|
Anwar
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
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.'' |
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| 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.
 |
|
|
| 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?
‘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 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. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| 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.) :( |
|
|
| Shakka |
| 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 hit the fan when that starts to happen. |
|
|
| biznology |
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 load to purify, and likely will be of vast importance. but thats when the 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| |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
| biznology |
| 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.
ing asss| |
|
|
| BadBadNeil |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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 plenty of oil that would otherwise have been purchased from terrorist arab states.
You envirowhackos really need to get a life. |
|
|
| biznology |
| 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| |
|
|
|
|
