ANWR or how to keep your contributions up

[halik]

So I finally took a minute to look at the data for ANWR versus offshore Cali drilling. USGS put ANWR at somewhere around 5-10bil barrels. On the flip side, offshore Cali deposits are estimated at some 86bil barrels.

So you all must wonder why ANWR keeps being pushed as part of the energy policy, when there are better alternatives that aren't inside a protected wildlife area. The answer is simple, pumping oil from the ground costs about $2-5 a barrel, getting it off an offshore rig runs some $20-30 a barrel. Guess who would benefit the most from ANWR?

Discuss...

 

[jjzelinski]

I agree heartily, Halik. I have family members involved in the mining industry and the they've proposed that the entire contents of ANWR could feed our nation for 3-4 months. It is by no means part of any realistic energy solution.

Unfortunately the same holds true for shale oil and the tar sands; it requires so much effort to extract usable oil from these sites that refinement limitations would prevent them from EVERY alleviating our oil woes. The "plus side" is that those involved in the production, sale, and distribution of product from these sites will become immensely rich; they have a virtually endless resource who's demand will always vastly out-pace it's supply.

Armed with even the most minimal of factual information reveals how corrupt the members of our government who purport these options as viable elements of a realistic energy plan are.

 

[Genx87]

I tire of people using the statistic that ANWR will only fuel our nation for 3-4 months. It adds to the total supply of oil which will help decrease its costs. It isn the sole answer but it is definately a resource that should be utilized. Off shore drilling should as well. We have Cuba and China building rigs 90 miles off Florida sucking those fields dry while we twiddle our thumbs complaining about the price at the pump.

Well DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I tire of people using the statistic that ANWR will only fuel our nation for 3-4 months. It adds to the total supply of oil which will help decrease its costs. It isn the sole answer but it is definately a resource that should be utilized. Off shore drilling should as well. We have Cuba and China building rigs 90 miles off Florida sucking those fields dry while we twiddle our thumbs complaining about the price at the pump.

Well DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You don't get it, ANWR will contribute NOTHING to our need for oil. It WILL NOT drive down costs because it can't produce the VOLUME necessary to do so, not even after the 15 YEARS it would take to make it fully operational.

 

[Genx87]

Am I speaking to a wall? 1.5 million barrels a day is a contribution is it not? We currently use about 20 million barrels a day in this country. It will definately add to the total world supply.

What is your plan? Sit on ANWR, off shore drilling, shale oil ect and hope the cost of oil gets so ridiculous alternative energy becomes feasible? What costs to the economy will that include by limiting the supply of its primary energy source?

 

[palehorse]

My vote would be to drill for oil anywhere and everywhere we find it -- Mexico, California, Brazil, ANWR, etc etc. At the same time, we need to commit to the very expensive R&D necessary to discover, and eventually mandate, a truly viable alternative source of energy.

Who's with me!?

 

[SpunkyJones]

Originally posted by: palehorse
My vote would be to drill for oil anywhere and everywhere we find it -- Mexico, California, Brazil, ANWR, etc etc. At the same time, we need to commit to the very expensive R&D necessary to discover, and eventually mandate, a truly viable alternative source of energy.

Who's with me!?

+1

 

[mundane]

Off topic: At what barrel price will the incentive to use the "shale oil and tar sands" resources offset the cost of extraction?

 

[lupi]

The alaskan number seems off from what I remember. But I pretty sure that most whom want to drill at one location would be happy to drill at both.

 

[BladeVenom]

In total, the oil deposits in ANWR contain as much oil to solely support U.S. consumption for 7 months (4.3B estimate) to 19 months (12B estimate). If used to completely replace oil imported from Saudi Arabia, oil from ANWR would last from approximately 5 to 15 years.

From Wikipedia.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: mundane
Off topic: At what barrel price will the incentive to use the "shale oil and tar sands" resources offset the cost of extraction?

I could be wrong but doesnt Canada extract shale oil? So I would imagine the costs are lower than the current market prices by a bit.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I tire of people using the statistic that ANWR will only fuel our nation for 3-4 months. It adds to the total supply of oil which will help decrease its costs. It isn the sole answer but it is definately a resource that should be utilized. Off shore drilling should as well. We have Cuba and China building rigs 90 miles off Florida sucking those fields dry while we twiddle our thumbs complaining about the price at the pump.

Well DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What are you talking about? We're already drilling offshore. The gulf is littered with offshore rigs as is much of the Pacific Coast.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Genx87
I tire of people using the statistic that ANWR will only fuel our nation for 3-4 months. It adds to the total supply of oil which will help decrease its costs. It isn the sole answer but it is definately a resource that should be utilized. Off shore drilling should as well. We have Cuba and China building rigs 90 miles off Florida sucking those fields dry while we twiddle our thumbs complaining about the price at the pump.

Well DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What are you talking about? We're already drilling offshore. The gulf is littered with offshore rigs as is much of the Pacific Coast.

It's nowhere near the available capacity, though.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Am I speaking to a wall? 1.5 million barrels a day is a contribution is it not? We currently use about 20 million barrels a day in this country. It will definately add to the total world supply.

What is your plan? Sit on ANWR, off shore drilling, shale oil ect and hope the cost of oil gets so ridiculous alternative energy becomes feasible? What costs to the economy will that include by limiting the supply of its primary energy source?

Drill off the share of Kuhlifonia where there are significant deposit, not in a wildlife refuge with marginal deposits , but 1000% less costs per barrel.

Public policy should follow whats best for the public, not what maximized corporate NI. Bad, bad, bad things happen when you let corporate interest shape policy.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Genx87
I tire of people using the statistic that ANWR will only fuel our nation for 3-4 months. It adds to the total supply of oil which will help decrease its costs. It isn the sole answer but it is definately a resource that should be utilized. Off shore drilling should as well. We have Cuba and China building rigs 90 miles off Florida sucking those fields dry while we twiddle our thumbs complaining about the price at the pump.

Well DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What are you talking about? We're already drilling offshore. The gulf is littered with offshore rigs as is much of the Pacific Coast.

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/05...ing_ban_upheld__.shtml

http://www.awb.org/articles/pr...l_u_s_oil_reserves.htm

Unless something has drastically changed in the last 2 years.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I tire of people using the statistic that ANWR will only fuel our nation for 3-4 months. It adds to the total supply of oil which will help decrease its costs. It isn the sole answer but it is definately a resource that should be utilized. Off shore drilling should as well. We have Cuba and China building rigs 90 miles off Florida sucking those fields dry while we twiddle our thumbs complaining about the price at the pump.

Well DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unfortunately both sides are right.

Your right, it would add to the total volume of oil produced. However the problem is 2 fold. One is the decline in existing fields. Its doubtful the total additional ouput of ANWR would offset the declines elsewhere. Ultimate result is that there is no net addition to the worlds available supply of oil on the market.

Additionally and more to the poing oil is a global commodity. The only way to ensure ANWR oil stays in America is to nationalize the ANWR field and exploration. At that point we're no better then any other tinpot socialist country in the world.

So really, no one gains a whole lot by drilling ANWR except to say "Hey, we drilled it".

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom

In total, the oil deposits in ANWR contain as much oil to solely support U.S. consumption for 7 months (4.3B estimate) to 19 months (12B estimate). If used to completely replace oil imported from Saudi Arabia, oil from ANWR would last from approximately 5 to 15 years.

From Wikipedia.

Something about that don't add up. Misdirection, how much imported oil would ANWR replace not just Saudi oil? Two years?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: halik
So I finally took a minute to look at the data for ANWR versus offshore Cali drilling. USGS put ANWR at somewhere around 5-10bil barrels. On the flip side, offshore Cali deposits are estimated at some 86bil barrels.

So you all must wonder why ANWR keeps being pushed as part of the energy policy, when there are better alternatives that aren't inside a protected wildlife area. The answer is simple, pumping oil from the ground costs about $2-5 a barrel, getting it off an offshore rig runs some $20-30 a barrel. Guess who would benefit the most from ANWR?

Discuss...

Tell me Halik, why are we the public, not being charged the averaged price between $140 OPEC oil and $2-5, $20-30 domestic oil?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: halik
So I finally took a minute to look at the data for ANWR versus offshore Cali drilling. USGS put ANWR at somewhere around 5-10bil barrels. On the flip side, offshore Cali deposits are estimated at some 86bil barrels.

So you all must wonder why ANWR keeps being pushed as part of the energy policy, when there are better alternatives that aren't inside a protected wildlife area. The answer is simple, pumping oil from the ground costs about $2-5 a barrel, getting it off an offshore rig runs some $20-30 a barrel. Guess who would benefit the most from ANWR?

Discuss...

Tell me Halik, why are we the public, not being charged the averaged price between $140 OPEC oil and $2-5, $20-30 domestic oil?

Because price of crude oil is determined in a trading pit? There's no such thing as "Open Oil"; it's just oil.

In any case, the public for the most part uses gasoline, not crude oil. Even besides that, no one invest in the infrastructure and exploration if you force them to sell the oil at their cost.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: mundane
Off topic: At what barrel price will the incentive to use the "shale oil and tar sands" resources offset the cost of extraction?

I could be wrong but doesnt Canada extract shale oil? So I would imagine the costs are lower than the current market prices by a bit.

The EROEI is horrible, plus the daily output isnt all that spectacular.

Its not just the size of the tank but also the size of the tap.

 

[trenchfoot]

Why would the oil companies do ANYTHING to reduce the cost of oil to the consumer? They're in it to get maximum profit in the shortest time frame possible. They're not going to shoot themselves in the foot for any moral or philanthropic reason. The only cost reductions the oil producers are concerned with is reducing their own costs that directly affects their margins.

Also, it's illogical to say that opening up new sources of a non-renewable product will drive the cost of it downward. It's finite. the less there is to pass around, the more value the remainder acquires.

Add to that the idea that one does not invest in a business to reduce the cost of the product and pass the savings on to the consumer. Every CEO who's passed on would roll over in their graves at the mere thought of it.

Until the time comes when the spiraling cost of oil jeoporadizes our national security, the oil producers will have no compunction or other incentive to find ways to reduce the cost of oil for the express benefit of lowering costs to the consumer. unless, of course, that effort will increase profits from the same barrel of oil, which is practically impossible.

Reducing the demand for oil by developing alternative sources of energy is the key. Until the oil producers see that producing alternative energy sources is more profitable than producing energy from oil, they will continue on their merry path.

For the time being, it's in their best interests to sqaush any efforts that will curtail the blossoming profit margins they're presently experiencing. Of this they are doing quite well.

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: BladeVenom

In total, the oil deposits in ANWR contain as much oil to solely support U.S. consumption for 7 months (4.3B estimate) to 19 months (12B estimate). If used to completely replace oil imported from Saudi Arabia, oil from ANWR would last from approximately 5 to 15 years.

From Wikipedia.

Something about that don't add up. Misdirection, how much imported oil would ANWR replace not just Saudi oil? Two years?

Okay good. I'm not the only one. That doesn't make any sense. One of those number sets is wrong.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
Why would the oil companies do ANYTHING to reduce the cost of oil to the consumer? They're in it to get maximum profit in the shortest time frame possible. They're not going to shoot themselves in the foot for any moral or philanthropic reason. The only cost reductions the oil producers are concerned with is reducing their own costs that directly affects their margins.

Also, it's illogical to say that opening up new sources of a non-renewable product will drive the cost of it downward. It's finite. the less there is to pass around, the more value the remainder acquires.

Add to that the idea that one does not invest in a business to reduce the cost of the product and pass the savings on to the consumer. Every CEO who's passed on would roll over in their graves at the mere thought of it.

Until the time comes when the spiraling cost of oil jeoporadizes our national security, the oil producers will have no compunction or other incentive to find ways to reduce the cost of oil for the express benefit of lowering costs to the consumer. unless, of course, that effort will increase profits from the same barrel of oil, which is practically impossible.

Reducing the demand for oil by developing alternative sources of energy is the key. Until the oil producers see that producing alternative energy sources is more profitable than producing energy from oil, they will continue on their merry path.

For the time being, it's in their best interests to sqaush any efforts that will curtail the blossoming profit margins they're presently experiencing. Of this they are doing quite well.

Reducing costs increases profit... and the higher the price of gasoline, the less people will buy.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: palehorse
My vote would be to drill for oil anywhere and everywhere we find it -- Mexico, California, Brazil, ANWR, etc etc. At the same time, we need to commit to the very expensive R&D necessary to discover, and eventually mandate, a truly viable alternative source of energy.

Who's with me!?

Not me. I only support drilling under your house. Otherwise, I'm for protecting our natural resources, and pursuing the alternatives - so I guess I'm with one of your two points.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Am I speaking to a wall? 1.5 million barrels a day is a contribution is it not? We currently use about 20 million barrels a day in this country. It will definately add to the total world supply.

What is your plan? Sit on ANWR, off shore drilling, shale oil ect and hope the cost of oil gets so ridiculous alternative energy becomes feasible? What costs to the economy will that include by limiting the supply of its primary energy source?

Quite honestly I don't give a shit about the environmental ramifications about drilling in the ANWR, my contention is that it's entirely disingenuous to present ANWR as a significant solution to our oil crisis. I say "significant" because there are congressmen and senators that are constantly mentioning ANWR in discussions about solutions to our oil crisis, the most recent example being on this weekends Face The Nation. It's complete bullshit, and yet again you and your ilk are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

"It will definitely add to the total world supply." Jesus, you even acknowledge that nature of oil is that of a commodity and cannot be hoarded to support our singular interest and still you can't make the connection to how truly insignificant it is. 84 Million barrels of oil is used per day in the world and yet you, in your own words, purport that 1.5 million is significant.

Here's the paragraph from wiki that several people have already quoted, I've taken the liberty of highlighting to areas that I think are key to this discussion:

The U.S. consumes about 20 million barrels (3,200,000 m³) daily. If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil reserves were used to supply 5% of the U.S. daily consumption -- most is imported from Canada (19%), Mexico (15%), Saudi Arabia (11.5%), Nigeria (10.5%) and Venezuela (10.5%)[12] -- the reserves, using the low figure of 4.3 billion barrels (680,000,000 m³), would last approximately 4300 days, or almost 12 years. Using the high estimate, the reserves would last approximately 11800 days, or 32 years. Using the increasing price of oil this supply (with 10.5 billion barrel mean and crude oil at over $120 a barrel) would be worth $1.26 trillion.