Well, if it doesn’t go to us, then whoever is in charge of handling it is a whore and a traitor for selling out our country, and should be tried for treason and executed, and I do mean that in the most literal way. That oil is like our blood, and any entity that’s selling it to another country is like a parasite.
Nonsense. That was an artificial energy crisis. Energy supplies were deliberately held back by out of state corporations in order to extort money, because they knew Bush would refuse to enforce the laws against that sort of thing.
Again, that doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if we export 1Mbbl/day and import 1Mbbl/day, since it’s a worldwide market, the companies won’t earn more by exporting it, and we won’t pay more by importing it.
However, when the shit hits the fan, and we’re in deep trouble with regards to oil, at least the government has the option to force companies to keep the oil in the US. No such option exists with imported oil.
Can anyone comment on this? It’s from Dan Kish, Senior VP of Policy at the Institute of Energy Research:
Source…you’ll have to scroll down a bit to “Where to Drill First”
That's right. If only the politicians and public had paid heed to their corporate benefactors who tried their damndest to supply the power. It's a damn shame we can't get Ken Lay (forever may his name be hallowed ) to head up the ANWR project; Americans could rest assured of employment, taxation and supply largesse.The “we need the oil” argument is extremely short-sighted, IMHO. ANWR is estimated to hold about 10 billion barrels of crude oil (USGS). That’s about 500 days worth of current US oil consumption (Energy Information Administration). So we’re going to go into one of the last areas in the US that remains relatively untouched, is already facing significant stress due to climate change, and is a fragile ecosystem to begin with, all for a net of about 17 months of additional oil supply. There are much better choices for oil production (at least from a technical perspective) than ANWR, but they all involve importing oil. Even better than drilling is putting the money that would have gone toward additional drilling to work further developing more efficient and renewable sources of energy for transportation.
I’m not implying that we’ll all be able to use nothing but biofuels and sunshine, at least in the near term. There will certainly need to be additional oil production and consumption, but we have a lot of much better choices than ANWR right now. In many ways, the same arguments hold true for the current offshore production debate.
ETA “US” consumption, not world.
I realize I’m farting in the wind here, but here goes a sample-of-one anecdote:
I had to give up one of my favorite spots in the woods to allow three gas wells to be drilled because of a lease my grandfather signed before I was born. The company had to pay the landowner (in the case of ANWR, the US government) for the original lease. That’s one benefit.
I receive royalties on the production of the gas from the wells. From those royalties, I pay well-head taxes to the state, I pay school taxes to the local school district, I pay property taxes to the county, and I pay income taxes to the US Treasury. The total tax burden on my share of the the royalties approaches 50%. I’m assuming that the energy company pays similar taxes (probably at a lower effective rate due to deductions). I don’t know if mineral leases are constructed similarly in Alaska, but I doubt the income from the production is tax-free.
In my example, the local school district will have a bigger stream of tax revenue that they have every had before.
The environmental impact of the three wells is limited to two acres. I can use the income (what’s left over from taxes) to restore some of the damage from 100 years on non-sustainment farming and timber harvesting, as well as restoring fences and buildings.
The oil in ANWR is owned by the US government. They aren’t giving it away and they sure aren’t exempting the profits from its development from taxes. Regardless of their nationality, the people that work to develop it will be paying taxes and they will be spending part of their money in Alaska.
I can’t debate the merit of developing ANWR vs its impact on the environment because I’ve not been there and I know nothing about the potential energy available.
that’s absolutely not true. The crisis (and it was a crisis), was the result of legislation that limited what power companies could charge. They deregulated it in one direction allowing for lower pricing competition. Market forces don’t work if they don’t take the cost side of production into account. As costs increased the state did not allow for profit margins. That is what Public Utility Commissions are for (in California it’s The California Independent System Operator).
The function of a PUCO is to monitor energy requirements and approve rate increases based on prevalent market conditions (price of labor, material, etc…) They failed in this respect and the power companies simply refused to spend money to increase output. It’s not their job to lose money. The power brownout situation was known in advance and was reported nationwide the prior year. That means the situation (as described above) was known a year in advance. This was purely a case of the state not acting in good faith.
The low profit margin of California’s power companies meant that they didn’t have the capital to purchase out of state electricity. The state was forced to step in and purchase power on the open market and they got screwed to the wall on it. Davis had to sign an emergency order allowing the Department of Water Resources to buy electrical power. Not only was the price high but they could not purchase an adequate amount. States like Arizona have their own energy needs and their PUCO is set up to ensure they have adequate power, NOT California. And yes, companies like Enron took advantage of this.
I have no idea how you managed to insert Bush in the conversation because the blackout problem started before he was elected. Beyond that, it’s not a federal function to babysit state PUCO’s. That’s the job of the Governor and you may recall the nickname the Governor got at the time. He was referred to as Governor Gray-out Davis. While you can make the claim that he inherited the problem he was slow to act on it. He was recalled by election over this. If you simply have to blame a republican in order to sleep well at night you can use Governor Pete Wilson as a piñata because he was the previous governor to Davis. Whether he was responsible for the deregulation or not the crisis would have been building under his administration.
How does this rant put gasoline in your car? Stop thinking in terms of party politics and start thinking in terms of solutions.
You don’t want to drill because…
Your fix for the problem is …
I’d like challenge your mathematical perspective. You’re use of 17 months worth of oil implies total oil independence. I don’t think it’s legitimate use this as a debate tactic because it’s a strawman argument as it doesn’t address the real need for oil in the short term. You cannot deny that demand is going up and that we need oil in the short term. But lets use it anyway for arguments sake.
If we combined all available oil sources, current and untapped, we could provide total energy independence and greatly increase GNP for the next 10-15 years (humor me on the number because I’m excluding shale oil, which would be a substantial amount). Instead of billions of dollars going out of the country it stays in the country. In that time we could use the tax and lease revenue to transition to bio-diesel that would provide ALL of our transportation energy needs for the foreseeable future. Now we’re not interested in doing this forever because we want to continue to advance energy technology to be environmentally neutral. But in the medium-term we will have sustainable energy that is more efficient and environmentally friendly. That’s the general goal. The continued revenue from medium-term in-country fuel production is then used for long-term energy solutions.
I just described an energy policy that covers short term, medium term, and long term needs and directly addresses the money necessary to make it happen. The goal of sustainable fuel/energy that addresses environmental concerns has been met. The ability to use current energy distribution nodes have been met because we already sell diesel at every gas station. The technology to produce bio-diesel has been advanced to the point that it is currently in commercial use. The bio-diesel from algae does not contain sulfur so it burns cleaner and the process of making it uses CO2 from coal power plants. The big 3 automakers already make economic diesel cars for sale in Europe so nothing has to be re-engineered beyond the normal start-up changes in model lines. 4 cylinder diesels have double the gas mileage and can be tailored for larger vehicles in the American market due to the tremendous amount of torque they produce. The SUV market can be sustained in part with engines that produce 300 lbs of torque and still get 40 mpg (the engine would be capable of better fuel economy but larger vehicles will negate that due to wind resistance). Cars like my little Saturn would get 50 to 60 mpg.
As an addendum to my last post, I want to point out that if we switch to bio-diesel than we only have to produce half as much fuel because of the gains in fuel economy which means we produce half the pollution. As I stated earlier, Algae production plants are designed to use CO2 that is scrubbed from power plants. This is a win/win in that we scrub CO2 to produce fuel that is twice as efficient as the fuel we produce now. The gains are substantial.
Also, unlike bio-gasoline from corn, Algae production doesn’t affect food production at all. farm land is not affected by this form of energy production.
The only concern in the short term is the cost of bio-diesel at the onset. It is currently higher than regular diesel produced and can be undercut by oil producing nations who can adjust their costs to undercut it. From a national energy policy point of view the government would have to subsidize it which can be done in the form of carbon taxes on crude oil or research funding into cheaper algae production…
The process I’ve described requires 3 things:
- public awareness
- government involvement
- manufacturing cooperation
You live in Ohio. I live in California. I paid just a little bit more attention than you I suspect.
It was the result of the deregulation of a market, which allowed gaming the market by people protected at the highest levels of government, with a sector of the economy that doesn’t react well to the free market. Not without heavy regulation. The lesson is that deregulation of certain industries is simply a bad idea. When you deregulate the energy market, prices go up more than if you don’t.
Garbage. They deliberately diverted electricity and shut off generators, and so on to create an artificial shortage and boost prices.
And holding a state agency responsible for what OTHER states do is ridiculous. What was Davis supposed to do, send in invading armies to loot electricity ? The kind of games that went on were the responsibility of the FERC, the FEDERAL agency. But of course, they dragged their feet as long as possible.
Because his buddies at Enron and elsewhere were involved. And because Cheney mocked California over it. and because Cheney’s ‘Energy Task Force’ was known to be studying maps of Iraq. And they refused to allow re-regulation. And, the FEDERAL Energy Regulatory Commission was involved - and refused to do it’s job for quite some time ( mustn’t offend Bush’s energy industry buddies ). And so on. In part, I expect the purpose of the energy crisis was to punish California for not voting for him, and to help promote the upcoming war against Iraq.
No, he was recalled because he was pushing lawsuits and investigations against the energy companies involved. Who funded a recall vote, and funded Schwarzenegger, who got in and promptly cancelled those lawsuits and investigations.
In the short term, ANWR is meaningless anyway, at least in physical terms. It will take several years (I’ve heard 10, but don’t know how reasonable that is) to get any oil from ANWR. Demand is indeed going up, and the 17 month figure is on the high side. The point is that in the grand scheme of things, ANWR doesn’t really do much to help, at least if you’re a consumer. It may make you feel like we’re doing something, but neither prices nor supply will change substantially in the short term.
Algal biodiesel has promise, but there are some tremendous hurdles to get over, not the least of which is water. It can use brackish water, but that’s going to have to come from somewhere. You can pull it out of aquifers or take it from water treatment plants, but the amount of water needed could significantly change the hydrological cycles in some areas, particularly given that many people are looking to the US Southwest as a likely spot for algae production. I think it’s a bit too early to put too many eggs into that basket, at least until the algal systems are out of the lab and into commercial production.
I’m not sure that complete energy independence makes that much sense anyway, from an economic perspective. If you want to argue that such a policy keeps money in the country, that’s fine. There are also some good arguments that address the externalities of oil, including military costs associated with maintaining free-flowing supplies. I’d really like to see what such a policy would do to economic growth - my guess is that the costs would be significantly higher than they would be if we continued to import, so GDP would not increase overall, and would likely decrease.
Biodiesel is probably not the way things will unfold, given the inherent variability in the fuel. It’s not a seamless conversion from petro-diesel to biodiesel, unless you’re using very low biodiesel blends. Increasing the amount of fatty acid methyl esters (FAME - what biodiesel actually is) begins to create problems with flow properties and other parameters. There is a lot of movement toward using biomass as a feedstock for existing petroleum-based refineries, which would then produce “renewable diesel”, “renewable gasoline”, or “renewable jet fuel”.
Using CO2 from power plants is a nice idea, but again, there are a huge number of practicalities that need to be addressed before it is even close to reality. You can’t simply run a big duct from a plant to an algae production system. The rates of CO2 production from a plant are much faster than the uptake by biological systems, so the size of any production facility that would be required for the necessary gas residence time would be enormous. It can definitely be done on a pilot-scale, but full-scale operation of something along these lines is a long way away.
Back to the OP, this seems to me to strengthen any argument against opening ANWR for oil production.
That's hardly a rant. Drive-by sarcasm maybe.
Truth in disclosure: I’m Republican, but never noticed that either party had the lock on B.S.
I also made money off Big Oil. When the country suffered high fuel prices I made bigger money. But like Rex Tillerson says, I pay the same price at the pump as you do. Unlike Rex, I’ll tell you the price doesn’t bother me. BTW, the U.S. doesn’t know what high prices are. Yet.
My snipe has to do with the perception that them boys in Big Oil are struggling to make a profit and have everyone’s interest at heart. The constant reductions in the Valdez appeals are the tip 'o the 'berg in what I see as a refusal to acknowledge responsibility and interdependence with the oil consuming public and world at large.
" You don’t want to drill because…" Other sources are cheaper to date.
“Your fix for the problem is …” It isn’t a problem. Sorry for the cliche- one man’s problem is another man’s profit.
You don’t need to leave it in the ground for that. You could pump it now and put it in to tanks until you need to use it.
EDIT: I guess that would involve a lot of tanks, in which case you could start pumping now, put some of it in tanks and when you need it all the pumps and wells and stuff would already be in place.
Corporations generally frown on making big capital investments on only the promise that someday they might use them to make a profit.
I am referring to the United States, not a corporation.
The US doesn’t drill for oil…they buy it just like everyone else
-XT
The US doesn’t drill for oil during peacetime, but that’s not really the point of the strategic reserve, is it?
Nonetheless, the government does not drill for oil that goes into the strategic reserves: