Senate to vote on allowing oil drilling in ANWR

[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]

@Sam Stone

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]

@blowero

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]

@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?

@Patriotx

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

@USGS

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]

@buttonjockey308

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]

@Brutus

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]

@Sam Stone

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]

@Loopydude

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]

@Airman Doors

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]

@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.

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]

@Loopydude

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]

@Chefguy

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]

@Chefguy

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.

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.