Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?
 

The senate blocked exploration of oil in some Alaskan areas if I understood the news report correctly. Similar things have been done to vulnerable areas in other oil producing countries. Is it really realistic? Will not the ever-increasing scarcity of oil eventually lead to exploration? (as benefit at some point will outweigh environmental costs)

Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The senate blocked exploration of oil in some Alaskan areas if I understood the news report correctly. Similar things have been done to vulnerable areas in other oil producing countries. Is it really realistic? Will not the ever-increasing scarcity of oil eventually lead to exploration? (as benefit at some point will outweigh environmental costs)

[/ QUOTE ]

Just in case you are really interested in the facts about drilling in ANWAR.

Consider the following:

The companies that want to get at that oil estimate there's 16 billion barrels waiting to be pumped south – or about 30 years worth of Middle East oil imports. U.S. government geologists have estimated a likely reserve of perhaps 10.4 billion barrels in the 700,000-hectare coastal plain region at the northern end of the ANWR. That's the only part of the refuge where the U.S. government has considered lifting the ban on development.

But it would be economically feasible to pump out only a fraction of that reserve. A 1998 study estimated that about 1.9 billion barrels could be recovered at a price of $24 per barrel. Environmentalists and other opponents of opening the area to oil exploration argue there's no way to know how much oil is there.

The Union of Concerned Scientists suggests there may be enough oil to fuel vehicles in the United States for six months. It argues that making vehicles more fuel-efficient will save far more oil than Alaska could ever produce.

Fact: there is likely between 6 to 18 months worth of 'economically' recoverable oil. That will start to flow 8 to 10 years from now. How is any of that going to help us now. It won't. Don't say 'well it is a start' or 'every little bit helps' (see below).

Fact: there is not enough oil reserves in the entire United States for us to ever 'drill' our way out of our foreign dependence on oil.
The only answer is to reduce our demand for energy, find alternative energy sources and improve the efficiency and cost of current technologies.

Spend the billions of dollars that would be wasted in oil drilling in ANWAR and instead use it to finance research and development of alternative energy sources as well as improving existing technologies. This would create thousands of good paying jobs and if fruitful a new energy source. Spend money on public awareness programs to increase conservation and recycling. Make it cost effective to use recycled materials. If the automobile industry was forced to increase there MPG fleet average just a few miles it would save more oil in a few years than all the oil we would ever get from ANWAR. It would also increase jobs in Detroit, not ruin the industry as Rush Limbaugh and his ilk would have you believe.

We had a Manhattan project' to build the A bomb before the Nazis, we should have a Manhattan project' for a new source of energy. Consider this - if another country discovers something before us we will be even more dependent on foreign sources.

One other tidbit:

The Republicans' assertion that the plan would use "only 2,000 acres" of land for oil production is patently false. The 2,000 acres refers only to the actual drilling area and does not include the roads, airstrips, pipelines, and other support facilities that would be necessary to begin drilling in the reserve. Drilling in the refuge will really create a spider web of industrial activities over the entire 1.5 million acre coastal plain, so it is much larger than just a small footprint. This legislation might also open up nearly 100,000 acres of native land on the Arctic coastal plain.

Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?
 

Bocablkr, there are many othere people that disagree with your "facts". Some say that there is enough to hold us for "years".

We should already have pumped the place dry by now.

Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
But it would be economically feasible to pump out only a fraction of that reserve. A 1998 study estimated that about 1.9 billion barrels could be recovered at a price of $24 per barrel.

[/ QUOTE ]

I note that the price to recover oil in Saudi Arabia and Iraq is between $2 and $3 a barrel if memory serves. With this in mind allow me to fix the following excerpt from your post:

[ QUOTE ]
Fact: there is not enough oil reserves in the entire United States for us to ever 'drill' our way out of our foreign dependence on oil.
One way where we could conceivably reduce our foreign dependence on oil is finding alternative energy sources.

Improving the effeciency and cost of current technologies that utilize oil will tend to reduce the demand for oil due to less consumption. Reducing the demand for oil will make the USA <u>more dependent</u> on foreign oil sources like Saudi Arabia and Iraq since their production costs are vastly lower than domestic production costs. The marginally profitable producers cease production when the price of a barrel of oil decreases enough. The lowest cost producers win out in the long run

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bocablkr, there are many othere people that disagree with your "facts". Some say that there is enough to hold us for "years".

We should already have pumped the place dry by now.

[/ QUOTE ]

From ANWR.org A website deicated to propome drilling in the refuge.

Recoverable oil estimates ranges from 600 million barrels at the low end to 9.2 billion barrels at the high end. The US is currently using nearly 20 million barrels per day and increasing every year- so the low end estimate is a months worth of oil in the US. The high end is at less than 16 months. No "realistic" estimates have come out that think ANWR could fuel America for any signifigant period of time. At best estimates that it could contribute 1-3% of our total production for 15-20 years (at current levels of incresing use) before it became uneconomical to continue.

Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?
 

But if there is no significant impact on the ANWR environment why not? ANWR.org seems to imply there wouldn't be much of an impact if any.

Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?
 

The thing is that if it could be guaranteed 100% for certain that the ANWAR's environment would not be damaged, the lib enviros still would be opposed just because of their utopian unspoiled enviro notions, but most importantly, because they really don't want us to have large supplies of oil because of the rest of their agenda against carbon fuels.

Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?
 

&gt;&gt;Is it really realistic? Will not the ever-increasing scarcity of oil eventually lead to exploration?&lt;&lt;

At some point ANWR will get tapped. Not because it will materially lower US dependence on foreign energy, but because the energy lobby stands to make a bundle of loot by ramming it down the throats of a tame, lickspittle, and avaricious Congress.

That same energy lobby and their lackeys in high office are using ANWR as a red herring to divert attention from what really needs to be done - namely, implementing meaningful conservation measures (for example, mandating that fuel efficiency in autos be doubled in the next 5 years) and seriously developing alternative energy sources.

Of course, big energy will lose big profits if the US gets serious about our energy problems, and so our national interests will continue to be sacrificed to this influential special interest - at least until we get people in the White House and Congress who will confront this lobby head on rather than servicing it.

Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is that if it could be guaranteed 100% for certain that the ANWAR would produce no oil, the right-wing nutjobs would still be dermined to drill, since what this is really all about is winning a symbolic victory over people who care about the environment. They really don't want us to have large supplies of oil because it would lower the oil companies' profit margins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?
 

Excellent logic. The right wants to drill just to screw the enviros, but at the same time really wants less oil. And the left chortles with glee as the right acts at cross purposes.

Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?
 

I never said that it shouldn't happen, i was just responding to the misconception that there might be enough oil to last for "years".
As another poster said the actual drilling will represent only a very small percentage of the actual impact. Getting the equipment in and the oil out is the tricky part, and a major spill would wreck huge portions.
I am against drilling in anwr, mostly because its simmply a red herring for powerfull people to act like they are addressing the energy problem (and a small group of people will make buttloads of money). We shouldnt let them get away with this in general principle- its like the gay marrige debate- Why the [censored] should any body care when comparing it to the number of people who have health insurance problems, the state of education in this country the war in iraq, government overpending, socila security... ect ect. But the best solution for most of these problems is to get teh government out of them, and no one wants to run on that ticket, so they pull up crap like this, and to a lesser extent abortion (by lesser i mean that it is actualy a legitimate problem to have a beef with). Any one who seriouly thinks that gay marrige is the number one issue in the country should be smacked, hard.

Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am against drilling in anwr, mostly because its simmply a red herring for powerfull people to act like they are addressing the energy problem

[/ QUOTE ]

Proves the point I made above.

Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am against drilling in anwr, mostly because its simmply a red herring for powerfull people to act like they are addressing the energy problem

[/ QUOTE ]

Proves the point I made above.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't, Firstly because you didn't have a real point above, just another moronic attack on the "libs". Secondly i am not a liberal. I am pretty hard core anti bush, but thats because i am hardcore anti morons trying to run my life. If your pro bush, you aren't a conservative.
Preventing ineffective measures like ANWR might be the only way to force some kind of resolution or progress.

Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent logic. The right wants to drill just to screw the enviros, but at the same time really wants less oil. And the left chortles with glee as the right acts at cross purposes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad to see you're coming around. Proof positive that we shouldn't give up on the mentally handicapped.

Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I note that the price to recover oil in Saudi Arabia and Iraq is between $2 and $3 a barrel if memory serves.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that's a bit on the low end, if my memory serves me that would be the cost to lift the oil, then there are additional costs to actually get the oil anywhere

[ QUOTE ]
Improving the effeciency and cost of current technologies that utilize oil will tend to reduce the demand for oil due to less consumption.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have any proof of this? Because everything I've read on the issue has stated otherwise. The whole Jevons "paradox " thing. The more efficient we become in using a certain energy source the more of it we use.

Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I note that the price to recover oil in Saudi Arabia and Iraq is between $2 and $3 a barrel if memory serves.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that's a bit on the low end, if my memory serves me that would be the cost to lift the oil, then there are additional costs to actually get the oil anywhere

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm comparing the production costs cited for ANWR with similar costs for Middle East OPEC nations. I'm fairly certain that the poster I responded to is citing ANWR costs to lift the oil but not certain.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Improving the effeciency and cost of current technologies that utilize oil will tend to reduce the demand for oil due to less consumption.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have any proof of this? Because everything I've read on the issue has stated otherwise. The whole Jevons "paradox " thing. The more efficient we become in using a certain energy source the more of it we use.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see how this could be the case. However, I think it's fair to say that the post that I responded to is assuming that improving the effeciency and cost of current technologies will lead to less oil consumption. If that assumption is correct ... The idea I'm challenging is that reducing the rate of consumption of oil in the US will make the US less dependent on OPEC oil sources in the Middle East. The idea is based on the erroneous notion that all producers produce at the same cost and it's not true. Whether citizens in the USA like it or not as things stand now, the USA is dependent on OPEC oil imports and will continue to be dependent on OPEEC oil imports in order to fuel gasoline powered vehicles irregardless of the rate of consumption. A tariff that specifically targets OPEC oil would change the dynamic but I don't support such a thing.

Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?
 

first if we want to be independent on oil we should not drill ours away but save it for the future if it becomes necessary. using it now is crazy.
next is that they computed that if we tapped it all then it would decrese our gas price at the pump about one cent a gallon during the period till it was exhasted.
then to top it off being so far away it is most likely most of the oil drilled would just be sold to japan anyway as it would bring more money there rather than shipping it to the lower states. so it really is just a money raiser for big oil. with subidies from us taxpayers. so you get to pay more anyway. watch what you wish for.

Collision course
 

In 1997, when the world was negotiating the Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. Senate, by a vote of 95-0, passed a resolution that forbade any American involvement in a pact that limited American emissions - "unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce grteenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliace period".

Although the resolution did not cite China in particular, the testimony made it clear that China, and to a lesser extent India, were the nations everyone had in mind.

China, which currently ranks second in the world’s CO2 emissions, is projected to pass the United States sometime between 2025 and 2030 as the largest emitter of carbon dioxide. In an article titled “The Great Leap” in the December 2005 issue of Harper’s, Bill McKibben argues that it makes more sense to divide the atmosphere by people, not by nation.

China's current annual production of carbon dioxide was 2.6 tons per 1,000 people, while the average was 19 tons in the United States. Even when China passes the United States as the largest carbon emitter, the average Chinese person will still be producing only a quarter as much carbon as the average American.

China's GDP had risen fourfold from 1980 to 2000, while its energy consumption only doubled, showing the efforts by the Chinese government to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. In notable difference to American's position on the matter, China has pledged to raise its energy efficiency by 20 percent between 2006 and 2010.

We are faced with a tragedy, perhaps the ultimate tragedy in Man's history on Earth. The father of the current president had declared on his way to the Rio de Janeiro parley that eventually gave rise to Kyoto, that "the American way of life is not up for negotiation".

That's what defines a tragedy. An unavoidable, though visible, and theoretically preventable, course of collision with fate. Because China is not the bad guy in this scenario. (Americans aren't either.) As things stand, China's growth is accomplishing some very good things: Chinese people are enjoying some meat more regularly, are sending their brothers and offspring to school, are heating their huts and houses. America is burning nine times as much energy per person so that Americans can air-condition poker rooms, mow half-acre lots, drive SUVs on every errand and eat tomatoes flown in from Chile. (Yes, there are Americans living in poverty and some Americans are losing their jobs to Chinese competition, but this is simply America's shame -- the United States has all the money on the world and has not figured out a way to spread it around better.

So, in about a few years down the road (ten? twenty? sixty? -- it's still "a few years") the sh*t is going to hit the fan. Now, shuffle up and deal.

Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bocablkr, there are many othere people that disagree with your "facts". Some say that there is enough to hold us for "years".


[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me who those 'some' are?

From reading the responses it appears many agree that there is a most a few years worth of recoverable oil that will reduce the price of gas a few cents, 8 - 10 years from now. Some have suggested that regardless of these facts we should pump the place dry. I contend the money that would be invested in ANWR should instead be used to fuel a 'Manhattan' style project on alternative energy research. It would seem to be a much better return on investment.

Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Will not the ever-increasing scarcity of oil eventually lead to exploration? (as benefit at some point will outweigh environmental costs)


[/ QUOTE ]

Anyway you cut it the environment is [censored]. Gotta love the shale oil.

Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Will not the ever-increasing scarcity of oil eventually lead to exploration? (as benefit at some point will outweigh environmental costs)


[/ QUOTE ]

Anyway you cut it the environment is [censored]. Gotta love the shale oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

65-70% of the general population supports protecting the environment. As long as it stays that way the environment has a chance.

Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]

65-70% of the general population supports protecting the environment. As long as it stays that way the environment has a chance.

[/ QUOTE ]
Only as long as it comes at no cost. Wait and see what happens when gas rices high enough, when NG is high enough, when sacrifices has to be made. I don't think there will be a 65% pro-environment poll at that point.