Senate to vote on allowing oil drilling in ANWR

[BrainGlutton]

The Senate is about to vote on a proposal to allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska (http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/16/arctic.drilling.ap/index.html), so I guess it's timely for us to debate it. I tend towards "yes" -- I love the caribou, but gas is now over $2.00 a gallon where I live! :eek:

Issues for debate:

1. How much damage would drilling do to ANWR's ecosystem? To the larger ecosystem of Alaska?

2. How much oil can we really get out of it? Will it really make a difference in gas prices, or make the U.S. any less dependent on imported oil?

3. How should we weigh any tradeoff between 1 and 2? How much environmental damage can we justify in the name of cheaper gasoline or energy independence?

[ITR champion]

1. If all the latest technologies were to be used to minimize the impact on the environment, the actual damage should be fairly minimal. For all the talk about how the drilling would take place at exactly the spot where the caribou herd breeds, herds have been moved to new locations in the past.

2. Lots of different figures are available. Oil industry estimates say 10 billion barrels, the U.S. government has estimated less than 5 billion barrels, and independant groups have come up with estimates even lower than that. It should also be noted that the amount of oil that could be recovered is almost certainly quite a bit less than the amount that's in the ground.

Now I oppose it for four reasons:

1. Although improved technology has reduced the environmental impact of drilling, I'd be nervous about the use of such technology. Oil companies have been slipshod about safety in the past, leading to spills in environmentally sensitive areas. And I don't exactly trust this administration to strictly enforce whatever rules are created to protect the environment.

2. The 'drop in the bucket' aspect. American cars alone consume 4 billion barrels a year. By the government's estimate, it's slightly over a year and then we're right back where we started.

3. If we opened the ANWR, OPEC could just drop production a little bit. Prices likely wouldn't change at all. That's the strategy OPEC has used in the past.

3. If we want cheaper oil, we could just increase efficiency requirements. Let's face it. We can't keep guzzling gas forever. For economic reasons, for foreign policy reasons, for environmental reasons. Looking for new oil fields is simply the wrong philosophy to take at this point.

[rjung]

IIRC, even if the government goes ahead with drilling in ANWR (which, let's admit it, is practically a "gimmie" at this point), it'd take several years to get the pipeline and roads and infrastructure in place before any drilling can begin, much less oil delivered.

[PatriotX]

These facts are brought to you courtesy of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998, Including Economic Analysis U.S. Geology Survey Fact Sheet 0028-01 (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/)
An important fact about this USGS study is about the data it comes from. To wit-

quote:“Collection of seismic data within ANWR requires an act of Congress, and these are the only seismic data ever collected within the 1002 area.”

So ALL available estimates are either based on these data, superceded by these data or made up. Most estimates are based on this USGS report.

quote:“This was a comprehensive study by a team of USGS scientists in collaboration on technical issues (but not the assessment) with colleagues in other agencies and universities.
The study incorporated all available public data and included new field and analytic work as well as the reevaluation of all previous work.”

Here are a few definitions that are worth noting.

In-place resources—The amount of petroleum contained in accumulations of at least 50 MMBO, (million barrels of oil), without regard to recoverability.
Technically recoverable resources—Volume of petroleum representing that proportion of assessed in-place resources that may be recoverable using current recovery technology without regard to cost.
Economically recoverable resources—That part of the technically recoverable resource for which the costs of discovery, development, and production, including a return to capital, can be recovered at a given well-head price.

As to technically recoverable oil “this study estimates that the total quantity of technically recoverable oil in the 1002 area is 7.7 BBO (mean value),” and economically recoverable resources-”at a price of $30 per barrel, between 3 and 10.4 billion barrels are estimated”

quote:
For further information and to request a CD-ROM (USGS Open-File Report 98-34)
containing detailed results and supporting scientific documentation, send e-mail to:
gd-anwr@usgs.gov
or contact:
Kenneth J. Bird (kbird@usgs.gov) (650) 329-4907
David W. Houseknecht (dhouse@usgs.gov) (703) 648-6466

The people at ANWR.org (http://anwr.org/features/pdfs/ANWR_estimates.pdf)bring up the point that extraction methods have gotten and will probably continue to get more effective and more efficient. They use these premises to make the case for the USGS mean numbers for both the technically recoverable and economically recoverable to be low-ball estimates.
The site also offers some statistics about technological advances at Prudhoe Bay. They don’t mention recalculating the economically recoverable estimate with an adjustment for the change of the real value of the dollar versus inflation. If they had done so, I suspect that they would have made a point of mentioning it. Therefore, while I suspect that their upward revisions of the estimates of the technically recoverable oil are warranted, I’m not as sure about the necessity of an upward revision of the economicall recoverable oil.

The economically recoverable numbers are the most relevant because they are the ones most indicative of the the amount of oil that actually will be extracted for human consumption.

The ANWR.org site suggests that 18 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil is an estimate that better reflects changes in current technology.

We used 7.2 billion barrels of oil in 2000, (19.7 million barrels of petroleum/day x 365 days/year => 7190 million ) according to US Dept. of Energy (http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/energy_security.html).
This rate of consumption is expected to continue to rise.
18 billion barrels divided by 7.2 billion barrels yields a supply that will last about two and
one half years at levels of consumption equal to our use in 2000. Of course as our
consumption rates increase, the ANWR supply wil decrease more quickly.
It’s estimated by ANWR.org myth-buster flyer (http://anwr.org/features/pdfs/myths-flyer3.pdf) that it will take 7 - 10 years or more “before the first oil reached American consumers”. The same source also says that the rate of extraction of ANWR oil is set by the maximum capacity of TAPS, (Trans-Alaska Pipeline System), at a mere 2 million barrels a day. The oil from Prudhoe Bay uses this same pipeline so the amount of oil that actally could be moved daily from the ANWR would be less than these 2 million a day-(maybe 1 million a day?).

After ten years of developing the ANWR, say 2014, we could get enough oil from it each day to supply a little over an hours worth of our usage at 2000’s levels.

In addition to the initial ten years to develop the ANWR sites, and using an estimate of 2 million barrels a day, (the ENTIRE capacity of TAPS), coming from the ANWR it would take a total of about 35 years to extract about 2 years worth of oil. (If only half of TAPS capacity is used it could take up to sixty years.)

Estimates are that by 2020 we will be using 26.7 million barrels of petroleum per day. Come 2020, ANWR will have been producing for six years and be able to supply almost a whole hour(!) worth of our daily petroleum use.

[PatriotX]

Is a the drilling a better option than decreasing usage by 5%?

Seem to far fewer risks asscoiated with decreasing usage.

[PatriotX]

Issues for debate:
1. How much damage would drilling do to ANWR's ecosystem? To the larger ecosystem of Alaska?

Some, possibly more.


2. How much oil can we really get out of it?

Depends on how much we're willing to spend. If we keep th egas prices at or above $2.00 a gallon, we can get more out than if we let the gas prices fall. Kind of a catch twenty two for you, huh?


Will it really make a difference in gas prices, or make the U.S. any less dependent on imported oil?

Probably not either one of those things. A five percent drop in gas prices from five percent more oil being made available each day (prob'ly a huge overestimate in price drop) would make $2/gal gas $1.90/gal gas.
Our periodic importation of foreign oil would only be 95% of what it otherwise would be.


3. How should we weigh any tradeoff between 1 and 2? How much environmental damage can we justify in the name of cheaper gasoline or energy independence?
Since there'll be relatively little cheaper gasolineor energy independence, I'd say even less than relatively little enviromental damage.

However, if you're one of the companies doing the exploration, there're soem hefty profits that can be made. And, since artificial persons have more influence in our government than real persons, it's likely that this will see serious debate it doesn't warrant.

Just as articficial persons do not have the right to vote, they should also be prohibited from lobbying our legislators.

[Renob]

However, if you're one of the companies doing the exploration, there're soem hefty profits that can be made. And, since artificial persons have more influence in our government than real persons, it's likely that this will see serious debate it doesn't warrant.
Actually, according to the NY Times (http://home.earthlink.net/~cevent/2-20-05_big_oil_sidesteps_arctic_drilling.html -- I tried getting it from the Times website, but it looks like you have to pay for archives there, so this website will have to do) oil companies aren't really all that excited about the profit potential of ANWR.

Just as articficial persons do not have the right to vote, they should also be prohibited from lobbying our legislators.
That's funny, when I workedo on the Hill I can't remember any artificial people lobbying me. They were all flesh and blood as far as I recall.

You can't ban someone from exercising his or her free speech rights with a member of Congress or his/her staff. That's completely unconstitutional.

[PatriotX]

Actually, according to the NY Times (http://home.earthlink.net/~cevent/2-20-05_big_oil_sidesteps_arctic_drilling.html -- I tried getting it from the Times website, but it looks like you have to pay for archives there, so this website will have to do) oil companies aren't really all that excited about the profit potential of ANWR. That may be. But if no one's going to make money on the deal, who wants it done? Are oil companies supposed to do it as an act a community service?


That's funny, when I workedo on the Hill I can't remember any artificial people lobbying me. They were all flesh and blood as far as I recall.
You're pretty funny too. As we both know artificial persons who lobby employ the services of flesh and blood persons.

You can't ban someone from exercising his or her free speech rights with a member of Congress or his/her staff. That's completely unconstitutional.
As I said, just as artificial persons don't enjoy the right to vote (despite the fourteenth ammendment) I don't think that artificial persons should enjoy the same ability to lobby our legislatures as real persons.

I see no reason to extend all of the exact same rights that real persons have re US governance to artificial persons. Already, artificial persons lack such rights, namely the right to vote.

[RTFirefly]

Just an update: the Senate voted 51-49 to keep ANWR drilling in the budget.

Last year Congress was unable to pass a budget. That could well happen this year too. That's probably the best hope of preventing drilling in the ANWR. If no budget, then ANWR drilling proponents would need 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster.

[lee]

This is being sold as a way to reduce oil prices. I don't think it will. I think this is actually a way to send more contracts to the current administration's friends and also lets congress pretend to be doing something about high gas prices to appease their constituents while gaining points with the administration.

The estimates of what can be gotten from this seem so small compared to current demand it almost makes me think that this is just being done to spite those who want to preserve wilderness. I know that I have heard indiviuals gloatin over this like it is a way to show those treehuggers who is the boss.

[PatriotX]

This is being sold as a way to reduce oil prices.
In 7-10 years there may enough oil coming to supply up to 5% of our use.

[lee]

In 7-10 years there may enough oil coming to supply up to 5% of our use.
I did not comment on how reasonable it was to believe that drilling in the ANWR would reduce oil prices. Many people thought that the war in Iraq would bring down oil prices too.

[Sam Stone]

Or you can spin it another way -

SUV's as a category use about 6% of the petroleum used in the United States. SUV's as a class use about 22% more gas per mile than do cars. Therefore, the fact that Americans drive as many SUVs as they do adds about 1% to the overall petroleum consumption in the United States.

That means ANWR alone would make up the difference between SUVs and cars for 100-400 years.

See? Spin works both ways. The same environmentalists who argue that the 'real problem' in America is the love of big gas-guzzling SUVs turn around in the same breath and claim that the amount of oil in ANWR is trivial.

Also, the economic benefits should not be taken lightly. 18 billion barrels of oil at today's prices is 90 billion dollars. Again, I could spin it that ANWR alone could pay almost half the cost of the Iraq war, and the same people who claim that the Iraq war was an economic disaster dismiss the economic value of ANWR.

Personally, I 'm ambivalent about ANWR drilling. Not on environmental grounds, because I think the danger to the environment has been greatly over-hyped. My main objection to drilling is that ANWR makes for a hell of a good strategic petroleum reserve, and it just might be a good idea to hang on to it for a few years. If there's no real compelling reason to drill now, perhaps it's best to just let it stay there until it's really needed.

My main point is that there is a ton of spin around this issue from both sides. Drilling ANWR is not going to destroy the actic ecosystem, and it's not going to eliminate or even markedly reduce America's dependence on imported oil. It's just a big resource sitting in the ground that some people want to harvest and others don't. In the end, it's not that big of a deal one way or the other.

[John Mace]

I pretty much agree with Sam on this. I sure we can drill for oil and not ruin the environment. I'm also sure this will be a drop in the oil bucket and is largely symbolic. Might as well get set to drill, though, since it'll take a few years to get this going, and who knows what things will be like then.

On a related note, I absolutely do NOT agree with the idea that keeps getting floated about tapping the strategic oil reserves. To the nuts promoting this: what is it about the word "strategic" that you don't understand?

[John Mace]

That would be "nuts in Congress", not "nuts on this MB." :)

[Gorsnak]

I'm mostly in agreement with Sam and John on this, except that I think they're being a bit quick in dismissing environmental impact. As I understand it, this issue is this: the site is smack dab in the middle of the caribou calving grounds, and caribou simply won't calve anywhere near any development. So drilling will inevitably alter the behaviour of 150k large animals. Now, I don't know anywhere enough to say that this will have a substantial detrimental impact on things, but it does mean that various talk about how small the "footprint" will be, etc., is meaningless, since the impact doesn't depend on the size of the footprint, but rather its location. Maybe the caribou would just move a couple hundred miles down the coast and it wouldn't be a big deal, I don't know, but herds that size have a major impact on how the ecosystem functions, and you can't say with any certainty what the outcome would be.

Just remember, the "Law of Unintended Consequences" cuts both ways.

[Magiver]

IIRC, even if the government goes ahead with drilling in ANWR (which, let's admit it, is practically a "gimmie" at this point), it'd take several years to get the pipeline and roads and infrastructure in place before any drilling can begin, much less oil delivered.
I don't believe that is accurate. they're already drilling on the edge of ANWAR. They will be moving this operation further in.

Personally, since we are the users of the product I think we should take responsibility for the extraction of it. All the better that it is our oil. I hope they drill on every scrap of land/water that is available. I also hope that bio diesel becomes more popular as well as a trend toward more fuel efficient cars.

[PatriotX]

18 billion barrels of oil at today's prices is 90 billion dollars.
Out of curiosity, where'd you get this number?

[Loopydude]

Disgusting. Drill one of America's last pristine wildernesses to smack down the Greens. There are no winners, in practical terms. Why this makes some people happy I'll never understand.

[Sam Stone]

I used $50 as the price of oil. It's actually at $55 today, and some analysts are saying it could go to $70.

The 18 billion figure is a WAG. Estimates on the amount of oil vary, and various numbers have been floated in this thread, with cites. But whatever. Call it half that if you want.

[PatriotX]

I used $50 as the price of oil. It's actually at $55 today, and some analysts are saying it could go to $70.

The 18 billion figure is a WAG. Estimates on the amount of oil vary, and various numbers have been floated in this thread, with cites. But whatever. Call it half that if you want.
I was just wondering if there was someone out there using this number.
It happens to exceed the absolute largest estimate (the 5% chance number) of technically recoverable oil (if money were no object) of the USGS.


If you just pulled it out of your ass, it's not very interesting. [Funny one would have an occasion to use that sentence.]

[Sam Stone]

I was just wondering if there was someone out there using this number.
It happens to exceed the absolute largest estimate (the 5% chance number) of technically recoverable oil (if money were no object) of the USGS.


If you just pulled it out of your ass, it's not very interesting. [Funny one would have an occasion to use that sentence.]

Actually, from your own message above:


The ANWR.org site suggests that 18 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil is an estimate that better reflects changes in current technology.

[Brutus]

Disgusting. Drill one of America's last pristine wildernesses to smack down the Greens.

Gosh, someone has a overinflated sense of self importance. The drilling will be to extract oil that we all need. Pissing off the idiot greens is just a added bonus.


There are no winners, in practical terms...

Except for oil consumers, you mean.

[Fear Itself]

I'm mostly in agreement with Sam and John on this, except that I think they're being a bit quick in dismissing environmental impact. As I understand it, this issue is this: the site is smack dab in the middle of the caribou calving grounds, and caribou simply won't calve anywhere near any development. This is absolutely false. I have many friends who work in Prudhoe Bay, and I have it straight from them that, not only do caribou not avoid development during calving, they positively seek it out. It seems the concrete drilling pads offer an escape from the clouds of mosquitoes that enshroud the tundra, so caribou will come right up onto the pad to give birth. The caribou herd near Prudhoe Bay is much larger than it was before drilling began.

For the record, I am one 'liberal' who supports drilling in ANWR, but I doubt it will have any significant impact on oil prices or availability.

[Gorsnak]

This is absolutely false. I have many friends who work in Prudhoe Bay, and I have it straight from them that, not only do caribou not avoid development during calving, they positively seek it out. It seems the concrete drilling pads offer an escape from the clouds of mosquitoes that enshroud the tundra, so caribou will come right up onto the pad to give birth. The caribou herd near Prudhoe Bay is much larger than it was before drilling began.

For the record, I am one 'liberal' who supports drilling in ANWR, but I doubt it will have any significant impact on oil prices or availability.
Apparently my understanding was wrong, then.

[Neurotik]

Except for oil consumers, you mean.
How will it benefit oil consumers? There's not enough there to have any impact on prices. The only person to benefit will be the oil company that gets to make a quick short term profit by capitalizing on already high oil prices. In fact, the high oil prices are the only reason this venture is even feasible right now for the extracting company.

[PatriotX]

Actually, from your own message above:
Ah, well it's been quite a while (a year or so) since I wrote that.
Kind of gives insight into ANWR.org's credibility, then don't it?



How will it benefit oil consumers? There's not enough there to have any impact on prices.
It's not so much how much is there as it is how to get it here.


The only person to benefit will be the oil company that gets to make a quick short term profit by capitalizing on already high oil prices. In fact, the high oil prices are the only reason this venture is even feasible right now for the extracting company.
The oil won't start arriving for 7-10 years (at least)

[Clothahump]

Drilling in ANWR is good for us all.

However, it's really not going to help in the long run because the real issue is refinery capacity. The treehuggers have blocked every attempt to build new refineries in this country for the last 20+ years; until we get more refinery and production capacity, having an expanded source isn't going to help us out all that much.

We also need a change in thinking in two major areas:

1) We really need to have new vehicle technology. This could be accomplished by something as simple as the government implementing laws that state that all fossil fuel powered vehicles operated in the USA have to have a minimum MPG of 40 for city and 50 for highway (as an example) and put a deadline in place, say 7 years from now to allow the manufacturers time to ramp up for it.

2) We also need to understand that OPEC is waging economic warfare against the USA. This could easily be addressed, as a start, by diverting every penny of foreign aid earmarked for OPEC countries into a development fund to assist in the refinery building and new vehicle development listed above.

[PatriotX]

Really, we need to have a major effort to create a new energy source.
If the Us were the Opec of the coming century it would be very helpful to many of our foreign policy entanglements.
We could call more shots through the use of soft power and other alternatives that're cheaper than military force- simple witholding for starters.

As I have pointed out, the money spent on securing our access to ME oil had been spent on alt energy research, there'd be thousands of universities and research centers with $100,000,000 + grants.

It's a very important issue that will have to be addressed at some point.

[Loopydude]

Drilling in ANWR is good for us all.


Baloney. We could easily make up for the mythical supply shortfalls with modest increased support for conservation efforts over the same period, which would benefit the whole world, and accomplish at least as much in terms of reducing our dependency on ME crude. This is ideology, pure and simple. It'll keep the AL Pipeline people in business for a couple more decades, we'll suck it all dry for what amounts to a relatively expensive drop in the bucket, and alter a pristine wilderness in the process. It's already been show that simply having facilites present significantly alter caribou migration patterns to great detriment, and on and on. The ecosystem there has already been rendered more fragile by global warming, so it's not like we can extrapolate impact from the time the Pipeline was built in the first place.

This is all about business interests flexing muscle. The "benefit" is that they can demonstrate that when there are sympathetic politicians in Washington, environmental concerns can be swept away. Many feel this is proper, as absolutely nothing should impede the flow of capital. I tend to find that ideological stance myopic, selfish, and destructive in the long term. We'd gain a lot more by reducing our dependence fossil fuels, rather than drilling for more of it. But the oil lobby has Bushco firmly in its pocket, and that ought to be absurdly obvious. Drilling in ANWR makes zero long-term fiscal sense, and even less ecological sense. It's simply a means for conservatives to strike back at "special interests".

[manhattan]

Drilling in ANWR is good for us all.

However, it's really not going to help in the long run because the real issue is refinery capacity. The treehuggers have blocked every attempt to build new refineries in this country for the last 20+ years; until we get more refinery and production capacity, having an expanded source isn't going to help us out all that much. I'm less concerned about that than others are. It's true that the watermelons have stopped new refineries, but that's really had more effect on pollution (they caused more of it) than on domestic refinery capacity. Through creeping capacity additions on existing plants industry capacity has increased at the same rate as refined product demand even as the number of refineries has dropped by half or so in the past generation. It's true that right now we're in a squeeze and that some people are making big bets on that squeeze continuing (building clean product tankers, for example). It's also true that there are some regional squeezes which are persistent (I'm thinking of PADD IV in particular here). But overall I have confidence that the industry can continue to increase existing capacity over the intermediate term.

[AuntiePam]

Who's to say that oil taken from ANWR will stay in the US?

What's to prevent the oil companies from selling where they can get the biggest profit? That might not be the US.

[manhattan]

Well, any oil which comes through the trans-Alaska pipline must by law be sold in the US -- Congress could easily put similar restrictions on oil out of ANWR.

That would be stupid, though. Oil is (almost entirely) fungible. If there's bigger profit to be found in Japan, say, than if ANWR oil is restricted to the US than Mexican or Californian or middle east oil will go to Japan instead until the imbalance is corrected. A lot of people in the oil industry who are not oil companies depend on exactly those kind of short-term arbitrages to stay in business and the liquidity (heh) of the market helps keep prices lower than they would be otherwise. Removing ANWR oil from those liquidity considerations would actually make it more expensive to US consumers.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Is a the drilling a better option than decreasing usage by 5%?

Seem to far fewer risks asscoiated with decreasing usage.

Wouldn't matter. The population will increase by much more than 5% in 10 years, so any benefit of conservation will be more than cancelled out.

[Loopydude]

Well then increase the conservation efforts to keep pace with population.

Of course, it's much easier to just do nothing.

[PatriotX]

Wouldn't matter. The population will increase by much more than 5% in 10 years, so any benefit of conservation will be more than cancelled out.
The 5% number has already been adjusted for projections of future usage levels.

[PatriotX]

Wouldn't matter. The population will increase by much more than 5% in 10 years, so any benefit of conservation will be more than cancelled out.
Even if it hadn't been adjusted for 2020 projections...

If the ANWR will be supplying 5% of today's usage, an increase in population, and therefore presumably usage as well, would translate into ANWR supply being an even smaller percentage of what was used. This would mean that a 5% decrease in usage would exceed the percentage supplied by ANWR.

[PatriotX]

Furthermore, 5% is still 5% benefit no matter how large the number that it's apercentage of.


Okay, I'm really done now.

[Ravenman]

The US Government will get revenues from the use of the pipeline that will move the ANWR oil around. I'd support putting every cent of that money into next-generation energy research.

[blowero]

2. How much oil can we really get out of it? Will it really make a difference in gas prices, or make the U.S. any less dependent on imported oil?

Radio talk-show host Mr. KABC was discussing this last night. Sorry I don't have a better source, but he made the point that U.S. oil companies are currently exporting oil to countries such as Korea and Japan. He believes that we could reduce dependence on foreign oil simply by having the oil companies stop exporting oil, and he doesn't believe ANWR drilling is going to have any effect on prices. If this is true, it does seem rather ridiculous to cite dependence on foreign oil as the reason we need to invade protected wilderness, when we aren't even using all the oil we already have.

[Sam Stone]

When people throw around numbers like "we can easily do 5% in conservation reductions", I wonder where they get that number from? How easy is a 5% reduction? How much will it cost the economy?

The problem with conservation is that it's limiting. The first 5% may not be that hard to do, but the next 5% is harder. And not just twice as hard. Once the low-hanging fruit is gone, it becomes very expensive to reduce further. I can believe that if we all turned into greens tomorrow we might be able to reduce our energy expenditure by 5-10%. The problem is, 5-10% does not fundamentally change anything. You're still going to be importing almost 50% of your energy needs. You're still going to be running out of oil. The only thing that happens is that you get a one-time slight flattening of the demand curve.

To eliminate foreign oil requirements entirely through conservation, the U.S. would have to reduce its petroleum consumption by 58%, AND it would have to maintain it at that level even as the population grows (I was going to say and as the economy grows, but there's no way in hell your economy is going to grow when you starve it of that much energy. I'd be thinking in terms of depressions instead).

And here's the other problem: If you adopt a high-cost energy strategy, you reduce the demand for oil. That lowers the price of oil for every other country. So now your competitors, like China and India, get even cheaper energy costs while yours go up. The price of American goods goes up on the world market, leading to fewer exports and more lost jobs at home. It's a vicious cycle.

As long as the world is tied to petroleum, the U.S. either must remain tied to it or find an alternative that is equivalent in price or close to it. Dick Cheney was exactly right when he said, "conservation is a personal virtue, but it cannot form the basis of a sound energy policy". Conservation can help a bit on the margins, but anyone who focuses on conservation as the solution is fooling himself.

[Neurotik]

That lowers the price of oil for every other country. So now your competitors, like China and India, get even cheaper energy costs while yours go up. The price of American goods goes up on the world market, leading to fewer exports and more lost jobs at home. It's a vicious cycle.
Unless there was some sort of organization of countries that export petroleum that would alter production so as to keep oil prices high...

[Una Persson]

Radio talk-show host Mr. KABC was discussing this last night. Sorry I don't have a better source, but he made the point that U.S. oil companies are currently exporting oil to countries such as Korea and Japan. He believes that we could reduce dependence on foreign oil simply by having the oil companies stop exporting oil, and he doesn't believe ANWR drilling is going to have any effect on prices. If this is true, it does seem rather ridiculous to cite dependence on foreign oil as the reason we need to invade protected wilderness, when we aren't even using all the oil we already have.
And this is YET ANOTHER case (Mr. KABC) of people who shouldn't be talking about energy matters talking about energy matters.

See this balance sheet for the US for 2004:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_supply_monthly/current/txt/table_02.txt

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disposition
------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Stock Crude Refinery Products
Change/b Losses Inputs Exports Supplied/c
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crude Oil 30,558 0 5,585,875 4,538 0

NGLs and LRGs -12,396 -- 152,763 21,390 804,850
Pentanes Plus -1,161 -- 69,509 1,082 47,800
LPGs -11,235 -- 83,254 20,308 757,050
Ethane/Ethylene -5,982 -- 0 0 242,018
Propane/Propylene -3,052 -- 0 13,683 443,342
N Butane/Butylene -1,833 -- 40,621 6,625 45,815
Isobutane/Isobutylene -368 -- 42,633 0 25,875

Other Liquids 12,087 -- 288,614 21,375 -7,172
Oth Hydrocarbons/Oxy -809 -- 149,342 10,490 0
Unfinished Oils 138 -- 130,741 0 -8,652
Mogas Blend. Comp. 12,749 -- 10,020 10,884 0
Avgas Blend. Comp. 9 -- -1,489 0 1,480

Finished Petro Prods -9,856 -- -- 327,407 6,514,551
Finished Mogas -15,018 -- -- 45,770 3,261,237
Reformulated -12,155 -- -- 664 1,093,245
Oxygenated -144 -- -- 5 377,717
Other -2,719 -- -- 45,102 1,790,274
Finished Avgas -182 -- -- 0 5,987
Jet Fuel -395 -- -- 7,434 575,909
Naphtha-Type -39 -- -- 0 -167
Kerosene-Type -356 -- -- 7,434 576,076
Kerosene 121 -- -- 2,645 19,940
Distillate Fuel Oil 2,457 -- -- 38,980 1,433,373
<=0.05 % sulfur 859 -- -- 18,244 1,022,868
> 0.05 % sulfur 1,598 -- -- 20,736 410,505
Residual Fuel Oil 6,467 -- -- 72,072 281,828
Naphtha Petro Feed -497 -- -- 0 116,798
Oth Oils Petro Feed -265 -- -- 0 120,065
Special Naphthas 28 -- -- 7,959 15,336
Lubricants -2,154 -- -- 13,545 50,963
Waxes -169 -- -- 1,459 5,606
Petroleum Coke 1,779 -- -- 131,751 165,951
Asphalt & Road Oil -2,031 -- -- 3,649 183,776
Still Gas 0 -- -- 0 256,051
Misc Products 3 -- -- 2,142 21,732

Total 20,393 0 6,027,252 374,710 7,312,229
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that the US exports a very small amount of finished products for profit to other countries. When it is not profitable for export, they will be sold here, or not produced. Note that many of the exports (such as the big one, PetCoke) aren't suitable for automobile use in any event.

[PatriotX]

When people throw around numbers like "we can easily do 5% in conservation reductions", I wonder where they get that number from? How easy is a 5% reduction?

Is ... drilling a better option than decreasing usage by 5%?
Seem to [be] far fewer risks asscoiated with decreasing usage.

two characters

[buttonjockey308]

Seems that PatriotX has some pretty convincing arguments against drilling.

Including this little tidbit

Using a methodology similar to that used in previous USGS assessments in the ANWR and the National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska, this study estimates that the total quantity of technically recoverable oil in the 1002 area is 7.7 BBO (mean value), which is distributed among 10 plays. Most of the oil is estimated to occur in the western, undeformed part of the ANWR 1002 area, which is closest to existing infrastructure. Furthermore, the oil is expected to occur in a number of accumulations rather than a single large accumulation. Estimates of economically recoverable oil, expressed by probability curves, show increasing amounts of oil with increasing price. At prices less than $13 per barrel, no commercial oil is estimated, but at a price of $30 per barrel, between 3 and 10.4 billion barrels are estimated. Economic analysis includes the costs of finding, developing, producing, and transporting oil to market based on a 12 percent after-tax return on investment, all calculated in constant 1996 dollars.


Seems like the overwhelming belief is that when we go up there and drill, that we'll set up one site, knock a hole in the ground, and it's off to the races.

What the survey says, is that there will be wells all over the place.

I can't justify, in my mind, the potential, if not almost certain environmental impact that drilling all over the Alaskan wilderness will have, not for 7-10 billion barrels of oil. What's more, this is damage that can't be undone. It's not as if once these wells are dry and capped, that all of this heavy equipment will just be folded up and put away in a nice little drawer. The echos of drilling in this pristene area will be felt for generations, if we let it get started.

If the estimate is true, then drilling in Alaska is about nothing more than making rich oil guys richer, while they rape the environment for MONEY. Yes, money is important, but it's not the only thing that matters, not to mention, money is temporary, the earth is forever.

It's a bad idea, a bad idea made worse by people who think more oil is a solution to our problems.

[Brutus]

It's a bad idea, a bad idea made worse by people who think more oil is a solution to our problems.

Right. So when are you going to stick it to those fat-cat oil barons, and stop consuming petroleum products?

What's that? You can't or won't? Well, no worries! All you need to do is get OPEC indefinitely keep expanding production, to make up for increased demand around the world. (Especially China, from my understanding. They're getting money, and I guess a Caddy really is everyones dream!)

Come on, you won't even do that? Well then. I guess we need oil. Need, not want. If some damned carribou have to walk under a raised section of pipe as they go about their noble cow of the tundra business, then so be it.

Besides, from the snippet you cite (bolding mine):

Estimates of economically recoverable oil, expressed by probability curves, show increasing amounts of oil with increasing price. At prices less than $13 per barrel, no commercial oil is estimated, but at a price of $30 per barrel, between 3 and 10.4 billion barrels are estimated. Economic analysis includes the costs of finding, developing, producing, and transporting oil to market based on a 12 percent after-tax return on investment, all calculated in constant 1996 dollars.


What's oil at now? Over $56 smackeroos a barrel. Wonder how much oil becomes viable to extract at that rate.

[PatriotX]

What's oil at now? Over $56 smackeroos a barrel. Wonder how much oil becomes viable to extract at that rate.
First off, it's in 1996 dollars. I'm unsure what the conversion of today's weakened dollar is to those, but given the general trend of inflation, I expect it's less than $56.

Second, the economically recoverable estimates, (if you care to examine them), proceed more parabolically than linearly. So dramatic increases in the price of oil don't make as dramatic increases in the amount that's economically recoverable. So, even at $40 (1996 dollars) the mean estimate is still right about 7bb and the outside chance estimate begins to approach 11bb. A crude rudimentary extrapolation of the graph (figure 6) indicates that even at $80/barl ('96 $) that the mean econ recov estimate would only grow to the neighborhood of 8bb.

No matter how you slice it, there's definite long term impact on the national treasure of Alaskan wilderness for the benefit of a small amount of short term gain.

Since oil is fungible and Alaskan wilderness is not, it seems like a poor trade.

[Chefguy]

Another lefty here who supports responsible development. The issue I have with ANWR drilling is that it's not just a collection of letters pronounced an-wahr, it's a National Wildlife Refuge.

Now, it's either a wildlife refuge or it's not. It can't be both. Allowing intrusion into a wildlife refuge sets a precedent that we may not necessarily want to set. Do we want our wild places and sanctuaries to be subject to development? If the government wishes to allow development up there, then first the designation as a refuge needs to be rescinded. This would remove the onus and political fallout that occurs in every election year over this small patch of territory, and would certainly remove many of the roadblocks to development.

I drove up to Prudhoe Bay last summer. While the oil patch won't win any beauty contests, the place seemed to be very well kept. I didn't see any rusting hulks sitting on the tundra or other evidence of neglect. The oil companies are very aware of image and of the PR disaster should a large spill occur. We also saw a lot of caribou in the area that didn't seem the least bit upset with all the activity.

[Loopydude]

As long as the world is tied to petroleum, the U.S. either must remain tied to it or find an alternative that is equivalent in price or close to it. Dick Cheney was exactly right when he said, "conservation is a personal virtue, but it cannot form the basis of a sound energy policy". Conservation can help a bit on the margins, but anyone who focuses on conservation as the solution is fooling himself.

So just keep making the same mistake forever, is that it?

[Fear Itself]

So just keep making the same mistake forever, is that it?Oh no, we are always looking for brand new mistakes to make!

[Airman Doors, USAF]

I'm endlessly amused at the claims that we will "destroy the ecosystem", or "think of the caribou". Guys, for the record, when we burn oil we pollute. A few holes in the ground will not appreciably jack up the ecosystem. The byproducts of fuel consumption do substantially more damage. Fighting over ecological damage in ANWR due to drilling is like fighting over whether we have the right to clear out Ground Zero. The damage has long since been done.

[Loopydude]

I'm endlessly amused at the claims that we will "destroy the ecosystem", or "think of the caribou". Guys, for the record, when we burn oil we pollute. A few holes in the ground will not appreciably jack up the ecosystem. The byproducts of fuel consumption do substantially more damage. Fighting over ecological damage in ANWR due to drilling is like fighting over whether we have the right to clear out Ground Zero. The damage has long since been done.

So the best course of action is to do more damage? Well, shit, let's nuke Iraq then.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

As long as oil is a valuable commodity, yes. A few acres of snow versus a few billion barrels of oil? That's a gimme. And with no appreciable damage? You couldn't get me to sign up fast enough.

[Loopydude]

Well, it's the "no apprecable damage" part that's the crock of shit, unfortunately, and is especially lamentable given the paltry benefit the damage done will confer.

But that's academic. The drilling isn't about judicious cost-benefit to begin with. It's a smattering of pork, and a heap of ideology. I guess what I find especially distressing is the barrage if disingenuous arguments the right keeps spewing at us, like we're idiots or something. Why keep up the charade? You don't give a shit about the environment. We got that. You like to see environmentalists depressed. We understand that's enough for you. Given that, why the need for speciousness? The damage is done, like you say, so what's the point of applying a little salve for the amputation? Is it to assauge conservative conscience, or is there actually a part of the right that cares about other points of view enough to feel a little pity?

That's the only real question this debate stirs in me, I've come to realise. ANWR's a lost cause, just like all the others, so why bother debating the facts, I guess. Hooray for progress.

[Chefguy]

Well, it's the "no apprecable damage" part that's the crock of shit, unfortunately, and is especially lamentable given the paltry benefit the damage done will confer.

But that's academic. The drilling isn't about judicious cost-benefit to begin with. It's a smattering of pork, and a heap of ideology. I guess what I find especially distressing is the barrage if disingenuous arguments the right keeps spewing at us, like we're idiots or something. Why keep up the charade? You don't give a shit about the environment. We got that. You like to see environmentalists depressed. We understand that's enough for you. Given that, why the need for speciousness? The damage is done, like you say, so what's the point of applying a little salve for the amputation? Is it to assauge conservative conscience, or is there actually a part of the right that cares about other points of view enough to feel a little pity?

That's the only real question this debate stirs in me, I've come to realise. ANWR's a lost cause, just like all the others, so why bother debating the facts, I guess. Hooray for progress.

This is the sort of hyperbole that does neither side any good. ANWR is only a 'cause' because extreme elements from both sides decided to make it one. It's far from 'lost', and it would take a lot more than the proposed drilling to cause it to be. The North Slope is an area that is incomprehensibly huge. Unless you have seen it, I can guarantee that your assumptions about it are dead wrong. The cost of development alone will prevent it from turning into west Texas. Oil companies are reluctant to tackle any development in this area that isn't going to pay off, and it's staggeringly expensive to operate in an arctic environment.

[Loopydude]

It was set aside as inviolate. Now it isn't. A lost cause, like I said.

The area affected by the Exxon Valdez spill was vast as well, and that was one tanker. Underestimating the environmental impact of oil extraction, transport, and use, is precisely the problem.

[Chefguy]

It was set aside as inviolate. Now it isn't. A lost cause, like I said.



This goes back to my other post about it either being a refuge or not. If the government wants to allow drilling in the area, the government must first go through whatever process is required to rescind the refuge status. Otherwise, other areas may be fair game. On this I agree with you.

[BrainGlutton]

According to Jim Hightower's Common-Sense Commentaries, 3/10/05, http://www.jimhightower.com/air/read.asp?id=11622, the oil companies aren't really interested in drilling in ANWR:

But, in a gusher of political irony, guess what? The oil giants have little interest in drilling there! Even a Bush advisor on this issue confided that "No oil company really cares about ANWR," adding that "If the government gave them the [drilling] leases for free they wouldn't take them." Indeed, Chevron Texaco, BP, and ConocoPhillips have so little interest in ANWR that they have withdrawn from Arctic Power, the chief lobbying front behind Bush's push to open the refuge.

Why the corporate disinterest? Because, unlike George, companies have to base their decisions at least partially on reality, and the geological reality is that ANWR doesn't hold enough oil to make private investment there worthwhile. Only one actual test of the refuge's oil potential has been done – a secret test by Chevron Texaco and BP, two of the giants that have now backed away from Bush's ANWR scheme. If it had real production potential, these profit-seekers would be lobbying hard to get in there.

What's really behind the Bushites' insistence on drilling in a wildlife refuge is nothing but their reactionary, knee-jerk laissez-faire ideology. They hate the idea that the public can protect any piece of nature from corporate intrusion – even if the corporations don't choose to intrude. ANWR is a case of their ideological loopiness.

[Loopydude]

This goes back to my other post about it either being a refuge or not. If the government wants to allow drilling in the area, the government must first go through whatever process is required to rescind the refuge status. Otherwise, other areas may be fair game. On this I agree with you.

Thank you, and that's precisely what I meant. I know it'll get the slippery-slope :rolleyes: from the Bush apologists, but it would be entirely consistent with the behavior of BushCo to treat ANWR as a proof-of-principle venture. In other words, a first step.

[BrainGlutton]

If the government wants to allow drilling in the area, the government must first go through whatever process is required to rescind the refuge status. Otherwise, other areas may be fair game.

:confused: ANWR was designated a wildlife refuge by act of Congress and is about to be opened to drilling by an act of Congress. Such a vote would be required WRT any other wildlife refuge.

[Loopydude]

I didn't read his statement to mean all refuges are now open for drilling, but rather that no refuge can be expected to last in such a climate. Other such votes may be pending.

[blowero]

And this is YET ANOTHER case (Mr. KABC) of people who shouldn't be talking about energy matters talking about energy matters.

See this balance sheet for the US for 2004:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_supply_monthly/current/txt/table_02.txt

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disposition
------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Stock Crude Refinery Products
Change/b Losses Inputs Exports Supplied/c
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crude Oil 30,558 0 5,585,875 4,538 0

NGLs and LRGs -12,396 -- 152,763 21,390 804,850
Pentanes Plus -1,161 -- 69,509 1,082 47,800
LPGs -11,235 -- 83,254 20,308 757,050
Ethane/Ethylene -5,982 -- 0 0 242,018
Propane/Propylene -3,052 -- 0 13,683 443,342
N Butane/Butylene -1,833 -- 40,621 6,625 45,815
Isobutane/Isobutylene -368 -- 42,633 0 25,875

Other Liquids 12,087 -- 288,614 21,375 -7,172
Oth Hydrocarbons/Oxy -809 -- 149,342 10,490 0
Unfinished Oils 138 -- 130,741 0 -8,652
Mogas Blend. Comp. 12,749 -- 10,020 10,884 0
Avgas Blend. Comp. 9 -- -1,489 0 1,480

Finished Petro Prods -9,856 -- -- 327,407 6,514,551
Finished Mogas -15,018 -- -- 45,770 3,261,237
Reformulated -12,155 -- -- 664 1,093,245
Oxygenated -144 -- -- 5 377,717
Other -2,719 -- -- 45,102 1,790,274
Finished Avgas -182 -- -- 0 5,987
Jet Fuel -395 -- -- 7,434 575,909
Naphtha-Type -39 -- -- 0 -167
Kerosene-Type -356 -- -- 7,434 576,076
Kerosene 121 -- -- 2,645 19,940
Distillate Fuel Oil 2,457 -- -- 38,980 1,433,373
<=0.05 % sulfur 859 -- -- 18,244 1,022,868
> 0.05 % sulfur 1,598 -- -- 20,736 410,505
Residual Fuel Oil 6,467 -- -- 72,072 281,828
Naphtha Petro Feed -497 -- -- 0 116,798
Oth Oils Petro Feed -265 -- -- 0 120,065
Special Naphthas 28 -- -- 7,959 15,336
Lubricants -2,154 -- -- 13,545 50,963
Waxes -169 -- -- 1,459 5,606
Petroleum Coke 1,779 -- -- 131,751 165,951
Asphalt & Road Oil -2,031 -- -- 3,649 183,776
Still Gas 0 -- -- 0 256,051
Misc Products 3 -- -- 2,142 21,732

Total 20,393 0 6,027,252 374,710 7,312,229
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that the US exports a very small amount of finished products for profit to other countries. When it is not profitable for export, they will be sold here, or not produced. Note that many of the exports (such as the big one, PetCoke) aren't suitable for automobile use in any event.
O.K., I get that you don't like the Mr. KABC show. Having established that, could you explain your figures a little better? I don't see any units or time frame in the chart above, and that chart doesn't seem to be the same as the one to which you linked. What's the total amount of oil that the U.S. exports? How is "We don't export very much?" a valid argument? If the consensus belief is that foreign oil dependence is bad, isn't exporting any oil illogical? Please don't get mad; I'm just trying to understand the argument.

[Una Persson]

O.K., I get that you don't like the Mr. KABC show. Having established that, could you explain your figures a little better? I don't see any units or time frame in the chart above, and that chart doesn't seem to be the same as the one to which you linked. What's the total amount of oil that the U.S. exports? How is "We don't export very much?" a valid argument? If the consensus belief is that foreign oil dependence is bad, isn't exporting any oil illogical? Please don't get mad; I'm just trying to understand the argument.
The first problem is I copied the wrong link from my scratchpad of EIA links. I apologize profoundly. This link is the correct one.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_supply_annual/psa_volume1/current/txt/table_02.txt

The units on the chart are in terms of thousands of barrels per year for the whole year, 2003.

The first line says that the crude oil disposition in the US was 5,585,875 thousand barrels to refineries, and 4,538 thousand barrels sent out as exports (highlighted since you asked that specific question). Then as we go down the list, we can see the proportion of refinery products from the crude oil input which are produced for domestic use, and compare this with the amount which are produced for export. At the end line, we see that of total products supplied of 7,312,229 thousand barrels, we exported about 374,710 thousand barrels of product - a very small percentage.

Some of these products are likely being sold internationally due to the ability to get a much higher price from them. Now, your argument as I see it, is why should we export *anything* if we have a crunch? The simple reason is that other people must have *more* of a crunch, economically, such that they are willing to pay more for the product than domestic consumers are willing to pay. We are supplying a demand for the product. If you were to ban all exports of products, it would only add a tiny amount back to our balance, and in fact might lead to a net economic reduction - since it's highly possible that the oil is a pass-through where the US refineries are making it into a "value-added" product.

Plus, IMHO the buyers of these products would just buy from numerous other sources, so the net oil usage of the world would, I feel, likely be unchanged.

Is this more clear, especially now that I've linked to the correct graph?

[jshore]

SUV's as a category use about 6% of the petroleum used in the United States. SUV's as a class use about 22% more gas per mile than do cars.

Where do you get these numbers from? The numbers I see (for example here (http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/gasprices.asp)) suggest that cars, SUVs, and light trucks account for somewhere close to 45% of our oil consumption. I find it hard to believe that SUVs then are only at 6%. And certainly, if you consider SUVs and other light trucks together, you'd get considerably more. (Note that this (http://www.nrdc.org/breakthechain/chained.asp) says that SUVs and other light trucks account for 50% of the passenger vehicle market...and although it may be somewhat lower when you consider percentages in use rather than percentage of new vehicles, I don't think it is that much lower.)

Also, Figure 1 in my first site on fuel economy seems to show the light trucks category as a whole using about 40% more gas per mile than cars.

[jshore]

Hmmm..On the number for fuel efficiency, there seems to be some variations. These numbers for flightwide average from the EPA have light trucks being 25% higher in fuel consumption than passenger cars (17.2 vs. 21.5 mpg), more in line with Sam's number of 22% for SUVs vs. passenger cars.

[Sam Stone]

From the NHTSA:

[quote]
In 1973, the U.S. transportation sector accounted for 51% of total U.S. petroleum use (8.4 of 16.5 million barrels per day (mmbd)). By 2001, transportation’s share of U.S. oil use had increased to 69% (12.5 out of 18.1 mmbd) (USDOE/EIA, 2002a).
...
When the Automotive Fuel Economy Standards were enacted in 1975, light trucks accounted for only 20 percent of light-duty vehicle energy use. Light trucks account for 40 percent today, and their share is projected to increase to 55 percent by 2020.
...

So the percentage of petroleum that light trucks have used has gone from 10.2% in the 1970's to 27.6% today. SUVs make up only a portion of that category. Pickup trucks, vans, three-quarter ton trucks are also in heavy use. In 1970 there is no question that SUVs were a small fraction of the light truck category. Today, I'd guess that they make up a significant fraction, but not the majority. There are a lot of pickup trucks out there. I believe the best selling vehicle in America is the Ford F-150 truck.

So SUV's as a category have gone from being only a couple of percentage points of the overall fleet up to maybe as high as 14% today. The numbers I had seen said SUVs made up 6% of the vehicle fleet, so perhaps it was a few years old. But even if it's 14%, getting 22% better mileage only changes national fuel consumption by maybe 3-4%. That's a good thing, no doubt. What it isn''t, is a solution. If we manage to do this, it simply flattends the curve one time, pushing the same problem a few years down the road. And next time, conserving that much will become harder. And more expensive.

The root problem is that our energy sources are slowly dwindling. If you want to argue that conservation is smart because it buys us time to find a new energy source, that's fine. If you're willing to acccept restrictions on the economy today so later declines aren't as steep, I might accept that as a valid argument, worth debating.

But when people say that the real problem is that we like SUVs, they're just wrong. Eliminating SUVs entirely would not solve the problem.

[Waterman]

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]Or you can spin it another way - ....
Also, the economic benefits should not be taken lightly. 18 billion barrels of oil at today's prices is 90 billion dollars.

First post so a little confused here with submitting replies - anyway

FWIW the 18 billion barrels of oil at todays price of $50/barrel is $900 billion, not $90!

What is the total estimated reserves of oil worldwide and how does that compare to current and projected oil usage worldwide?

We had better start finding alternatives to the use of fossil fuels. Our government (and industry, etc.) has done an excellent job of postponing and delaying serious efforts in this area so that we can continue to fatten the pockets of our oil companies and their executives. I for one don't believe that the answer is to keep drilling every hole we can to satisfy our lust for more energy and also who gave us the right to be the gluttons of oil?

Sorry for the rant.

[Sam Stone]

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]Or you can spin it another way - ....
Also, the economic benefits should not be taken lightly. 18 billion barrels of oil at today's prices is 90 billion dollars.

First post so a little confused here with submitting replies - anyway

FWIW the 18 billion barrels of oil at todays price of $50/barrel is $900 billion, not $90!


:smack:

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=WatermanI for one don't believe that the answer is to keep drilling every hole we can to satisfy our lust for more energy and also who gave us the right to be the gluttons of oil?[/QUOTE]

:mad: Hey, whaddaya got against drilling every hole to satisfy lust for . . . oh, wait . . . :o

[blowero]

Thanks for the corrected chart; makes much more sense now.
Some of these products are likely being sold internationally due to the ability to get a much higher price from them.

But I thought the issue was foreign-oil dependance, not oil-company profit. My understanding is that the oil-companies are making plenty of profit.

Now, your argument as I see it, is why should we export *anything* if we have a crunch? The simple reason is that other people must have *more* of a crunch, economically, such that they are willing to pay more for the product than domestic consumers are willing to pay.

But I thought the main argument for drilling in ANWR was that we were importing too much oil. I haven't heard it framed as "We need to do it so we can continue to make more money."

We are supplying a demand for the product. If you were to ban all exports of products, it would only add a tiny amount back to our balance, and in fact might lead to a net economic reduction - since it's highly possible that the oil is a pass-through where the US refineries are making it into a "value-added" product.

I'm afraid I don't know what that means.

Plus, IMHO the buyers of these products would just buy from numerous other sources, so the net oil usage of the world would, I feel, likely be unchanged.

But again, I thought the issue was our foreign-oil dependance, not worldwide usage.

Is this more clear, especially now that I've linked to the correct graph?
Yes it is, and thanks for the info.

[blowero]

We had better start finding alternatives to the use of fossil fuels. Our government (and industry, etc.) has done an excellent job of postponing and delaying serious efforts in this area so that we can continue to fatten the pockets of our oil companies and their executives. I for one don't believe that the answer is to keep drilling every hole we can to satisfy our lust for more energy and also who gave us the right to be the gluttons of oil?

Sorry for the rant.
I absolutely agree with that. It makes me wonder if it's not an incurable flaw in the nature of our political system, and if it's ever possible to put future needs ahead of short-term gain, or if we're doomed to having politicians only able to satisfy the instant needs of constituents, and having long-term vision be impossible.

It seems to me that if we wait until alternative energy sources are more economically feasible than oil before we even start making an earnest effort, it will already be too late, and we'll have a serious crisis on our hands. IMO, the time is now.

There's my rant.