Question about drilling for oil in ANWR....

[MartinBlank]

Can somebody, ANYBODY, explain to me why we should not drill for oil in Alaska?? I'm looking for actual, honest to god reasons/proof....please, DO NOT start a post with "I feel...."!! And if anyone has any links that might aid in the discussion, they'd be greatly appreciated.

[RoyalTea]

National Wildlife Refuge - The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.

[classicman2]

There's no real, factual, honest to god reason why we should not at least do exploratory drilling in ANWR.

Factual reason why we should: It would decrease our dependence on foreign sources for oil.

[grundle]

Opponents of drilling at ANWR claim that it would kill the caribou.

Of course, they said the exact same thing 30 years ago about drilling at Prudhoe Bay. But the oil companies went ahead and drilled at Prudhoe Bay anyway. Since then, the caribou population at Prudhoe Bay increased from 5,000 to 27,000.

The Audobon Society and the Nature Conservancy have drilled for oil on their own privately owned land, without messing up the environment.

I am against the current proposal for drilling at ANWR, because it would force taxpayers to spend billions of dollars on corporate welfare for the oil companies.

I believe that ANWR should be auctioned off at public auction to the highest bidder. If every person who claimed to be an "environmentalist" would donate as much money as what he spends on gasoline for one year, I'm sure the "environmentalists" would win the auction.

[classicman2]

The opponents of Prudhoe Bay & the Alaskan pipeline said that it would kill the caribou herd.

The caribou herd has grown in numbers.

[Duran]

Quite frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what happens to the caribou. ANWR should be open to drilling. The government shouldn't be paying companies to do it, though. If it's economically viable, they'll do it on their own.

[X]

Quite frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what happens to the caribou. ANWR should be open to drilling. The government shouldn't be paying companies to do it, though. If it's economically viable, they'll do it on their own.I don't know what the subsidies consist of, but there are at least two considerations that would keep companies from doing this.

1) It's still easier to explore in other countries having an existing oil infrastructure than in frozen tundra. But drilling in foreign countries doesn't help energy independence.

2) It's risky just from a political standpoint. An act of Congress, a new president, a stoke of a pen could take away any ability for the companies to actually extract oil from ANWR after they sink loads of money into exploration.

[Duran]

I don't know what the subsidies consist of, but there are at least two considerations that would keep companies from doing this.

1) It's still easier to explore in other countries having an existing oil infrastructure than in frozen tundra. But drilling in foreign countries doesn't help energy independence.

2) It's risky just from a political standpoint. An act of Congress, a new president, a stoke of a pen could take away any ability for the companies to actually extract oil from ANWR after they sink loads of money into exploration.

1) What exactly is the point of "energy independence?" To mitigate the risk of being cut off? I suppose it would, but that seems an unlikely scenario.

2) Agreed.

[E70f]

Factual reason why we should: It would decrease our dependence on foreign sources for oil.

Where do you think oil from Alaska ends up? (Hint: It's not the USA. Look at where the tankers go.)

[Mordred]

1) What exactly is the point of "energy independence?" To mitigate the risk of being cut off? I suppose it would, but that seems an unlikely scenario.To lessen our demand on foreign oil so that A) prices don't rise as much and B) in the case that we are cut off that our economy doesn't collapse. ANWR will most likely have little effect on either.

Really what we need to do is hope that fuel cells come along quickly and then we can just get the hell out of the middle east altogether. And they can go back to fighting amongst themselves.

[X]

Where do you think oil from Alaska ends up? (Hint: It's not the USA. Look at where the tankers go.)I believe some Alaskan oil does end up on the West Coast. It sure looks like it from the names of the ships I see going through SF Bay to Chevron's Richmond refinery.

Oil going anywhere else is due to logistics. If we were squeezed that would change.

[JasonF]

From the Save the Arctic website (and I don't vouch for the accuracy of any of this; I don't know whether it's true or not):
PRUDHOE BAY

Oil and Wildlife Don't Mix: Lessons From the Prudhoe Bay Oilfields

While Big Oil and its pro-drilling advocates in Congress claim that the affects of drilling in the Arctic Refuge would be minimal, one need look just 60 miles west of the Refuge to the Prudhoe Bay oilfields for abundant evidence of the negative impacts of drilling on wildlife and wilderness.

Size and Scope

The scope of the Prudhoe Bay oilfields turned what was a pristine wilderness area into one of the world's largest industrial complexes. The massive network now sprawls out over 640,000 acres and can be seen clearly by astronauts from space. The insatiable growth of the field has burgeoned far beyond the scope of the initial Environmental Impact Survey: gravel mines have extracted 400% more gravel, oil companies have drilled 5 times as many wells, roads have extended twice as far, and gravel pads for the facilities have buried three times the area initially predicted. The complex includes 3,898 exploratory wells, 170 drilling pads, 596 miles of road, 1,100 miles of pipeline, 5 docks, housing for 5,000 employees, and 25 production, processing, sea water treatment and power plants. The enormity of this colossal industrial web clearly undermine drilling proponents' claim that industrial development could be limited

Toxic Spills

Toxic chemical spills are commonplace at the Prudhoe Bay oilfield. There were thousands of spills during pipeline construction, and an average of just under 400 spills annually have been reported on the North Slope since 1996 (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation spill database 1996-2002). In terms of quantity, 1.3 million gallons of toxic substances were spilled between 1996 and 2000 alone. Roughly 40 different substances, from acid to waste oil to diesel and crude, are commonly spilled during routine operations. Diesel is particularly devastating to plant life; a study of diesel spills in Alaska's arctic found that there were was little vegetation recovery 28 years after a spill.

Waste and Pollution

Accidental spills are only half the story. The industrial complex of Prudhoe Bay annually emits more air pollutants than Washington, D.C., and has permitted total emissions that exceed those of at least six states - this in an area once considered America's last great wilderness. Plumes of Prudhoe Bay pollution can be detected 200 miles away and visibility in the once pristine air has been significantly reduced by a permanent haze. The oil industry saps the arid region of an astounding 27 billion gallons of water a year and releases vast quantities of waste materials in Prudhoe Bay. Much of this is solid industrial waste like used drums and constructions materials, but most is liquid wastes as a result of drilling. Daily, 3,000 cubic yards of drilling waste, 40 million gallons of "produced water" or "toxic brine," 40,000 gallons of liquid oily waste and 300 cubic yards of oil contaminated solid wastes and sludges are generated through drilling operations that are disposed of in open waste pits, are frozen into the permafrost, or injected back under ground with unknown effects.

http://www.savearcticrefuge.org/sections/prudhoe.html

[X]

1) What exactly is the point of "energy independence?" To mitigate the risk of being cut off? I suppose it would, but that seems an unlikely scenario. And balance of trade.

[classicman2]

Where do you think oil from Alaska ends up? (Hint: It's not the USA. Look at where the tankers go.)

You're way behind the times. As of 2-3 years ago, all of Alaskan oil goes to 4 states - Alaska, Washington, Oregon & California.

The change came when then Senator Murkowski was Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee.

[Gallant Pig]

1) What exactly is the point of "energy independence?" To mitigate the risk of being cut off? I suppose it would, but that seems an unlikely scenario.

2) Agreed.


If we had 1) we wouldn't have our balls in a vice right now... A vice owned by some sheiks or dictators in countries where all the citizens hate us.

As for not giving a shit about the Caribou, I guess we could plunder the whole country, cut down the forests for wood, make farmland out of it, mine this place into nothing. But damn it sure would be a more boring place afterward. Personally I wouldn't want every state to look like Iowa, would you? My point is you have to draw the line somewhere. Just because you don't give a shit about an area that doesn't affect you, doesn't mean we shouldn't watch out for it.

Finally, If you don't give a shit about energy independence, why open ANWR at all? That's the only incentive I can see in doing it is for energy independence. However, if the Chinese are ever successful in buying our Oil Companies, the whole thing goes down the shitter anyway. I doubt their latest attempt will be the last for Oil Starved "50 Billion Dollar Surplus in 1 Month" China.

I guess we need a private state run oil company like what Mexico has.

Anyway, I don't think testing ANWR to see how much oil it has is a bad thing, if it has tons and tons of oil, maybe we should keep it for our own interests instead of letting Haliburton or whoever take it for their own. But I would like to see us try and not disturb the evironment as best we can.

My 2 cents.

[classicman2]

You forgot - the pristine environment.

One of the most desolate places on the planet.

The greenies love to show pictures of the greenery. Of course the pictures they show is in the summer and nowhere near the site for exploration and drilling. BTW: There will be no activity during the summer.

[X]

Yeah. If I had a million dollars for each person who enjoyed that area last winter I'd have enough to buy an average house in California.

[E70f]

You're way behind the times. As of 2-3 years ago, all of Alaskan oil goes to 4 states - Alaska, Washington, Oregon & California.

I didn't know that. Good :up: Thanks for correcting me.

Still, isn't the expected amount from ANWR a tiny drop in our consumption? It will help, but only a tiny bit. It's not a cure and the whole thing just smells of Bush, or rather the US taxpayer, throwing our money at his friends in the oil companies.

[Duran]

If we had 1) we wouldn't have our balls in a vice right now... A vice owned by some sheiks or dictators in countries where all the citizens hate us.


Oil is a commodity. Its price is governed by supply and demand. If oil is selling for $50/barrel, it's selling for $60/barrel everywhere, whether it's from Alaska or Iran. Oil from ANWR might increase supply, but on the other hand, OPEC could just reduce the amount they're pumping, leaving us in the same spot we were before. If OPEC controls most of the oil, the vice stays on our balls less we stop using oil.


As for not giving a shit about the Caribou, I guess we could plunder the whole country, cut down the forests for wood, make farmland out of it, mine this place into nothing. But damn it sure would be a more boring place afterward. Personally I wouldn't want every state to look like Iowa, would you? My point is you have to draw the line somewhere. Just because you don't give a shit about an area that doesn't affect you, doesn't mean we shouldn't watch out for it.


How many people enjoyed the pristine nature that is ANWR last year?


Finally, If you don't give a shit about energy independence, why open ANWR at all? That's the only incentive I can see in doing it is for energy independence. However, if the Chinese are ever successful in buying our Oil Companies, the whole thing goes down the shitter anyway. I doubt their latest attempt will be the last for Oil Starved "50 Billion Dollar Surplus in 1 Month" China.


I'd only care to do so if it is economically viable. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing for profit. X made a good point about the political implications increasing the risk for a private corporation.

[X]

Really what we need to do is hope that fuel cells come along quickly and then we can just get the hell out of the middle east altogether. And they can go back to fighting amongst themselves. "Hope" is the operative word since we have to generate hydrogen for them and that takes energy. Where does all that energy come from?

[Myster X]

space

[al_bundy]

1) What exactly is the point of "energy independence?" To mitigate the risk of being cut off? I suppose it would, but that seems an unlikely scenario.

2) Agreed.

every time there is fear of something happening somewhere the oil prices shoot up. If we had enough supply than fear of a shortage from somewhere would make prices shoot through the roof. $75 is the next price target for oil.

[Myster X]

When will the bubble pop or is there one?

Oil surges to $66 a barrel

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/11/markets/oil.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Crude oil and gasoline prices climbed to all-time highs for the second consecutive day Thursday in the U.S. on supply concerns, refinery slowdowns and rising fears over Iran's nuclear aspirations.

September crude prices hit $66 a barrel Thursday morning before retreating to $65.84, up 94 cents. The previous trading record for crude was set on Wednesday at $65 a barrel.

Gasoline futures for September eased after setting another intraday record of $1.955 per gallon.

Consumers immediately felt the effects at the pump as the travel club AAA reported Thursday that the national retail average for a gallon of self-serve regular gasoline reached a record all-time high Thursday of $2.397.

Even the price of heating oil crested at historic levels as futures surged to a record $1.903 per gallon on refinery woes.

"The presence of significant headline risk, most particularly from Iran's international relations, the Atlantic hurricane season and from tightness in refining, is continuing to support prices at higher levels," Barclays Capital told Reuters.

Supply and demand concerns
Earlier Thursday, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said non-OPEC output was not meeting supply expectations.

The agency predicted that supply growth among non-OPEC countries would fall this year by 205,000 barrels per day, with the U.S., Mexico, Norway, Britain and Russia responsible for the supply slowdown.

At the same time, the IEA also bumped up its forecast for the global demand for oil in 2005 and 2006.

The news came one day after a government report released Wednesday by the Energy Information Administration showing that gasoline inventories within the U.S., the world's largest consumer, fell by 2.1 million barrels the week ending August 5.

Crude inventories, conversely, jumped by 2.8 million barrels, the report said.

Supply concerns have already been running high as several U.S. refineries have halted production, while suppliers such as Venezuela have reported crude delivery problems.

Experts say an active hurricane season in the Atlantic also poses a threat to U.S. supplies. To date, eight named storms have erupted, while U.S. government weather forecasters predict as many as 21 tropical storms and 11 hurricanes before the season is over.

In the report released Wednesday the Energy Information Administration noted that the demand for gasoline has not slowed in the U.S., climbing 1.4 percent over the past year. Over the last four weeks, motor gasoline demand has averaged nearly 9.5 million barrels per day.

Yet not all experts are convinced that the record-shattering prices are solely due to supply-and-demand concerns.

Michael Darda, the chief economist with research firm MKM Partners, believes fear also figures into the equation.

"I think there's a heavy portion of demand that is being driven by fear and terror risk rather than actual physical demand," he said. "I don't buy into the notion that we are running out of oil -- not in the near term."

Industry experts note that the jump in oil and gas prices is common at this time of year, just before Labor Day, according to Bill O'Grady, the assistant director of market analysis for A.G. Edwards.

"At this time of year it's normal to see refinery outages and it invariably spooks the market when it happens," he said.

Concerns over Iran
Over the past 11 sessions, oil prices have reacted to the potential of supply disruptions from both Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two largest members of OPEC. (Full story.)

Iran has recently drawn the ire of both U.S. and international leaders by removing seals on its nuclear equipment Wednesday. Fearing Iran's nuclear ambitions, the International Atomic Energy Agency approved a resolution calling for Iran to suspend all nuclear activities.

EU officials warned OPEC's second biggest producer that they would push for punitive action with the U.N. security council if it failed to comply.

Earlier this week the U.S. was forced to halt its missions to exporter Saudi Arabia for two days following warnings of militant attacks in the world's biggest oil exporter.

Right now, the oil cartel is pumping at almost flat out levels with Saudi Arabia the only member with significant spare production capacity.

Even with U.S. crude averaging above $53 a barrel for the year to date, in real terms prices are still below the $80 a barrel average of 1980, after the Iranian revolution.

[OldDude]

I didn't know that. Good :up: Thanks for correcting me.

Still, isn't the expected amount from ANWR a tiny drop in our consumption? It will help, but only a tiny bit. It's not a cure and the whole thing just smells of Bush, or rather the US taxpayer, throwing our money at his friends in the oil companies.

Every single oil well, every single oil field is a drop in the bucket compared to our consumption. Should we close them all and have no oil because each is so small?

That argument holds no water (or oil, as the case may be). There are hundreds of thousands of oil wells, each contributing a little. When they each play out, they need to be replaced. Environmentalists using your argument have kept us from replacing depleted wells for 30 years; now we are in a world of hurt.

[E70f]

Every single oil well, every single oil field is a drop in the bucket compared to our consumption. Should we close them all and have no oil because each is so small?

:rolleyes: Yes, that's exactly what we should do :rolleyes:

ANWR isn't going to have much effect either way. We do need to increase domestic production0. We also need to decrease domestic consumption. If we make more, but need less, the Saudi grip on our balls weakens. Personally, I would like this to happen, but you might like having Arabs holding your balls. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, if that's what floats your boat).

Will domestic demand go down? Hell no. People want to commute in 12mpg SUVs and chill their houses down to 72 all summer 24X7. Doing otherwise would require patriotic personal sacrifice. So, hell no.

[VinVega]

:rolleyes: Yes, that's exactly what we should do :rolleyes:

ANWR isn't going to have much effect either way. We do need to increase domestic production0. We also need to decrease domestic consumption. If we make more, but need less, the Saudi grip on our balls weakens. Personally, I would like this to happen, but you might like having Arabs holding your balls. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, if that's what floats your boat).

Will domestic demand go down? Hell no. People want to commute in 12mpg SUVs and chill their houses down to 72 all summer 24X7. Doing otherwise would require patriotic personal sacrifice. So, hell no.
I agree with you about the SUV's, but as far as electricity to heat or cool homes, we could be doing so much more with Nuclear technology. Look at what France has done as an example. We don't have the luxury any more of turning our backs on some of these alternatives to more fossil fuel power plants.

[E70f]

as far as electricity to heat or cool homes, we could be doing so much more with Nuclear technology.

:up: I wish we would, I really do. It's not going to happen with a President so in the pocket of the oil industry, and even when he's gone I think it would be a hard sell to the public.

[grundle]

"Hope" is the operative word since we have to generate hydrogen for them and that takes energy. Where does all that energy come from?
We should build more nuclear power plants.

[al_bundy]

the energy bill that the president jsut signed has huge incentives for nuclear power

[classicman2]

I didn't know that. Good :up: Thanks for correcting me.

Still, isn't the expected amount from ANWR a tiny drop in our consumption? It will help, but only a tiny bit. It's not a cure and the whole thing just smells of Bush, or rather the US taxpayer, throwing our money at his friends in the oil companies.

Conservative estimates say that ANWR's production would equal the world's excess capacity - at least what OPEC & the others say is excess capacity. I seriously doubt their figures.

Conservative estimates again say that ANWR production would be equal to Texas' production - & maybe 5 times the production of Texas.

I wish we would, I really do. It's not going to happen with a President so in the pocket of the oil industry, and even when he's gone I think it would be a hard sell to the public.

Bush can do virtually nothing as far as nuclear goes. The people, overall, are afraid of another 3-Mile Island. This is unfortunate because we already have the nuclear technology to produce electricity, and greatly reduce our dependence on coal & natural gas to produce that electrical energy.

[X]

We should build more nuclear power plants.That's exactly where the hydrogen should come from.

[classicman2]

ANWR is not in the current energy bill signed by Bush.

There will be an attempt to insert it in the budget reconcilation in October. It can not be filibustered in the Senate.

Without its inclusion - this energy bill is woefully lacking, because it does not seriously address that fact that we are going to be dependent on fossil fuels for the next 2 decades, and that's assuming we make serious efforts to address the home heating & electricity generation problems we are going to face. As I previously posted - the best way to address those problems would be nuclear, but there's not a snowball's chance in hell that we will do it.

Maybe when folks get their home heating bills (whether they use natural gas or home heating oil) they're going to be in need of medical attention because of the shock they're going to receive. Hopefully, that shock will be sufficient for them to say, 'hell yes I want to build a nuclear power plant, and you can put it in my back yard.' ;)

[OldDude]

:rolleyes: Yes, that's exactly what we should do :rolleyes:

ANWR isn't going to have much effect either way. We do need to increase domestic production

AnWR is not a large part of our total consumption but it would be one of the largest fields brought online in decades. And greenies won't even allow test drilling to see if estimates are right, overstated or understated. Truth is, they know they are understated and if we really see how much oil is there, nothing could stop drilling.

But we also need to reopen Florida and California offshore fields to drilling, some Colorado fields and others that greenies have held up because they are so "precious." There's also a corner of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in Alaska where they won't let us drill.

The governor of Alaska wants to slant drill ANWR from coastal waters under his control. Is that a better plan? Alaska is sick of Congress jerking them around on this.

[mikehunt]

Alaska's a beautiful place. I've been there (not ANWR though)
I say drill
all the maps Iv'e seen, even the ones the environazi's show show the proposed drilling area as a tiny fraction of the total anwr area

[Myster X]

Oil charges to $67 on capacity worries

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050812/bs_nm/markets_oil_dc_49

LONDON (Reuters) - Oil prices raced to record highs of $67 a barrel on Friday as investors fretted over the world's strained capacity to refine and pump crude oil.

U.S. oil has risen 51 percent since the start of the year. The stage could be set for further gains, with no let-up seen in global demand growth and no signs that $60-plus oil is harming the economy of the world's largest consumer, the United States.

U.S. light crude at 1635 GMT was up 90 cents $66.70, off a new all-time high of $67.10 a barrel. London Brent crude was up $1.08 at $66.46.

"The upstream and downstream constraints are real and long-term and we're seeing almost daily examples of them," said Michael Wittner, head of energy market research at Calyon.

"We're going to have a very strong price environment until the steam is taken out of demand or until investment catches up and restores a spare capacity cushion to production and refining."

Supply limitations were underscored on Thursday by the International Energy Agency which cut its estimate of non- OPEC supply growth. Non-OPEC producers are failing to deliver as much oil as expected this year, leaving OPEC to fill the gap.

That has not proved a problem so far, with global markets well supplied on both crude and products.

Stocks held in OECD countries at 54 days of forward demand cover is one of the market's biggest bearish indicators, according to Calyon's Wittner. "But they are being overwhelmed, correctly, by the capacity constraints," he said.

REFINERY WOES

A new snag on Friday in the U.S. refining system, this time at Premcor's 175,000 barrels per day (bpd) refinery in Tennessee, threatened gasoline supplies.

The list of outages includes several units at BP's giant 460,000 barrel-per-day (bpd) refinery in Texas City, and the loss of capacity at ConocoPhillips refinery in Illinois.

Record-high pump prices appear to have had little impact on demand. U.S. gasoline futures hit a record high of $2 a gallon on Friday.

"There seems little standing in the way of the bullish euphoria," said Edward Meir of Man Financial.

Those high prices have yet to take a toll on the world's largest economy. Latest economic data showed U.S. retail sales jumped 1.8 percent last month, with the biggest gain in auto sales due to buyer incentives.

In real terms, stripping out inflation, oil is below the $80 a barrel on average for the year after the 1979 Iranian revolution.

But at an average of more than $53 for the year to date on U.S. oil is up nearly $23 on the average for 2003.

The diplomatic row over Iran's nuclear program also underpinned prices as dealers feared the potential impact on supplies from OPEC's second-biggest producer if the United Nations were to impose sanctions.

The European Union will push for Iran to be referred to the Security Council for punitive action if Tehran fails to suspend its nuclear activities.

[grundle]

In the long run, drilling at ANWR won't have any significant effect on oil supplies.

The only justification that I can think of for drilling at ANWR is that it would make the liberals really angry.

[Mike Lowrey]

If we had 1) we wouldn't have our balls in a vice right now... A vice owned by some sheiks or dictators in countries where all the citizens hate us.

That's right. Had the ability to drill in ANWR the first time this came up in Congress, we would be reaping the benefits from it right now. And we wouldn't be in this current pinch we're in now. An extra 1 million barrels a day coming from our own country would be at least some relief.

As for not giving a shit about the Caribou, I guess we could plunder the whole country, cut down the forests for wood, make farmland out of it, mine this place into nothing. But damn it sure would be a more boring place afterward. Personally I wouldn't want every state to look like Iowa, would you? My point is you have to draw the line somewhere. Just because you don't give a shit about an area that doesn't affect you, doesn't mean we shouldn't watch out for it.

Let's see...as has already been proven and stated, the original oil pipeline has increased the number of caribu, not diminished it. Thus again, disproving the reactionary environmentalists.

Cutting down forrests? We can start to end this by doing away with all the bloated national newspapers. Starting with the New York Times, LA Times, and others. How many pages does it take to tell us that the country sucks?

Make farmland out of former forrest land? What? You don't like to eat? Do you really think that our current farmland was always farmland?

Mining? Ha! You think that's bad? I heard from my folks that we're getting a new strip mine in our backyard (literally) in about 2 years. I mean just a couple hundred feet behind our house. It's gonna be fun when they start blasting bed rock. 15 years ago when there was one a couple miles from here, we would feel the earthquakes. I can't imagine what they'll be like when they're just a couple hundred yards from the house. But hey, there's coal in them thar hills. ;)

Finally, If you don't give a shit about energy independence, why open ANWR at all? That's the only incentive I can see in doing it is for energy independence. However, if the Chinese are ever successful in buying our Oil Companies, the whole thing goes down the shitter anyway. I doubt their latest attempt will be the last for Oil Starved "50 Billion Dollar Surplus in 1 Month" China.

I am very skeptical of the China buy-out thing. I doubt this country's businesses will accept another round of buy-outs like they did in the '80s with the Japanese.

I guess we need a private state run oil company like what Mexico has.

Is that not a gigantic oxy-moron? A "private state run" company? Is that anything like the private state run media conglomerate of the BBC?

Anyway, I don't think testing ANWR to see how much oil it has is a bad thing, if it has tons and tons of oil, maybe we should keep it for our own interests instead of letting Haliburton or whoever take it for their own.

Haliburton is not an oil company. It is a contractor that does things like catering service for our troops in the field amongst other things. Yes, they build and work on oil machinery, but they don't get profit from the product that equipment produces. Haliburton was tapped to help rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure because they were the only company that could tackle the huge job that it was.

But I would like to see us try and not disturb the evironment as best we can.

According to the people who know about such things, the amount of the environment that this ANWR drilling is going to be extremely minor because of the advances in technology in drilling. They will disturb very little ground area than previously done. In fact, I heard that they'll only actively drill as such during the winter when the area is arctic tundra.

[Mike Lowrey]

In the long run, drilling at ANWR won't have any significant effect on oil supplies.

The only justification that I can think of for drilling at ANWR is that it would make the liberals really angry.

And that's a good thing right? I love making liberals angry. Just shows how out of touch and reactionary they are, especially when confronted with facts.

[BKenn01]

I cant tell you a good reason not to. But I can tell you why we are not. Because the GOP is a bunch of Panzis.

They had the prime opportunity to do it. Blew it.

[classicman2]

In the long run, drilling at ANWR won't have any significant effect on oil supplies.

The only justification that I can think of for drilling at ANWR is that it would make the liberals really angry.

A reduction of 1-5 million barrels per day won't have an effect on the amount of oil we import?

[Jason]

And that's a good thing right? I love making liberals angry. Just shows how out of touch and reactionary they are, especially when confronted with facts.

Especially the fact that the only reason to drill in alaska is to piss them off?

[Gallant Pig]

And that's a good thing right? I love making liberals angry. Just shows how out of touch and reactionary they are, especially when confronted with facts.

-screwy-

[Gallant Pig]

This whole debates makes me can't wait for the day when we can get off the crack rock known as oil. Sure we'll always need it to some extent, but we sure as hell are hooked on it like crack right now. That won't always be the cast.

[grundle]

And that's a good thing right?
Yes.

[grundle]

A reduction of 1-5 million barrels per day won't have an effect on the amount of oil we import?
Oil is a global commodity. If they do drill at ANWR, the oil will be exported to Japan.

[Pharoh]

Oil is a global commodity. If they do drill at ANWR, the oil will be exported to Japan.


:hscratch:

It will?

While it certainly could be sold to Asian markets, (that of course would not be a bad thing), it likely would not be. At the present time very little, (none?), Alaskan oil is exported to Asia. Further, in the original Energy Bill that was before the House a ban of exporting ANWR oil was a fundamental part. I expect that to be a part of the upcoming rider as well.

I also fully realise that current West Coast refinery capacity would make it necessary that some Alaskan oil is exported, (again a good and beneficial thing to the US), but it is probable that the exports will come from the North Slope, not from ANWR.

[Ranger]

Oil is a global commodity.
But their prices and supplies are controlled by OPEC which obviously operates under monolithic conditions.

Congress can exercise its trade controls muscle to regulate where the American oil goes. So I think the worries about oil going off to Japan is unnecessary.

But I do have only one concern about the drilling in ANWR. I trust our own oil companies to cheat us just as much as the Arab oil men. Like if we find the oil in ANWR, build many new refineries, give oil companies more tax breaks, they'll still find excuses to maintain the high price of oil.

Explain how we can prevent that.

[Myster X]

This certainly won't help. CA Coastal Commission are run by crooks.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/12/OFFSHORE.TMP&feed=rss.news

The California Coastal Commission went head-to-head with the federal government over offshore oil drilling Thursday, voting unanimously to reject a U.S. agency's plan to extend 36 petroleum and natural gas leases situated off three south and central state counties.

The nine commissioners cited potential risk to the state's marine environment and wildlife as the driving reason for their decision, made during a meeting in Costa Mesa (Orange County).

The commission's move puts the state of California squarely in opposition to the federal government over offshore oil development. At this point, the Bush administration could move ahead to renew the leases without the commission's imprimatur, but such a move probably would prompt a new round of litigation initiated by the state.

The commissioners were clearly perplexed by the administration's determination to proceed with the leases, given the broad-based sentiment in California against offshore oil development and the relatively small amounts of oil and gas believed to exist in the lease areas.

"This is something I do not understand," said commission Vice Chairman Patrick Kruer. "The benefits of this (oil development) economically are so little, they're not even existent."

The most recent decision by the U.S. Minerals Management Service to extend the leases off Santa Barbara, Ventura and San Luis Obispo counties was made in 1999. The leases originally were granted by the service to oil companies from 1968 to 1984 and were extended in five-year increments.

After the 1999 extension, the agency promptly was sued in federal court by the state of California and several environmental groups. The litigants contended that the service had not allowed the Coastal Commission to review the decision fully.

The plaintiffs won their suit, and the Minerals Management Service submitted documents to the commission for review. But in Thursday's decision, the commission declared the information inadequate.

The Minerals Management Service could ignore the commission's decision and proceed with the extensions, or it could comply and return with the additional information sought by the commission.

The controversy pits Bush administration priorities -- greater national energy self-sufficiency, even if some environmental protections must be sacrificed -- against California's deeply held, generally green social values.

If the agency did comply and provided more data, the commission would review the new documentation. At that point, the commission could definitively oppose the service's renewals and seek a permanent injunction from a court, support the extensions or require even more information.

If the Minerals Management Service decided not to extend the leases, they would be retired permanently.

Shortly after rejecting the extensions Thursday, the commission authorized state legal proceedings against the agency if it continued to press for lease renewal.

A decision by the Minerals Management Service to proceed with the extensions could ultimately result in expanded oil and gas development off the California coast.

That could translate into four or more new offshore drilling platforms. Environmentalists say new platforms inevitably would increase the risk of oil spills and attendant environmental damage, but the Minerals Management Service and oil companies contend that new technologies would minimize risk.

No Minerals Management Service staffers showed up at the commission meeting -- something commissioners perceived as a slight.

Commissioner Jim Aldinger, who called the absence of service staffers "a slap in the face," demanded direct involvement from the Bush administration.

John Romero, a spokesman for the Minerals Management Service, said the agency provided the Coastal Commission with voluminous documentation demonstrating that lease renewal would have little or no environmental impact.

"We have been working collaboratively with (commission) staff, and we submitted hundreds of pages of information that effectively presented the agency's position," Romero said.

Romero said he had no comment about some commissioners' remarks that the absence of service representatives at the meeting constituted an insult.

Drew Caputo, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the lead litigants against the minerals service, said it would be extraordinary if the Minerals Management Service proceeded with the lease extensions without complying with the commission's directive for more information.

"The Bush administration has taken a strong rhetorical (position) on states' rights," Caputo said. "They're using it to justify drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because Alaskans want it, and to increase logging in Wyoming because locals want it. But Californians are united in their opposition to offshore drilling -- Democrats and Republicans alike.''

Indeed, it would be tantamount to professional suicide for any California politician to support offshore drilling. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California's Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer all oppose it.

The debate over the leases now moves to federal court. Today in Oakland, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken will consider arguments by environmentalists that the lease renewals would violate the National Environmental Policy Act.

Among other things, Caputo said, the service did not analyze the impact "air guns" -- acoustic devices used to find oil and gas deposits -- would have on wildlife, particularly marine mammals.

"They originally said the guns would have no impact on marine life beyond one-half mile," Caputo said. "But after we sued, we obtained documents from them that showed they knew their noise impact models were wrong. The impacts are damaging from one to six miles."

Romero said he could not comment on the specifics of any ongoing litigation involving the Minerals Management Service.

[kvrdave]

This whole debates makes me can't wait for the day when we can get off the crack rock known as oil. Sure we'll always need it to some extent, but we sure as hell are hooked on it like crack right now. That won't always be the cast.

Don't bet on it happening in the next 250 years.

As much as we complain about the high prices, these prices have made the Green River Valley oil shales turn into a profit center. It died in the 80s due to a lack of technology for extraction at a fair price, but that will change with our need of it. Shell has already worked a way to extract the oil much more effeciently, and say they can have it going commercially by 2010. For comparison, the Saudi oil field is 250 billion barrels, and the Green River Valley contains about 2 trillion barrels.

Technology will help us get oil from other places. I don't believe it will do anything in the next 100 years to seriously make use think about going with something else.

[kvrdave]

And because we live in the country that we do.....expect the biggest opponents to nuclear energy to come from the natural gas people. :lol:

[Gallant Pig]

Don't bet on it happening in the next 250 years.

As much as we complain about the high prices, these prices have made the Green River Valley oil shales turn into a profit center. It died in the 80s due to a lack of technology for extraction at a fair price, but that will change with our need of it. Shell has already worked a way to extract the oil much more effeciently, and say they can have it going commercially by 2010. For comparison, the Saudi oil field is 250 billion barrels, and the Green River Valley contains about 2 trillion barrels.

Technology will help us get oil from other places. I don't believe it will do anything in the next 100 years to seriously make use think about going with something else.

I'm not sure. In 5 years or so Hydrogen cars will be affordable. 15 years after that I'd think they'd be the norm. At that point we can produce our energy thru other mediums, clean coal, nuclear, hell a cold fusion breakthrough might even occur. I don't see why it would take 250 years to get off the junk. Or is that what the timeline is in Star Trek?

Anyway, even though Mike Lowery has painted me as a liberal tree hugging hippy, I still think we should test ANWR and if it's loaded, then extract the oil and use the money toward helping out the budget deficit or building the world's largest bridge made out of gold in Alaska. I guess that's just hippy speak :lol:

[kvrdave]

That's good hippy speak. And until now, I thought that was an oxymoran. :up:

I wouldn't mind you being right, but I think hydrogen fuel cell is a pipe dream. Especially given that we absolutely need nukes to make it likely on a broad enough scale to make it worth it. Drill in ANWAR, build refineries, build nukes. If any of those happen in the next 5 years, I will be very happy and very surprised.

[grundle]

But their prices and supplies are controlled by OPEC which obviously operates under monolithic conditions.

Oil also comes from Canada, Mexico, Venezuala, Norway, etc. There is no monopoly on oil.

Congress can exercise its trade controls muscle to regulate where the American oil goes. So I think the worries about oil going off to Japan is unnecessary.

I am not "worried" about ANWR oil going to Japan. Selling the oil to Japan would not be a "bad" thing.

I am against trade barriers.

But I do have only one concern about the drilling in ANWR. I trust our own oil companies to cheat us just as much as the Arab oil men. Like if we find the oil in ANWR, build many new refineries, give oil companies more tax breaks, they'll still find excuses to maintain the high price of oil.

Explain how we can prevent that.

The oil companies should charge whatever price they want to charge. The government should not try to "prevent" that.

Price controls cause shortages. The 1970s OPEC embargo, by itself, would have caused prices to rise enough to that supply and demand would have been equal to each other. But then Nixon imposed price controls, and it was these prices controls that caused the shortages, gasoline lines, and the energy crises. After Reagan got rid of the price controls, the shortages, gasoline lines, and the energy crises disappeared.

There was another OPEC embargo in 2000. But Clinton did not impose price controls. So prices rose enough so that supply and demand remained equal to each other, and so there were no shortages, gasoline lines, or energy crises.

You can create a "shortage" of anything, just by having the government set the price low enough. If the government forced all supermarkets to permanently lower all their prices by 50%, there would be a "shortage" of food. Likewise, we always hear about "shortages" of water in western U.S. cities. But if water prices in those cities were raised by 1/2 penny per gallon, those "shortages" would disappear.

The price of anything is just a number that equalizes supply and demand. The government should never try to "prevent" this from happening.

[grundle]

Even if there is 250 years of oil still left, we won't be using oil even in 100 years.

The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones. It ended because better technology came along.

Today's people who worry about running out of oil are no different than the people of the 17th century who said, "We must conserve the world's supply of candle wax, or future generations won't be able to light their homes at night."

[OldDude]

Today's people who worry about running out of oil are no different than the people of the 17th century who said, "We must conserve the world's supply of candle wax, or future generations won't be able to light their homes at night."

I certainly won't argue that something better came along.

However, the truth is that we had far exceeded the supply of beeswax and tallow (from slaughtered livestock) to make candles, and had turned to whale oil, almost driving whales to extinction, in only a few decades. (We had also denuded forests in the East, many of which have grown back).

Oil from the ground largely destroyed the whaling industry (except for a couple of countries that actually use the meat) and saved the whales. That first oil was refined mostly for kerosene for oil lamps, as cars hadn't been invented and gasoline wasn't needed.

OK, time for our next trick.

[classicman2]

Oil is a global commodity. If they do drill at ANWR, the oil will be exported to Japan.

No, it will not.

Alaskan oil now is not shipped to Japan. It's consumed by 4 states - Alaska, Washington, Oregon, & California.

It's prohibited by legislation from being exported.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

[mikehunt]

:up: I wish we would, I really do. It's not going to happen with a President so in the pocket of the oil industry, and even when he's gone I think it would be a hard sell to the public.

or with the environazi lobby that always bitches about nuclear and is trying to prevent the gov't from building the storage site at Yucca Mountain

[Tracer Bullet]

Even if there is 250 years of oil still left, we won't be using oil even in 100 years.

The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones. It ended because better technology came along.

Today's people who worry about running out of oil are no different than the people of the 17th century who said, "We must conserve the world's supply of candle wax, or future generations won't be able to light their homes at night."

Better technology came along? Really? Here I thought oil was a naturally-occurring substance. We certaintly invented technology to extract the oil, but we just stumbled upon the oil.

Our current civilization is completly dependent on oil and oil derivatives for, well, pretty much everything. Is there something that can completely replace oil, at a lower cost?

Energy and technology are two seperate things. We're not going to invent our way out of this problem.

[grundle]

No, it will not.

Alaskan oil now is not shipped to Japan. It's consumed by 4 states - Alaska, Washington, Oregon, & California.

It's prohibited by legislation from being exported.

Where do you come up with this stuff?
OK. I was wrong. Thanks for the correction. I didn't know it was illegal to export it.

I read it from some liberal who was arguing against drilling at ANWR but I don't remember who or where.

[grundle]

Better technology came along?
Yes.

Really?
Yes.

Here I thought oil was a naturally-occurring substance.
It is.

We certaintly invented technology to extract the oil, but we just stumbled upon the oil.
For the vast majority of human civilization, oil had no value.

In fact, oil had negative value, because it was a nuisance that got in the way of people who were digging water wells.

But then in the 19th century, a person invented a new technology that allowed people to use the oil, and then the oil became valuable.

Our current civilization is completly dependent on oil and oil derivatives for, well, pretty much everything. Is there something that can completely replace oil, at a lower cost?
Not now. But there will be. It just hasn't been invented yet.

Energy and technology are two seperate things.
But they are related. We keep inventeting new technology that makes it easier for us to use energy. For thousands of years, per capita use of energy has been getting higher and higher and higher. We started out with just human labor. Then we added animal labor. Then we added the burning of wood. Then we added the burning of coal. Then we added steam. Then we added oil. Then we added natural gas. Then we added nuclear.


We're not going to invent our way out of this problem.
Yes we will.

We've been doing it for thousands of years. Why would we stop now?

[Myster X]

I'm not sure. In 5 years or so Hydrogen cars will be affordable. 15 years after that I'd think they'd be the norm.

I would place my portfolio on it yet. In order to produce hydrogen, you will have massive massive polution with today's existing technology.

courtesy of National Geographic

conventional
natural gas/coal ---->coal gasification, steam foaming ----> (hydrogen) coal yields hydrogen when heated and chemically react with steam --->hydrogen vehicle

side effects -----> more CO2 release
the alternative proposal is to bury the CO2 underground, but so far is has not been proven

eco friendly
wind/nuclear/solar -----> electricity ----> electrolysis ----> hydrogen
---->hydrogen vehicle

side effects -----> massive massive wind/solar/nuclear farm
all of which eco nuts are against

[X]

Better technology came along? Really? Here I thought oil was a naturally-occurring substance. We certaintly invented technology to extract the oil, but we just stumbled upon the oil.Uranium, a fuel for nuclear reactors, is also a "naturally-occurring substance". It needs to get processed for this purpose just as oil does in order to be a fuel.

I might point out wind, sunlight, and ocean currents are also "naturally-occurring substances". Better technology is needed to make them feasible energy sources.

[Tracer Bullet]

Uranium, a fuel for nuclear reactors, is also a "naturally-occurring substance". It needs to get processed for this purpose just as oil does in order to be a fuel.

I might point out wind, sunlight, and ocean currents are also "naturally-occurring substances". Better technology is needed to make them feasible energy sources.

Yes, of course. But my point is that we invented extraction technology to use a naturally-occurring substance as fuel. What new naturally-occurring substance do we have that will replace oil?

Keep in mind that oil took over from coal, etc. because it delivered more energy at a lower cost. We didn't start looking for something to replace coal because we were running out, or the price was too high.

Technology uses energy. It cannot create new forms of energy.

[Tracer Bullet]

Not now. But there will be. It just hasn't been invented yet.

We have never invented a form of energy.

[X]

Yes, of course. But my point is that we invented extraction technology to use a naturally-occurring substance as fuel. What new naturally-occurring substance do we have that will replace oil?

Keep in mind that oil took over from coal, etc. because it delivered more energy at a lower cost. We didn't start looking for something to replace coal because we were running out, or the price was too high.

Technology uses energy. It cannot create new forms of energy.Energy and technology are two seperate things. We're not going to invent our way out of this problem.If I had put my foot in my mouth like this I'd just give up such a bad and illogical argument.

[grundle]

eco friendly
wind/nuclear/solar -----> electricity ----> electrolysis ----> hydrogen
---->hydrogen vehicle

side effects -----> massive massive wind/solar/nuclear farm
all of which eco nuts are against
The wind farm would be massive.

The solar farm would be massive.

The nuclear farm would be tiny.

[grundle]

Uranium, a fuel for nuclear reactors, is also a "naturally-occurring substance". It needs to get processed for this purpose just as oil does in order to be a fuel.

I might point out wind, sunlight, and ocean currents are also "naturally-occurring substances". Better technology is needed to make them feasible energy sources.
Very good!

The silicon that's in sand and rocks is natural. But it took technology to turn the silicon into computer chips.

[grundle]

I said that new technology would come along to replace oil.

And then just a wee bit later, I saw this on the google home page.

It's too bad that the person quoted in the article thinks that solar generation of electricity is better than nuclear. In fact, the person doesn't even mention nuclear.

But the basic idea of using an electric power plant to power a car is a good point.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050814/ap_on_hi_te/hybrid_tinkerers_12

Experimental Hybrid Cars Get Up to 250 Mpg



By TIM MOLLOY, Associated Press Writer Sun Aug 14, 4:22 AM ET

CORTE MADERA, Calif. - Politicians and automakers say a car that can both reduce greenhouse gases and free America from its reliance on foreign oil is years or even decades away. Ron Gremban says such a car is parked in his garage.
ADVERTISEMENT

It looks like a typical Toyota Prius hybrid, but in the trunk sits an 80-miles-per-gallon secret — a stack of 18 brick-sized batteries that boosts the car's high mileage with an extra electrical charge so it can burn even less fuel.

Gremban, an electrical engineer and committed environmentalist, spent several months and $3,000 tinkering with his car.

Like all hybrids, his Prius increases fuel efficiency by harnessing small amounts of electricity generated during braking and coasting. The extra batteries let him store extra power by plugging the car into a wall outlet at his home in this San Francisco suburb — all for about a quarter.

He's part of a small but growing movement. "Plug-in" hybrids aren't yet cost-efficient, but some of the dozen known experimental models have gotten up to 250 mpg.

They have support not only from environmentalists but also from conservative foreign policy hawks who insist Americans fuel terrorism through their gas guzzling.

And while the technology has existed for three decades, automakers are beginning to take notice, too.

So far, DaimlerChrysler AG is the only company that has committed to building its own plug-in hybrids, quietly pledging to make up to 40 vans for U.S. companies. But Toyota Motor Corp. officials who initially frowned on people altering their cars now say they may be able to learn from them.

"They're like the hot rodders of yesterday who did everything to soup up their cars. It was all about horsepower and bling-bling, lots of chrome and accessories," said Cindy Knight, a Toyota spokeswoman. "Maybe the hot rodders of tomorrow are the people who want to get in there and see what they can do about increasing fuel economy."

The extra batteries let Gremban drive for 20 miles with a 50-50 mix of gas and electricity. Even after the car runs out of power from the batteries and switches to the standard hybrid mode, it gets the typical Prius fuel efficiency of around 45 mpg. As long as Gremban doesn't drive too far in a day, he says, he gets 80 mpg.

"The value of plug-in hybrids is they can dramatically reduce gasoline usage for the first few miles every day," Gremban said. "The average for people's usage of a car is somewhere around 30 to 40 miles per day. During that kind of driving, the plug-in hybrid can make a dramatic difference."

Backers of plug-in hybrids acknowledge that the electricity to boost their cars generally comes from fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases, but they say that process still produces far less pollution than oil. They also note that electricity could be generated cleanly from solar power.

Gremban rigged his car to promote the nonprofit CalCars Initiative, a San Francisco Bay area-based volunteer effort that argues automakers could mass produce plug-in hybrids at a reasonable price.

But Toyota and other car companies say they are worried about the cost, convenience and safety of plug-in hybrids — and note that consumers haven't embraced all-electric cars because of the inconvenience of recharging them like giant cell phones.

Automakers have spent millions of dollars telling motorists that hybrids don't need to be plugged in, and don't want to confuse the message.

Nonetheless, plug-in hybrids are starting to get the backing of prominent hawks like former
CIA director James Woolsey and Frank Gaffney, President Reagan's undersecretary of defense. They have joined Set America Free, a group that wants the government to spend $12 billion over four years on plug-in hybrids, alternative fuels and other measures to reduce foreign oil dependence.

Gaffney, who heads the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy, said Americans would embrace plug-ins if they understood arguments from him and others who say gasoline contributes to oil-rich Middle Eastern governments that support terrorism.

"The more we are consuming oil that either comes from places that are bent on our destruction or helping those who are ... the more we are enabling those who are trying to kill us," Gaffney said.

DaimlerChrysler spokesman Nick Cappa said plug-in hybrids are ideal for companies with fleets of vehicles that can be recharged at a central location at night. He declined to name the companies buying the vehicles and said he did not know the vehicles' mileage or cost, or when they would be available.

Others are modifying hybrids, too.

Monrovia-based Energy CS has converted two Priuses to get up to 230 mpg by using powerful lithium ion batteries. It is forming a new company, EDrive Systems, that will convert hybrids to plug-ins for about $12,000 starting next year, company vice president Greg Hanssen said.

University of California, Davis engineering professor Andy Frank built a plug-in hybrid from the ground up in 1972 and has since built seven others, one of which gets up to 250 mpg. They were converted from non-hybrids, including a Ford Taurus and Chevrolet Suburban.

Frank has spent $150,000 to $250,000 in research costs on each car, but believes automakers could mass-produce them by adding just $6,000 to each vehicle's price tag.

Instead, Frank said, automakers promise hydrogen-powered vehicles hailed by
President Bush and Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, even though hydrogen's backers acknowledge the cars won't be widely available for years and would require a vast infrastructure of new fueling stations.

"They'd rather work on something that won't be in their lifetime, and that's this hydrogen economy stuff," Frank said. "They pick this kind of target to get the public off their back, essentially."

[Tracer Bullet]

If I had put my foot in my mouth like this I'd just give up such a bad and illogical argument.

What are you talking about?

Energy and technology are two seperate things. We have used technology to extract and use energy, but we have never invented a form of energy. People here seem to be suggesting that we will just invent our way to a new form of energy. Okay... what will that be? There's nothing illogical about such an argument.

[nemein]

I think he's talking more about the point of not being able to "invent our way out of this". If energy and tech are truly separate then there shouldn't be any way to predict whether or not a new extraction or production method is going to be developed. I agree we don't have the capacity to create energy, but to say absolutely we are not going to be able to invent our way out of this seems shortsighted. Granted real conservation efforts should be part of the plan, but R&D (and real R&D on a variety of sources) should be part of the plan as well.

[X]

It will come as quite a shock to the holders of patents on nuclear reactor technology that they didn't invent anything.

[Tracer Bullet]

I think he's talking more about the point of not being able to "invent our way out of this". If energy and tech are truly separate then there shouldn't be any way to predict whether or not a new extraction or production method is going to be developed. I agree we don't have the capacity to create energy, but to say absolutely we are not going to be able to invent our way out of this seems shortsighted. Granted real conservation efforts should be part of the plan, but R&D (and real R&D on a variety of sources) should be part of the plan as well.

To me, that's evidence of our current shortsightedness. We have such a blind faith in technological progress that we think it can solve all our problems.

As just one example, most food consumed presently is grown using huge inputs of petrochemical fertilizers. What happens to our food if oil becomes incredibly expensive? What is the solution? We won't be able to use a nuclear power plant to grow corn.

[Tracer Bullet]

It will come as quite a shock to the holders of patents on nuclear reactor technology that they didn't invent anything.

:lol:

Nice selective reading.

Did they invent uranium?

[al_bundy]

To me, that's evidence of our current shortsightedness. We have such a blind faith in technological progress that we think it can solve all our problems.

As just one example, most food consumed presently is grown using huge inputs of petrochemical fertilizers. What happens to our food if oil becomes incredibly expensive? What is the solution? We won't be able to use a nuclear power plant to grow corn.

i wish i would have bought whole foods stock 2 years ago when my wife mentioned it

[Ranger]

Oil also comes from Canada, Mexico, Venezuala, Norway, etc. There is no monopoly on oil.
:hscratch: Maybe not a monopoly, but certainly an oligarchy.

I am not "worried" about ANWR oil going to Japan. Selling the oil to Japan would not be a "bad" thing.

I am against trade barriers.
That's fine.
The oil companies should charge whatever price they want to charge. The government should not try to "prevent" that.
Uh-huh.

But my question was for those who were supporting the ANWR drilling. They're doing so now because oil prices are high. So I'm asking how, after giving oil companies many things that they wanted (tax breaks, free up lands for drilling, build new refineries, etc), can we be so sure that our own oil men won't continue to maintain the high oil prices esp. after how the market has dealt with high oil prices for so long?

[nemein]

To me, that's evidence of our current shortsightedness. We have such a blind faith in technological progress that we think it can solve all our problems.

As I said I also recommend real conservation efforts, but tech is going to be part of the process. What other solutions/options are there?

[al_bundy]

oil prices are set by free market trading on the NYMEX and other commodity exchanges

[X]

:lol:

Nice selective reading.

Did they invent uranium?When good advice goes unheeded...

Uranium is not "energy".
Uranium is an element.
Elements are generally not invented.
Wires don't come out of a pile of uranium and go into people's homes.

Earthbound energy seldom exists in the form of energy, it generally comes from the conversion of matter.
The technology that generates energy from elements or compounds or photons or whatever is invented.
Wires come out of that technology and go into people's homes.

[Tracer Bullet]

When good advice goes unheeded...

Uranium is not "energy".
Uranium is an element.
Elements are generally not invented.
Wires don't come out of a pile of uranium and go into people's homes.

Earthbound energy rarely exists in the state of energy, it comes from the conversion of matter.
The technology that generates energy from elements or compounds or photons or whatever is "invented".
Wires come out of that technology and go into people's homes.

I'll ignore your condescending tone.

So you think that we are going to be able to invent a new energy source, then?

Of course we invent energy technology. We don't invent the energy source.

Your contention seems to be that anything is an energy source. I'll think I'll burn my computer for heat.

[grundle]

But my question was for those who were supporting the ANWR drilling. They're doing so now because oil prices are high. So I'm asking how, after giving oil companies many things that they wanted (tax breaks, free up lands for drilling, build new refineries, etc), can we be so sure that our own oil men won't continue to maintain the high oil prices esp. after how the market has dealt with high oil prices for so long?
I'm really not for or against drilling at ANWR.

I'm against corporate welfare for the oil companies.

Like I said, they should put ANWR up for public auction to the highest bidder. If every "environmentalist" donated as much money as what they spend on gasoline in a year, I'm sure they would win the auction.

[al_bundy]

I'll ignore your condescending tone.

So you think that we are going to be able to invent a new energy source, then?

Of course we invent energy technology. We don't invent the energy source.

Your contention seems to be that anything is an energy source. I'll think I'll burn my computer for heat.

i would be buying land with plenty of trees for the coming winter

GE does billions of $$$ in alternative energy business every year. It is growing at double digit rates. That is a lot of investment capital going into the sector. I first read about hybrid engines over 10 years ago. There is a lot of things that are in the lab stage now that won't be ready for the market for another 10-20 years. In fact most "high-tech" things you buy today are based on discoveries that happened a long time ago.

I remember 10 years ago the buzz at Intel was that it was impossible to make chips smaller than whatever the size was 10 years ago. Today the chips are a lot smaller.

[movielib]

...
The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones. It ended because better technology came along.
...

Hey, I've been using this line on the Forum for years! I think you violated my copyright. ;)

Seriously, great job in this thread. You've said just about everything I always say in these discussions.

As much as we complain about the high prices, these prices have made the Green River Valley oil shales turn into a profit center. It died in the 80s due to a lack of technology for extraction at a fair price, but that will change with our need of it. Shell has already worked a way to extract the oil much more effeciently, and say they can have it going commercially by 2010. For comparison, the Saudi oil field is 250 billion barrels, and the Green River Valley contains about 2 trillion barrels.
Yeah, with shale oil out there it's silly to think we will run out of oil any time soon. There are many times more proven reserves in shale oil than in the ground. BONUS: most of the proven reserves are in the U.S.

And don't forget oil sands (also called tar sands), again much more prevalent than conventional oil, of which most of the proven reserves are in Canada and Venezuela.

While oil from both shale and oil sands are more expensive than from conventional wells that will probably not always be the case. I don't see how we could not stop needing to use oil before running out of all this.

[OldDude]

I would place my portfolio on it yet. In order to produce hydrogen, you will have massive massive polution with today's existing technology.

courtesy of National Geographic

conventional
natural gas/coal ---->coal gasification, steam foaming ----> (hydrogen) coal yields hydrogen when heated and chemically react with steam --->hydrogen vehicle


The first gas for gas street lighting (and homes) was produced by steam reformation of coal (also known as water gas, or synthesis gas). It was expensive to process, less efficient, lower energy content, and the process was dropped completely and replaced by natural gas, when it became available. So we are counting on resurrection of 150 year old technology. :)

[Ranger]

I'm really not for or against drilling at ANWR.

I'm against corporate welfare for the oil companies.

Like I said, they should put ANWR up for public auction to the highest bidder. If every "environmentalist" donated as much money as what they spend on gasoline in a year, I'm sure they would win the auction.
Alaska has fought the Feds many times to gain claim. The feds do have too much of a grip on these territories.

I think the best thing to do is to simply hand over control to the state and let them decide what to do. I recall a lot of people being upset when Bush relaxed controls on some fed lands to let states decide how to use the land, many were saying it was just a Bush handout to the lumber companies.

Here's a couple of Alaska cases.
US v. Alaska - 1997: http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/826/
Alaska v. US - 2005: http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1837/
I agree that this federal plan for ANWR is corporate welfare, but I think my main question is how will this pay off in the long run? I have this bad feeling that after years of billions of fed money spent on the ANWR project, though we might be able to get some oil from there, I expect the oil prices to still be high so all that money spent would be a sunk cost because we would be back at square one.

[kvrdave]

I'll ignore your condescending tone.


Good idea, since he ignored yours. :lol:

[Tracer Bullet]

Good idea, since he ignored yours. :lol:

Damn you! ;)

Some people just rub me the wrong way, what can I say?

[Tracer Bullet]

Hey, I've been using this line on the Forum for years! I think you violated my copyright. ;)

Seriously, great job in this thread. You've said just about everything I always say in these discussions.


Yeah, with shale oil out there it's silly to think we will run out of oil any time soon. There are many times more proven reserves in shale oil than in the ground. BONUS: most of the proven reserves are in the U.S.

And don't forget oil sands (also called tar sands), again much more prevalent than conventional oil, of which most of the proven reserves are in Canada and Venezuela.

While oil from both shale and oil sands are more expensive than from conventional wells that will probably not always be the case. I don't see how we could not stop needing to use oil before running out of all this.

I'm glad you mentioned running out of oil. That's obviously never going to happen. However, we could very possibly run out of the easiest, cheapest oil to extract. Matthew Simmons and Kenneth S. Deffeyes, who have extensive oil industry experience, are saying this very thing. Shell Oil is taking out full-page ads in the New York Times in an attempt to rebrand themselves as an alternative energy company. These don't seem like positive developments.

It was said last year that oil couldn't go above $50 a barrel. Now those same people are saying oil can't go above $75 a barrel. I'm sure when it does, they'll say it can't go above $100. The very fact that we're discussing oil sands and shale oil as profitable sources of oil shows how far we've gone.

[grundle]

Hey, I've been using this line on the Forum for years! I think you violated my copyright. ;)

Seriously, great job in this thread. You've said just about everything I always say in these discussions.
Thanks!

[grundle]

I think the best thing to do is to simply hand over control to the state and let them decide what to do.
That's a great idea!

[movielib]

I'm glad you mentioned running out of oil. That's obviously never going to happen. However, we could very possibly run out of the easiest, cheapest oil to extract. Matthew Simmons and Kenneth S. Deffeyes, who have extensive oil industry experience, are saying this very thing. Shell Oil is taking out full-page ads in the New York Times in an attempt to rebrand themselves as an alternative energy company. These don't seem like positive developments.

It was said last year that oil couldn't go above $50 a barrel. Now those same people are saying oil can't go above $75 a barrel. I'm sure when it does, they'll say it can't go above $100. The very fact that we're discussing oil sands and shale oil as profitable sources of oil shows how far we've gone.
I don't disagree. But remember, right now pumping it out of the ground is the easiest and the cheapest.

In the future, possibly either because pumping it will become more expensive or because extracting it from shale or oil sands will become cheaper (or some combination), pumping may not always remain the cheapest. We may have to pay more in the future but I don't think it will be prohibitive.

More likely, I think technology will continue to advance and all methods will get cheaper in the long run (with shale and tar sands becoming cheaper faster because human ingenuity has not yet been applied as much to these methods as it has been to pumping). Except mostly because of blips caused by politics, the trend has always been toward cheaper and cheaper resources over time. Remember the famous wager between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich:

http://www.libertarian.to/NewsDta/templates/news1.php?art=art464

While prices will always fluctuate over short terms I, along with Simon, will always bet that prices will trend downward (in real dollars) over the long haul.

[kvrdave]

Damn you! ;)

Some people just rub me the wrong way, what can I say?


rotfl

:up:

[Tracer Bullet]

I don't disagree. But remember, right now pumping it out of the ground is the easiest and the cheapest.

In the future, possibly either because pumping it will become more expensive or because extracting it from shale or oil sands will become cheaper (or some combination), pumping may not always remain the cheapest. We may have to pay more in the future but I don't think it will be prohibitive.

More likely, I think technology will continue to advance and all methods will get cheaper in the long run (with shale and tar sands becoming cheaper faster because human ingenuity has not yet been applied as much to these methods as it has been to pumping). Except mostly because of blips caused by politics, the trend has always been toward cheaper and cheaper resources over time. Remember the famous wager between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich:

http://www.libertarian.to/NewsDta/templates/news1.php?art=art464

While prices will always fluctuate over short terms I, along with Simon, will always bet that prices will trend downward (in real dollars) over the long haul.

Sure, but when "cheapest" is $100 (in real dollars) compared with $25, we've got a problem. I'm not necessarily saying this is going to happen, but it is a possibility we should be preparing for.

[grundle]

Except mostly because of blips caused by politics, the trend has always been toward cheaper and cheaper resources over time. Remember the famous wager between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich:

http://www.libertarian.to/NewsDta/templates/news1.php?art=art464

While prices will always fluctuate over short terms I, along with Simon, will always bet that prices will trend downward (in real dollars) over the long haul.
Yes. Very true.

On all of their major disagreements, Simon has been proven correct, and Ehrlich has been proven wrong.

But environmentalists love Ehrlich even though he was wrong, and they hate Simon even though he was right. This is because Ehrlich is in favor of government ownership and government control of resources, whereas Simon is in favor of private ownership and free market pricing of resources.