Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?

[adios]

[ 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.

[zipo]

>>Is it really realistic? Will not the ever-increasing scarcity of oil eventually lead to exploration?<<

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.

[Ray Zee]

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.

[Cyrus]

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.

[wacki]

[ 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.

[bocablkr]

[ 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.

[Il_Mostro]

[ 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.