Ok as promised why, it is not some huge travesty to drill in ANWR unlike what all the eco-terrorists I mean conservationists would like you to think.


Some pictures to help people understand.

First just how big alaska is compared to the rest of the US
http://www.wall-locker.com/images/mapdraw.gif


Ok next, a picture showing how big ANWR (all of it not just where they want to drill) is in Alaska
http://www.wall-locker.com/images/anwr.jpg

Ok, now the part, and I mean small part they want to drill in.
http://www.wall-locker.com/images/small.JPG
0.08% just under 1% of ANWR, leaving the other 99.02% for Caribou to do whatever the hell they want.

And to illustrate the 'devastating' effects of the oil industry on the Caribou on the north slope...
http://www.wall-locker.com/images/Caribou-ANWR.jpg

Like I said before, to say that ANWR is somehow the World's or even our nation's last strip of unmolested land is like trying to claim Michael Jackson is innocent.

The amount of land that would be 'spoiled' is extremely small when compared to the enourmous amount of other area that will be left alone, the benefits far outweigh the risks.

Do I think that drilling ANWR will solve the looming energy crisis?

No

I know it's just a bandage on a badly hemorhaging wound, but rather than bleed out before we get to the proverbial operating table to close it, we still need to at least slow the bleeding.

I agree its a bandage to the problem. I am all for it. I think the improvement to infrastructure it will provide and long term jobs is worth it alone.

The problem is that drilling alaska enable people to continue to drive their hummers with no pain. We need to change our habits and our technology. If it takes a shortage and high prices to do it, then so be it. If your kid had a problem with cocaine and he was stealing your stuff to buy it, would you just buy him more coke so he doesn't steal from you? It's not smart. It is enabling bad behavior and bad decisions. If there were no vehicles on the road today that got worse than 20 miles per gallon there would be no shortage and prices would be low, period.

Right, and as we have seen with New Orleans everyone out there can afford brand new cars and gas to go with them. I never said just drill it and keep driving those Hummers, I said drill it so we at least have something to get our rice rockets to and from work till we find a better fuel alternative. Just saying no dont drill it because it wont comepletely solve our problem is just as stupid as saying drilling it will solve all of our problems.

You also have to build infrastucture in cities to help populations to look at alternatives ideas. I lived in chicago and the transportaion system rocked if you could take the train.

I live in Austin now, the idiots here voted no on light rail twice before it finally passed by a narrow margin, now there wishing they votedyes 5 years ago. since it will prolly be a decade before it becomes a viable solution. UNtil then Im forced to drive. Id love to park my suv. :(

how about you park your SUV(sell it) and get a car that gets better milage?

The only way better fuel efficiency in cars will ever come to the mainstream markets is if our gas prices continue to soar.

Opening ANWAR now would be bad. 15 years from now when everyone's driving Mini Coopers and Hybrids, even the eco-lovin boyscout in me would go for it.

Have to admit I even parked my truck and picked up a Honda S2000 for traveling to work and such. Should at least get the drilling infrastructure up and running in Alaska. I would bet it would have zero impact on gas prices anyways. Would be nice to be less dependent on other countrys for our oil. Also when thinking about Oil everyone only thinks about gas for their cars. It takes a lot to fuel our product delivery systems in this country..trains, semi's. I work for a major magazine printer and we make our own ink. We consume 200,000 Gallons of oil a month just making the ink that goes on your playboys.

More oil isnt the answer.
Lets assume for the sake of arguement that ANWR has vast supplies of oil. Which, btw there is no guarentee of. But lets assume there is.

Because the location of the majority of American oil refineries is in Texas, any crude pumped out of ANWR would require shipment through the Panama Canal to be processed. This expensive trip would tempt any oil company that drilled to consider China as a buyer. China has an exponential need for petroleum with its rapidly developing economy. It would be a much more profitable buyer for ANWR oil due to the nature of the short journey and lowered quality control standards.

Basically this will never be an American only pool of oil. Any oil found will increase the global supply, which may be a good thing. This is the US house of Reps guess-tamite
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/images/anwrpic/howmuch.gif

Understand that Global oil use it going to increase from its present level 20% by 2010. The projections seem to indicate that you can expect a 20% increase every 5 years. Remember, not 20% from the 2005 level, but 20% off the 2010, 2015, 2020.. ect.. so in less than 20 years the world will be using more than 100% of the current amount.

Compund this expotential increase with the fact that of the 43 nations that produce oil, 33 of them are on the decline.
Good read here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak

So what will happen is that there will be a collossal global pull on the resources in ANWR. Will it help? Sure, but its kind of like keeping direct pressure on a cut artery. Itll keep you going till help arrives. But help better arrive pretty fucking quick.

The nations that will be successful in 20 years will be the ones that can transition the economy out of fossil fuels into renewable sources of energy.
This is tremedous feat. It will make putting a man on Mars like a 6th grade science project. It will take an entire nation seeing the writing on the wall and working toward the future.
One of the reasons the Roman Empire fell was insufficent technology compared to its enemies. This is almost inconcievable, but the romans crippling dependance on slave labor destroyed the chances of ingenuity and invention that other peoples needed to adapt to.
Oil is to us as slaves were to Romans.

I traded in my Bonneville SSEi with the nice turbocharged engine and complete luxury package for a new Saturn Vue with a 5-speed manual and 4 cylinder engine; it is just as nice of a ride, very comfortable, has the bells and whistles I want, and gets almost double the gas mileage so I am happy.

As far as the ANWR drillijng, I must go along with the point raised by Lleauric that it would be quite probable that the oil taken from the field would not be sold to American consumers, so there is no proof that drilling there would have any significant impact on our energy situation. It has been a long time since I read the article, but maybe someone can find something that shows that American oil companies do not put America first when selling their product; actually, I think Asia was the leading consumer of American oil, at least at the time of that writing.

And the only way this country will make any important strides in renewable energy research and application will be when the oil companies money is no longer able to buy votes (or politicians).

I'm not sure if I understand how you can argue that global demand would subvert the ANWR if we tapped it, yet suggest leaving that same global demand steady against a lesser supply would somehow benefit us more.

I'm not sure if I understand how you can argue that global demand would subvert the ANWR if we tapped it, yet suggest leaving that same global demand steady against a lesser supply would somehow benefit us more.

Not sure who this was directed at, but I will respond to it even though I am not arguing against or for drilling ANWR, but merely raising points. The point I am making is that drilling in that field does not guarantee any impact on our oil crisis, because the companies are not required to sell to the U.S., and the other countries we buy from are still going to have their contracts with other countries. It is naive to think China would lower it's contracted requirements from lets say OPEC just because another source became available; rather, it is more likely that they would look to establishing reserves much as we have and continue buying at the previous rate as well as taking any new available supplies. And let's not forget India, as a rising energy consumer.

Is it possible that we could deliver the anwr oil directly to canada and in return the oil that canada normally imports from its east coast could be taken by us? This issue that L2 brings up about the difficulties of getting anwr oil into US refineries is real. How could we get around this other than Shell/Exxon just screwing us again and selling all the anwr oil to china?

There is no way around it.

Whoever the oil company is, they will be putting a TREMENDOUS expenditure of capital into the ANWR site. They will demand as quick a return as possible on their investment.
They make more money selling to China. Period.

The arguement for ANWR goes that Chinese oil consumption will be static, thusly freeing up more reserves for the rest of us, and once again, the magic days of cheap oil.
I dont see it happening that way.
Why would China stop taking in all the oil it can? Take it all from ANWR while at the same time staying with existing oil contracts from OPEC. Wouldnt ultra cheap oil kick the Chinese economy into overdrive? (seeing as it is in overdrive now... super overdrive?) If the Chinese can set up this type of situation, where they cause their oil to be very cheap, while keeping or creating a shortage in other areas, wouldnt this be a advantageous situation?

Doesn't necessarily have to go that way. It will be years before a major flow of oil begins from Alaska. In that time, additional refineries can be constructed in California, which could supply petroleum products for the West Coast and the Southwest. Although the building of refineries has been blocked by environmental movements and NIMBYism since the early 70s or so, the pressure exerted by the rise of the energy costs will change that trend pretty soon. Besides, Arnold or whoever is running California at that point would be overjoyed at the jump in his (or her, or possibly its) approval rating from the jobs created for the construction and operation of the refineries.

Exports to China aren't much of a threat. If the companies which develop Alaskan oil get to build the refineries as well, why would they pass up the additional profit from selling refined petroleum products?

Besides, if the prices keep rising, oil shales will become viable. At that point, we can just invade Canada. :devil

nevermind...wouldn't work either.

Where the hell you going to build a refinery on the California coast? Malibu?
Thats some seriously prime real e$tate. Even if you get by local boards.. and you wont..
And explain why it would cost beneficial to an oil company? Yuan = Dollars.

How about use the nearly abandoned George AFB? Was shut down a few years ago. It's up the road from LA on I15.

Pretty empty and open area as I recall.

Fandros

L2, there are already some refineries in place in California; I had the pleasure of working near one of them a year ago. http://www.energy.ca.gov/oil/refineries.html

California is the most populous state and third largest in terms of land mass. While nobody's going to plop down a refinery in Beverly Hills or Malibu, there is plenty of acceptable land to build on. There's no shortage of labor, the environmentalists' obstruction would not be as painful as in Oregon (I was surprised to find out that Washington has a greater refining capacity per capita than California - perhaps it is just as viable).

The refineries in California exist to produce california gasoline. A special blend needed for low emissions.
But think about it a bit deeper Wil.
The oil from ANWR would require refining on a national scale. Even if they got all 50 states to agree on one uniform blend of oil. AND they found the space on the California coast to build the texas style massive oil refineries, your problems dont end there.
A refinery isnt just a building. It is whole infrastructure.
http://www.pipeline101.com/Overview/images/ProductsMap.gif
Who is going to pay for a brand new pipeline system sprouting from California?
The price to sell Alaskan oil in the US just keeps getting higher and higher.

Chances are higher with the pipe line than some miraculous discovery of some other alternate to Oil.

I'd wager there are already alternatives. But they weren't cost effective at the time.

Now you'll find the American public more open to the idea of getting away from giving the Middle east a purpose globally.

Without the interest in their oil they're going to have to be more open to modifying their culture...or decay quitely into that good night.

Fandros

Chances are higher with the pipe line than some miraculous discovery of some other alternate to Oil.

But why go through the trouble? Thats a tremendous investment of capital for an oil company to make for no logical reason. China WILL buy all the oil ANWR produces.

I think the simple answer to this is the US government won't open up the ANWR without substantial benefit to the US market. If it can't be managed to benefit us, or some kind of deal can't be made with the Oil Companies, then I would bet that the reserves won't open for drilling. So the oil companies then will have choices to make, find a way to make the oil benefit the US(that's not to say ALL the oil out of here will reach the mainland US), or not make any profit out of this oil.

There is no such agreement on the table at the present time.

But why go through the trouble?
There are just so many things wrong with this one statement... arrogance and cluelessness all rolled into one.

There is no such agreement on the table at the present time.

There's no drilling allowed there at the present time either.

Who is going to pay for a brand new pipeline system sprouting from California? The price to sell Alaskan oil in the US just keeps getting higher and higher.

Oh, it'll be built (or connected to the existing Alaskan pipelines, anyhow). I mean, if the Alaskan fields are developed quickly enough, the oil companies have an administration to deal with that is friendly to them and not averse to a bit of deficit spending. If they take a while, crude oil would probably be well over $80/barrel, and pipeline expansion will become economically feasible if it is not already. And until then, the trickle of oil can be handled with tankers.

California would be a very poor choice for building new refineries IMHO. maybe new refinieries located out west is a very poor strategy at all. much easier constructing an above ground pipeline from the ports of Washington connecting to the pipelines already in existance in Montana.
then we could build new and expand production capacity in areas much less likely to fight on enviromental grounds IE Oregon.
Of course groups in Washinton will fight tooth and nail to not have increased tanker flow into Puget Sound.

Hell looking at that map again you'd only have to build one from Puget Sound to Spokane. bet it could be built in less than a year.

But why go through the trouble?
There are just so many things wrong with this one statement... arrogance and cluelessness all rolled into one.

Tell me WHY an oil company would go through the trouble? What reason do they have? Anything there? Or just an excuse to launch a lame attack?
ExxonMobil, BP, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch/Shell, ChevronTexaco.
These are the companies that will drill, they have the capital and the resources. They are INTERNATIONAL countries. They will sell the oil from ANWR to where it most profitable.
From ANWR to Washington State or Manchuria, the distance is almost exact. Except there are refineries in Manchuria. And the Chinese dont require 28 different types of blends and the standards are lower, making production cheaper and more profitable.
But tell me WHY a company would go through the Billions of dollars and the incredible headache of creating a national infrastructure on the West Coast so it could sell some oil 10 years from now in the US, when it could sell all of its oil to China tomarrow.
Its the inescapable laws of economics.
(hypothetical)
If a baker can ONLY make 40 loaves of bread (he cannot make more, nor does he want to, this represents the finite nature of oil supply) a day and he can sell all 40 every day to the store across the street, why would he buy a truck to take some to the store across town?


There's no drilling allowed there at the present time either.

Well.... http://deltafarmpress.com/news/051002-katrina-energy/

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/issues/emr/energyprint0926.pdf

If it aint in now.. it aint going in.

Oh, it'll be built

But that is my point. WHY? What is the motivation? I dont see any.
Patriotism?
China will buy every drop that the oil companies will see them from ANWR. Tell me why they wont sell it to them.

But that is my point. WHY? What is the motivation? I dont see any.
Patriotism?
China will buy every drop that the oil companies will see them from ANWR. Tell me why they wont sell it to them.

First, if they sell to China, they're selling crude. For the Saudis, the profit margin from crude is huge, as it's laughably cheap to extract. In most other cases, Alaska included, it makes more sense for the oil companies to refine the products themselves. If they do not, revenues from the crude will take forever to cover the fixed costs of opening those wells in frozen tundra.

Second, oil is pretty fungible. China doesn't care where the oil comes from.

What's that you say, help straighten out our trade deficit with the rest of the world?

Patriotism?


We traded that in for something called subsidies a long time ago.

But why go through the trouble?

Because if arrogant control-freaks like you who constantly wring their hands and sweat profusely asking WHY WHY WHY repeatedly would just shut the fuck up and let free markets do their thing, there'd be less to worry about.

Half of the Alasken pipeline wouldn't be empty now, we would have built AT LEAST ONE refinery in the US since 1973, and the environmentalist whacknuts would stop shooting their cause in the foot from forcing overseas, less enviromentally friendly countries from doing all of the oil business.

In the meantime, Conoco brags in primetime TV comercials about building a fucking pipeline into Siberia and getting the oil there. Woohoo! Yes, they will go through the trouble.

And by the way, who the hell are you to tell 80% of the Alasken population what they can and cannot do in their own state anyway?

And by the way, who the hell are you to tell 80% of the Alasken population what they can and cannot do in their own state anyway?

Did I miss the notice that went out giving states full autonomy? :rolleyes:

Did I miss the notice that went out giving states full autonomy
No, but alot of people missed the one about taking it away from them.

I was under the impression that ANWR was a federally protected land mass much the same as Yellowstone, Glacier, etc. If it does indeed fall under the Department of Interior, that might answer Akipt regarding who can tell 80% of the Alaska population what they can do in their state.

Edit: Well, I got an anonymous neg rep hit saying I am really dumb, so I guess I am mistaken about this being a federally protected area. /shrug
Whatever government body determined this to be a Wildlife Refuge would have to have some input, I would think.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051020/ap_on_go_co/arctic_refuge

13-9 to pass committee still doesn't mean it'll pass the floor. Thats a pretty tight margin.

Little doubt it will pass the floor with a Republican majority.

Who does this oil belong to? Who does any oild found in the ground of government land belong to? The people? So when the government licenses shell to go pump it out and they sell it to china, who gets the money? The government? Or does shell pocket all the money? This is the same shit the people in bolivia are rioting over. The natural resources of a country belong to the people. The goverment doesnt have the right to give our oil away to shell so they can sell it to our competitor and then never bring that money inside our borders.

The way it should work; the government takes the lowest of bidders for an oil subcontractor to set up pumping stations and conecting lines to the alaska pipeline. The government pays the subcontractor and then sells the oil to refineries at a set price. Then the refineries add a small markup and sell it to the gas stations.

Thinking about this bullshit really bursts my brain cells.

*tap tap* is this thing on?

By the same token, you could push forth legislation to bar college graduates who gained from federal subsidies from emigrating to another country.

In the Senate Deficit Reduction bill (S 1932) the drilling rights for ANWR will be sold to the highest bidder; however, the Senate voted 83-16 to ban the export of oil taken from the ANWR fields, keeping it for U.S. use.
Taken from the major roll call votes for the week ending 11-4-05.

Just thought the above discussion deserved an update.

Personally I say just leave the ANWR and other such things alone, make gas as scarce as possible. Its the only way we're gonna be able to push new ideas and infrastructure, and we should be doing it before its *too* late.

I'm pretty happy that "Efficency" is "Trendy" now, all my friends talk about new cars and oogle at MPG insteada horsepower and shit. I'm all for further "Encouraging" that mindset.

unfortunately Oil will always be needed to make the world go round. Its not as simple as making gas scarce nor will it help. Think about disel for our huge trucking infrastructure in this country, toss in the disel used to power our trains (ever look at the huge fricken tanks on the bottom of those locomotive?). One way or another just about every fricken product you use for every day life has some sort of petroleum base in it. Be dependent on our own oil(drilling in Alaska)..then working on cutting that consumption down seems more likely than just saying ..."hey lets make gas scarce."

Drive to open ANWR to drilling may be stalled (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2005-11-10T025658Z_01_SCH010592_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENERGY-CONGRESS-ANWR.xml&archived=False[:).

...the initiative was threatening passage of a huge bill to cut spending.Too bad we can't have both :mad:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/09/arctic.refuge.ap/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175130,00.html