Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Question about drilling for oil in ANWR....

Old 08-11-05, 03:49 PM
  #26  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,302
Originally Posted by E70f
Yes, that's exactly what we should do

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.
VinVega is offline  
Old 08-11-05, 04:04 PM
  #27  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by VinVega
as far as electricity to heat or cool homes, we could be doing so much more with Nuclear technology.
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.
E70f is offline  
Old 08-11-05, 04:12 PM
  #28  
Political Exile
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,142
Originally Posted by X
"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.
grundle is offline  
Old 08-11-05, 04:12 PM
  #29  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
the energy bill that the president jsut signed has huge incentives for nuclear power
al_bundy is offline  
Old 08-11-05, 04:12 PM
  #30  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by E70f
I didn't know that. Good 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.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 08-11-05, 04:19 PM
  #31  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,713
Originally Posted by grundle
We should build more nuclear power plants.
That's exactly where the hydrogen should come from.
X is offline  
Old 08-11-05, 04:21 PM
  #32  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
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.'
classicman2 is offline  
Old 08-11-05, 05:18 PM
  #33  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,047
Originally Posted by E70f
Yes, that's exactly what we should do

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.
OldDude is offline  
Old 08-11-05, 06:20 PM
  #34  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bartertown due to it having a better economy than where I really live, Buffalo NY
Posts: 29,698
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
mikehunt is offline  
Old 08-12-05, 01:03 PM
  #35  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 22,995
Oil charges to $67 on capacity worries

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050812/...kets_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.
Myster X is offline  
Old 08-13-05, 05:25 PM
  #36  
Political Exile
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,142
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.
grundle is offline  
Old 08-13-05, 07:44 PM
  #37  
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: So. Illinois
Posts: 3,019
Originally Posted by Gallant Pig
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 is offline  
Old 08-13-05, 07:46 PM
  #38  
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: So. Illinois
Posts: 3,019
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Mike Lowrey is offline  
Old 08-13-05, 07:58 PM
  #39  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
BKenn01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Big Blue Nation!
Posts: 4,497
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.
BKenn01 is offline  
Old 08-13-05, 09:00 PM
  #40  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by 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.
A reduction of 1-5 million barrels per day won't have an effect on the amount of oil we import?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 08-13-05, 09:19 PM
  #41  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lower Gum Curve
Posts: 19,008
Originally Posted by Mike Lowrey
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?
Jason is offline  
Old 08-13-05, 09:23 PM
  #42  
Mod Emeritus
 
Gallant Pig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 15,325
Originally Posted by Mike Lowrey
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.
Gallant Pig is offline  
Old 08-13-05, 09:25 PM
  #43  
Mod Emeritus
 
Gallant Pig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 15,325
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.
Gallant Pig is offline  
Old 08-13-05, 09:39 PM
  #44  
Political Exile
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,142
Originally Posted by Mike Lowrey
And that's a good thing right?
Yes.
grundle is offline  
Old 08-13-05, 09:42 PM
  #45  
Political Exile
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,142
Originally Posted by classicman2
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.
grundle is offline  
Old 08-13-05, 10:04 PM
  #46  
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: In mourning
Posts: 26,241
Originally Posted by grundle
Oil is a global commodity. If they do drill at ANWR, the oil will be exported to Japan.



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.
Pharoh is offline  
Old 08-13-05, 11:04 PM
  #47  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 20,695
Originally Posted by grundle
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.
Ranger is offline  
Old 08-13-05, 11:21 PM
  #48  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 22,995
This certainly won't help. CA Coastal Commission are run by crooks.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&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.
Myster X is offline  
Old 08-13-05, 11:40 PM
  #49  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Originally Posted by 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.
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 is offline  
Old 08-13-05, 11:42 PM
  #50  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
And because we live in the country that we do.....expect the biggest opponents to nuclear energy to come from the natural gas people.
kvrdave is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.