# Senate to vote on allowing oil drilling in ANWR **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 16, 2005, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-to-vote-on-allowing-oil-drilling-in-anwr/294843 "2005-03-16T17:32:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-to-vote-on-allowing-oil-drilling-in-anwr/294843/21 "2005-03-17T03:50:07Z")
> [@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. 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.] ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-to-vote-on-allowing-oil-drilling-in-anwr/294843/22 "2005-03-17T04:50:16Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > 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](http://ANWR.org) site suggests that 18 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil is an estimate that better reflects changes in current technology. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-to-vote-on-allowing-oil-drilling-in-anwr/294843/23 "2005-03-17T12:52:16Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-to-vote-on-allowing-oil-drilling-in-anwr/294843/24 "2005-03-17T13:13:30Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-to-vote-on-allowing-oil-drilling-in-anwr/294843/25 "2005-03-17T13:53:37Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-to-vote-on-allowing-oil-drilling-in-anwr/294843/26 "2005-03-17T14:32:46Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-to-vote-on-allowing-oil-drilling-in-anwr/294843/27 "2005-03-17T15:17:00Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > 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](http://ANWR.org)’s credibility, then don’t it? > [@Neurotik](#): > > 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. > [@Neurotik](#): > > 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) ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-to-vote-on-allowing-oil-drilling-in-anwr/294843/28 "2005-03-17T15:37:57Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-to-vote-on-allowing-oil-drilling-in-anwr/294843/29 "2005-03-17T15:49:43Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-to-vote-on-allowing-oil-drilling-in-anwr/294843/30 "2005-03-17T15:51:17Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > 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”. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-to-vote-on-allowing-oil-drilling-in-anwr/294843/31 "2005-03-17T15:59:36Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![AuntiePam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@AuntiePam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AuntiePam)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-to-vote-on-allowing-oil-drilling-in-anwr/294843/32 "2005-03-17T16:21:39Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-to-vote-on-allowing-oil-drilling-in-anwr/294843/33 "2005-03-17T16:31:23Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-to-vote-on-allowing-oil-drilling-in-anwr/294843/34 "2005-03-17T17:07:01Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-to-vote-on-allowing-oil-drilling-in-anwr/294843/35 "2005-03-17T17:19:43Z")
Well then increase the conservation efforts to keep pace with population. Of course, it’s much easier to just do nothing. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-to-vote-on-allowing-oil-drilling-in-anwr/294843/36 "2005-03-17T17:40:04Z")
> [@Spectre of Pithecanthropus](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-to-vote-on-allowing-oil-drilling-in-anwr/294843/37 "2005-03-17T18:05:28Z")
> [@Spectre of Pithecanthropus](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-to-vote-on-allowing-oil-drilling-in-anwr/294843/38 "2005-03-17T18:06:56Z")
Furthermore, 5% is still 5% benefit no matter how large the number that it’s apercentage of. Okay, I’m really done now. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-to-vote-on-allowing-oil-drilling-in-anwr/294843/39 "2005-03-17T18:33:06Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-to-vote-on-allowing-oil-drilling-in-anwr/294843/40 "2005-03-17T20:25:08Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 1. 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_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-to-vote-on-allowing-oil-drilling-in-anwr/294843.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-to-vote-on-allowing-oil-drilling-in-anwr/294843.md?page=3)