alaska. "We continue to strongly support environmentally sound access to ANWR. ANWR is undoubtedly the most important area of new potential in Alaska." ASRC owns subsurface oil and gas mineral rights to 92,000 acres on the coastal plain of ANWR on the eastern North Slope. The acreage is about 100 miles east of the Prudhoe Bay oil field. Chevron, the operator, and BPX have had the land under lease since 1984. The only well ever drilled onshore in the ANWR coastal plain, the KIC #1, was drilled in 1984-85. Well results remain confidential.

Yeah--it would be nice if those results weren't confidential!

Also, the higher oil prices go, the more nuclear energy will become an option on the table. I can't wait to see the shit hit the fan when that starts to happen.

well and anyone that has looked into the canadian oil reserves, and others in the Alaskan region, Canadian oil is nearly prohibitively expensive to refine. Most OPEC and Mid Eastern oil is very pure and easily turned into petrol. Canadian oil - and likely the ANWAR oil - has a very high sand content. this means it costs a shitload to purify, and likely will be of vast importance. but thats when the shit hits the fan.

and like Opus ive heard the comments on 10+yrs for production. thats being very optimistic. many reserves arent tapped for production until about 20 years after initial discovery|

The bill only deals with ANWAR,it dosent allow for drilling in any other National Parks or other areas of conservation.....but it does set an omnious precident for future drilling in these areas,once the door is opened a little bit the oil companies will lobby for more and more access to these areas as well...thats a certainty

quote:

Originally posted by zig The bill only deals with ANWAR,it dosent allow for drilling in any other National Parks or other areas of conservation.....but it does set an omnious precident for future drilling in these areas,once the door is opened a little bit the oil companies will lobby for more and more access to these areas as well...thats a certainty

yeh next on the list is Cheneys private compound in Dublin...hehe.

fucking ass****s|

I don't think drilling for oil is really any worse than building homes on land that was once inhabited by animals, clearing land for power lines or factories, building dams that alter natural wildlife, building plants on rivers and lakes, cutting down trees for everyday consumption, or even overfishing or even overharvesting of the oceans to create dead spots in the ocean. There is so much that is done every single day, I guess it is the nature of humans to use resources, perhaps that is why they are called resources in the first place.

ANWR is a tiny fraction of Alaska, and only 1/100th of 1% (that's .01%) of ANWR will be drilled...leaving literally 99.99% of the state untouched.

That's one million barrels a day, coming out of a small fraction of an uninhabited ice cube. It will provide thousands of jobs and plenty of oil that would otherwise have been purchased from terrorist arab states.

You envirowhackos really need to get a life.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt ANWR is a tiny fraction of Alaska, and only 1/100th of 1% (that's .01%) of ANWR will be drilled...leaving literally 99.99% of the state untouched. That's one million barrels a day coming out of a small fraction of an uninhabited ice cube. It will provide thousands of jobs and will provide oil that would otherwise have been purchased from terrorist arab states. You envirowhackos really need to get a life.

so then, its compeletely whacko to think that we should perhaps look into new sources of energy? isnt that what the free market is all about?


oh wait, you just hate the decided hippies|

Interesting (and confusingly) enough...the TEAMSTERS appove of the vote...

Aren't they supposed to be on the left?

>>Confusion here<<

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Interesting (and confusingly) enough...the TEAMSTERS appove of the vote... Aren't they supposed to be on the left? >>Confusion here<<

Politics in the U.S. is not Team Left vs. Team Right on most issues, because there are more political ideologies than can be encompassed in 2 political parties. The Teamsters contribute more often to Democrats because they generally support their ideals more than Republicans on labor issues. The Teamsters favor this because it is their sole interest: American jobs.

That site referenced is not really a good source for further information though, since it's an oil lobby group that stands to make quite a bit of money from drilling.

ON the ANWR issue in general, by all estimates we're hardly going to get enough oil to sustain our consumption even if used as a supplement to current supply, so this does nothing to cut down on Saudi purchases. Known oil sources are going to run out before social security and we have nothing to fall back on and minimal investment in reaearch for alternatives. The reality is the administration comes from an oil background and this is a boone for them, conservation and alternative energy sources are not.

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 Politics in the U.S. is not Team Left vs. Team Right on most issues, because there are more political ideologies than can be encompassed in 2 political parties. The Teamsters contribute more often to Democrats because they generally support their ideals more than Republicans on labor issues. The Teamsters favor this because it is their sole interest: American jobs.

That is quite the dichotomy to have to live with yes...
Hugging trees and the 'big machine'.

quote:

That site referenced is not really a good source for further information though, since it's an oil lobby group that stands to make quite a bit of money from drilling.

So who's loosing anyways?
Ecological impact is always at the forefront of any major project anyways (at least these days).
With so much attention, you can bet they'll be watched like a hawk.

quote:

ON the ANWR issue in general, by all estimates we're hardly going to get enough oil to sustain our consumption even if used as a supplement to current supply, so this does nothing to cut down on Saudi purchases. Known oil sources are going to run out before social security and we have nothing to fall back on and minimal investment in reaearch for alternatives. The reality is the administration comes from an oil background and this is a boone for them, conservation and alternative energy sources are not.

They said the same thing about the great oil shortage back in the 70s too. Then carborators and methods measuring oil resources changed all that.
Any way you slice it, dependance on other countries might not ever stop but at least the demand can be somewhat controlled.
It's just another building block along with conservation and alternative energy sources.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r That is quite the dichotomy to have to live with yes... Hugging trees and the 'big machine'.

No, you don't get it. You're just stereotyping. The Teamsters couldn't care less about the environment and support Democrats the same way most corporate interests could support Republicans and not care about abortion. There's only 2 choices and special interestsvote on their special interests, period.

quote:

So who's loosing anyways? Ecological impact is always at the forefront of any major project anyways (at least these days). With so much attention, you can bet they'll be watched like a hawk.

I'm sure some environmental groups will watch, but ecological impact isn't at the forefront on anything. I haven't heard a peep from any major news source regarding the loopholes that have begun to be used to excavate resources on the outskirts of other national preserves. Should all wildlife refuge areas and national forests be open to mining or drilling? I haven't heard much about the vast majority of our lakes being too polluted with mercury to eat fish caught in them. Maybe they just aren't as interesting subjects as Michael Jackson? That information from essentially the natural gas &oil lobby would be like going to the tobacco lobby for information about the safety of smoking.

quote:

They said the same thing about the great oil shortage back in the 70s too. Then carborators and methods measuring oil resources changed all that. Any way you slice it, dependance on other countries might not ever stop but at least the demand can be somewhat controlled. It's just another building block along with conservation and alternative energy sources.

Actually, interesting thing that oil shortage. Not sure where they suddenly found so much more and instantly increased production, but somehow the increased rate for gas that resulted from that "crisis" never went down. Sure we'll probably find a few more oil reserves somewhere in the world, but not much more and potentially digging for relatively small amounts of oil somewhere roughly 10 years down the road without investing any further in alternative fuels is hardly an energy plan.

Drilling in ANWR. Excellent. That might mean yet another increase in the number of caribou in Alaska.

http://www.anwr.org/features/pdfs/RangeMagANWRpiece.pdf

quote:

However, the fact is that after 30 years of development of the Alaska oil fields at Prudhoe Bay and surrounding areas, wildlife populations have not experienced major impacts. Populations of caribou, grizzly bears, polar bears, arctic foxes, and musk ox, have all grown or remained stable over the period of oil exploration and development. A particularly important example is caribou of the Central Arctic Herd, that occurs in the Prudhoe Bay region. This caribou herd has grown from fewer than 5,000 to 32,000 animals since the oil fields were developed. Caribou in the oil field areas frequently have had higher calf/cow ratios than in undeveloped areas, continue to calve in oil field areas, and use oil field habitats extensively during the summer. This includes frequent use of oil field roads and structures for travel and to escape from insects.

quote:

Interest groups represented on the Arctic Power (anwr.org)board and through its membership are: Alaska Support Industry Alliance Alaska State Chamber of Commerce Resource Development Council Alaska Trucking Association Alaska Oil & Gas Association Anchorage Chamber of Commerce Alaska Miner's Association Alaska Forest Association.

Yep, lets use the primary lobbying group as the source of all information on the subject.

It is amazing....You raise legitimate concerns about the enviroment and all of a sudden your a...........TREEHUGGER..........but there again its the same people probably that are denying that the situation in Iraq has anything to do with oil.....they just cant see the trees for all the oil in the way....

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 No, you don't get it. You're just stereotyping. The Teamsters couldn't care less about the environment and support Democrats the same way most corporate interests could support Republicans and not care about abortion. There's only 2 choices and special interestsvote on their special interests, period.

Oh I get it.
Guess this guy >><< doesn't convey sarcasm very well...

quote:

I'm sure some environmental groups will watch, but ecological impact isn't at the forefront on anything. I haven't heard a peep from any major news source regarding the loopholes that have begun to be used to excavate resources on the outskirts of other national preserves. Should all wildlife refuge areas and national forests be open to mining or drilling? I haven't heard much about the vast majority of our lakes being too polluted with mercury to eat fish caught in them. Maybe they just aren't as interesting subjects as Michael Jackson? That information from essentially the natural gas &oil lobby would be like going to the tobacco lobby for information about the safety of smoking.

While that's true, they did put it to a vote and it was close.
It would have been interesting to have been a fly on the wall during those deliberations.
I'm not suggesting that pillaging of natural parks is a good thing, I'd be hypocritial since I love camping at all our national parks up here in Canada.
However, I can't image too many visitors (or even locals) being affected by this proposal.
If anyone can find any information for the opposing arguement, post it.

quote:

Actually, interesting thing that oil shortage. Not sure where they suddenly found so much more and instantly increased production, but somehow the increased rate for gas that resulted from that "crisis" never went down. Sure we'll probably find a few more oil reserves somewhere in the world, but not much more and potentially digging for relatively small amounts of oil somewhere roughly 10 years down the road without investing any further in alternative fuels is hardly an energy plan.

quote:

Canada now has the second-largest oil reserves in the world, ahead of Iraq...

Ignore the highly annoying font this guy uses...
>>Source<<

There are lots of reserves out there (untapped) and while there will always be a demand for oil, there will always be a supply due the increase and change in technology.

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 ON the ANWR issue in general, by all estimates we're hardly going to get enough oil to sustain our consumption even if used as a supplement to current supply, so this does nothing to cut down on Saudi purchases.

I'm wondering if you're confusing ANWR with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. From what I've heard, there is a substantial amount of black gold up there, it's just a matter of dealing with environmentalists and making the initial investment to get the equipment and infrastructure in place. Clearly, a large investment would be required on the front end, which would not be financially justifiable if there were only an incremental amount of oil up there. I'm pretty sure there are several billion barrels of estimated probable recoverable reserves, though I admittedly don't have the stats on hand to prove that--I'm going from memory.

I'm currently reading up a bit more on this topic since I really don't know too much about it. I'll post a detailed summary when I'm through (just for you, Shakka!). Right now I'm currently reading an incredible speech by a Congressmen on the House floor back on March 14th of this year. It's long as hell, but you might think twice about whom you may want to call a "treehugger". Feel free to read along too (Adobe req'd):

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...ame=2005_record

Long as hell, but well worth the read. And I'll save you the suspense on who gave the speech - Roscoe Bartlett, REPUBLICAN from Maryland.

And one thing I will post is something I found pretty interesting - it appears that the oil industry didn't have too much of an interest in drilling up in ANWAR as we may have thought. Anyone run across this story back in February? I'll highlight some interesting points:

quote:

Big Oil Steps Aside in Battle Over Arctic February 21, 2005 By JEFF GERTH WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 - George W. Bush first proposed drilling for oil in a small part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska in 2000, after oil industry experts helped his presidential campaign develop an energy plan. Five years later, he is pushing the proposal again, saying the nation urgently needs to increase domestic production. But if Mr. Bush's drilling plan passes in Congress after what is expected to be a fierce fight, it may prove to be a triumph of politics over geology.

Politics over geology.

IOW, politics over science. Sound familiar? Moving on...

quote:

Once allied, the administration and the oil industry are now far apart on the issue. The major oil companies are largely uninterested in drilling in the refuge, skeptical about the potential there. Even the plan's most optimistic backers agree that any oil from the refuge would meet only a tiny fraction of America's needs.

Hold those last 2 sentences in mind.

quote:

While Democrats have repeatedly blocked the drilling plan, many legislators believe it has its best chance of passage this year, because of a Republican-led White House and Congress and tighter energy supplies. Though the oil industry is on the sidelines, the president still has plenty of allies. The Alaska Congressional delegation is eager for the revenue and jobs drilling could provide. Other legislators favor exploring the refuge because more promising prospects, like drilling off the coasts of Florida or California, are not politically palatable. And many Republicans hope to claim opening the refuge to exploration as a victory in the long-running conflict between development interests and environmentalists.

Politics over geology.
Politics over geology.

quote:

The refuge is a symbol of that larger debate, said Senator Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican who is a major supporter of drilling. Opponents agree. "This is the No. 1 environmental battle of the decade," said Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts. Whether that battle will be worthwhile, though, is not clear. Neither advocates nor critics can answer a crucial question: how much oil lies beneath the wilderness where the administration wants to permit drilling? Advocates cite a 1998 government study that estimated the part of the refuge proposed for drilling might hold 10 billion barrels of oil. But only one test well has been drilled, in the 1980's, and its results are one of the industry's most closely guarded secrets.

Okay, let's back up to that one sentence I said to keep in mind:

quote:

The major oil companies are largely uninterested in drilling in the refuge, skeptical about the potential there. Even the plan's most optimistic backers agree that any oil from the refuge would meet only a tiny fraction of America's needs.

Now let's repeat that previous sentence right next to it:

quote:

But only one test well has been drilled, in the 1980's, and its results are one of the industry's most closely guarded secrets.

Since we're dealing with an uncertainty here, we can only speculate. Yet I can't help but wonder why the oil industry is largely uninterested while they keep their one test drill so secretive.

Could it be, perhaps, that their results weren't too promising? Let's keep in mind that oil drilling is so incredibly efficient nowadays - they squeeze the absolute potential out of science and technology. Again we're only speculating, but I think it's fair to assume the reason why the oil industries aren't too terribly interested is because they don't see a very good total net profit in it. We're getting very very close to a 1:1 ratio of energy needed just to extract the oil vs. total oil extracted, and the oil industries are likely seeing this with ANWAR.

quote:

A Bush adviser says the major oil companies have a dimmer view of the refuge's prospects than the administration does. "If the government gave them the leases for free they wouldn't take them," said the adviser, who would speak only anonymously because of his position. "No oil company really cares about ANWR," the adviser said, using an acronym for the refuge, pronounced "an-war." Wayne Kelley, who worked in Alaska as a petroleum engineer for Halliburton, the oil services corporation, and is now managing director of RSK, an oil consulting company, said the refuge's potential could "only be determined by drilling." "The enthusiasm of government officials about ANWR exceeds that of industry because oil companies are driven by market forces, investing resources in direct proportion to the economic potential, and the evidence so far about ANWR is not promising," Mr. Kelley said.

And who said Bush doesn't listen very well to scientists? Damn, even when there's a monetary motive involved the fucking bastard still doesn't open up his big fucking ears.

Go figure.

quote:

The project has long been on Mr. Bush's agenda. When he formulated a national energy policy during the 2000 campaign he turned to the oil industry for help. Heading the effort was Hunter Hunt, a top executive of the Hunt Oil Company, based in Dallas. The Bush energy advisers endorsed opening a small part - less than 10 percent of the 19-million-acre refuge - to oil exploration, an idea first proposed more than two decades ago. The refuge, their report stated, "could eventually produce more than the amount of oil the United States now imports from Iraq."

The problem is this won't alleviate our gas and energy prices 1 fucking penny, and Bush knows that. We're dealing with a world market here - whatever can be produced doesn't go directly towards the U.S. here folks. Rather, it goes out to the WORLD MARKET, and OPEC still sets the prices on it accordingly.

And as Shakka pointed out earlier, we've maxed out on refineries here in our own country, so the price as a result of going through refineries will not change 1 penny either.

quote:

The plan criticized President Bill Clinton's energy policies, both in the Middle East, where most of the world's oil lies, and in the United States. In 1995 Mr. Clinton vetoed legislation that authorized leasing in the Alaska refuge. An earlier opportunity to open it collapsed after oil spilled into Alaskan waters in 1989 from the Exxon Valdez. Subsequent efforts, including one in Mr. Bush's first term, also failed. Mr. Hunt, through an aide, declined an interview request. Others who advised Mr. Bush on his energy plan said including the refuge was seen as a political maneuver to open the door to more geologically promising prospects off the coasts of California and Florida. Those areas, where tests have found oil, have been blocked for years by federal moratoriums because of political and environmental concerns.

Shakka, you asked me about the ideas of potential drilling elsewhere if ANWAR is passed. The above paragraph concedes the point that in fact it does open up potential areas around the U.S.

quote:

"If you can't do ANWR," said Matthew R. Simmons, a Houston investment banker for the energy industry and a Bush adviser in 2000, "you'll never be able to drill in the promising areas." Shortly after assuming office, Mr. Bush asked Vice President Dick Cheney to lead an examination of energy policy. A May 2001 report by a task force Mr. Cheney assembled echoed many of Mr. Bush's campaign promises, including opening up part of the refuge. The report called for further study of the Gulf of Mexico and other areas. The next year, Mr. Bush said "our national security makes it urgent" to explore the refuge. By then, the industry was moving in the opposite direction. In 2002 BP withdrew financial support from Arctic Power, a lobbying group financed by the state of Alaska, after an earlier withdrawal by Chevron Texaco. BP, long active in Alaska, later moved its team of executives to Houston from Alaska, a company executive said. "We're leaving this to the American public to sort out," said Ronnie Chappell, a BP spokesman, of the refuge. About a year ago, ConocoPhillips also stopped its financial support for Arctic Power, said Kristi A. DesJarlais, a company spokeswoman. Ms. DesJarlais said her company had a "conceptual interest" in the refuge but "a more immediate interest in opportunities elsewhere." Other companies have taken similar positions. George L. Kirkland, an executive vice president of Chevron Texaco, said a still-banned section in the Gulf of Mexico, where the company has already drilled, was of more immediate interest. ExxonMobil also has shown little public enthusiasm for the refuge. Lee R. Raymond, the chairman and chief executive, said in an television interview last December, "I don't know if there is anything in ANWR or not." For the Interior Department, however, the refuge is the best land-based opportunity to find new oil. Any lease revenues, estimated by the department to be $2.4 billion in 2007, would be split between the federal and state governments. Advocates say oil production could reach one million barrels per day. In a decade from now, when the site might be fully developed, that would be about 4 percent of American consumption, according to federal forecasts. David L. Bernhardt, deputy chief of staff to the secretary of the interior, cited a 1998 study by the United States Geological Survey estimating that the refuge might hold 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil. (The estimate for offshore oil is 76 billion barrels.) But that study has significant weaknesses, which Mr. Bernhardt acknowledged. Its estimates are of "petroleum resources" - potential oil deposits - instead of "petroleum reserves," which refers to oil that has been discovered. Ken Bird, a geological survey official who worked on the study, said the federal geologists did not have access to test data from the only exploratory well drilled on the refuge, by Chevron Texaco and BP in the 1980's. An official with one of the companies, speaking anonymously because of the confidentiality of the test, said that if the results had been encouraging the company would be more engaged in the political effort to open the refuge.

That last coupla paragraphs were interesting, and I wasn't aware of the flaws of that 1998 study. Anyone else know this?

quote:

There has not been much discussion about the refuge between the companies and the Bush administration, according to industry and government officials. "I don't think I've talked to the oil industry over the last several years about the economic potential of ANWR," Mr. Bernhardt said.

Well gee, wouldn't that be a novel fucking idea if you did, since they are kinda the ones that you're trying to do business with?

Conservatives, did you guys really vote for these fucking people, AGAIN?

quote:

The relationship between the administration and the oil industry has been a flashpoint for critics of Mr. Bush. Democrats, upset that Mr. Cheney refused to disclose information about his task force meetings with industry executives, see a cozy alliance. Their concerns are heightened because of the former ties between the industry and Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and the administration's stance on issues like climate change. The president once headed a small exploration company, and Mr. Cheney previously was chief executive of Halliburton. "Big oil," Senator John Kerry said in last year's presidential campaign, now calls "the White House their home."

Which strangely isn't quite the case here, John. While they may certainly comfy up to one another, this doesn't appear to be as close of a relationship as you may want to suggest, at least when it comes to ANWAR. We must certainly concede this point.

quote:

Some industry executives say their views are more aligned with those of Republicans on a broad range of issues including regulation, the environment and energy supply, and they were heartened by the initial pronouncements of the Bush administration. But some say they feel let down by Mr. Bush's inability to lift bans on oil exploration. "When this administration came in, the president and the vice president recognized there was a problem of energy supply and demand," said Tom Fry, the executive director of the National Offshore Industries Association. But Mr. Cheney's task force, Mr. Fry said, talked only about offshore drilling as something to be studied. "They never say they will lift the moratoria," he said. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/21/p...print&position=

So the oil industries don't seem interested, and we can only speculate as to why (no net $ on total production). And we still haven't heard hardly anything about alternative energy resources.

Well like it or not, we're quickly approaching that critical point when we're no longer going to have a choice about addressing alternative energy. I highly suggest you read Congressman Bartlett's speech, a true eye opener from an environmentally conscience Republican.

Good work opus.....you can only assume that Bush and Co are looking at the bigger picture here with a view to explioting the offshore wells at some stage,and perhaps the Anwar is the easiest to push through at the moment even though it probably isnt profitable,but its the least contentious and will leave the door ajar for further drilling down the road.....its really really difficult to believe that an agenda is not at work here even if the Anwar is not profitable...its part of a bigger gameplan if nothing else....

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Ignore the highly annoying font this guy uses... >>Source<< There are lots of reserves out there (untapped) and while there will always be a demand for oil, there will always be a supply due the increase and change in technology.

There will always be a supply?!?! There's no way that's true. It takes millions of years for oil deposits to form. Here's a quote fromyour article:

quote:

"The key point about tar sands is that the resource is huge but the extraction rate is very low," Colin Campbell says. "Production from them will have a negligible impact on the global peak but will slowly increase afterwards. So far only the easiest places have been exploited so production will get exponentially more costly and difficult. Now they dig away up to 240ft of overburden to get to the deposit: to go deeper would be hugely more expensive. So tar sands oil is no panacea but will slightly ameliorate the post-peak decline."

There may be some oil there, but this is not the same type that is found in Saudi Arabia. The oil in Canada and Alaska is much harder to refine and consequently much more costly. This will not last that long and it's why we seriously need to look into alternatives now for when we run out, which by most estimates could well be before the end of the century. The incident in the 1970s had nothing to do with finding alternatives or new technology. It had the Israel/Palestinian crisis and price fixing.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I'm wondering if you're confusing ANWR with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. From what I've heard, there is a substantial amount of black gold up there, it's just a matter of dealing with environmentalists and making the initial investment to get the equipment and infrastructure in place. Clearly, a large investment would be required on the front end, which would not be financially justifiable if there were only an incremental amount of oil up there. I'm pretty sure there are several billion barrels of estimated probable recoverable reserves, though I admittedly don't have the stats on hand to prove that--I'm going from memory.

It would depend what you consider a substantial amount. I would say good ol' ANWR.org's figures would be the most optimistic estimates out there and they have a chart that says it has enough oil to support my state for 49 years. That would roughly mean possibly a little more than a year's oil for the entire country. That's the best estimate and there are many more conservative ones that suggest around half that amount.

I'm for anything which will drop the price of gasoline at the pump. I personally believe we need to tell OPEC WTF we want them to do instead of the other way around - and force is not out of the equation. The oil producers are the most pathetic abusers of human rights anyhow.


[[[smoke]]]

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.