ANWR Rant

[imported_Stratago]

1) The US Geological Survey did a 12 year study on how drilling for oil would affect the reserve, and they concluded that it would be very harmful to the area. The Bush administration saw this, pulled the survey out of the public view, and did a 7-day survey of their own saying drilling would be fine.

2) The x amount of acres that the U.S. says will be used only includes where the oil platforms touch the ground and only where the oil pipeline is connected to the ground. It does not include the hundreds of miles of pipeline that is suspended, roads, or support housing.

3) Will take 10 years to become fully operation after it is built, and will only compensate for 10% of oil consumed by today?s numbers. In ten years oil consumption will be much higher, and the percentage much lower.

4) The drilling will only increase our dependency on other nations for oil. The drilled oil will not go directly to the US most of it will be exported. This adds more oil to the world oil supply and thus lowers the price of oil. The lower the price the more we will consume and the more oil we will have to import from the Middle East and South America.

 

[RightIsWrong]

1. 12 years....7 days. Same same.
2. We can't be bothered with "technicalities" like that.
3. But think of the oil that we could burn then
4. We are doing the rest of the world a favor by exporting it to them.

I hope that I don't break anyone's sarcasm meters with this reply.

 

[Helenihi]

1. No they didnt. If they did, show it, or some proof that it actually existed before being hidden other than some crackpot conspiracy site's mad ramblings. The existing pipelines have not harmed the area's native wildlife, and the caribou have in fact increased in number.

2. Again, a lie. there is only one specificly marked territory that is going to be used. The 1002 area is where the oil is concentrated, and even then most of it is in the northern half. The maps are quite clear and can be found on the usgs site.

The 1002 area is essentially adjacent to the already existing prudhoe bay area. A gigantic infrastructure network will not be needed nor created.

3. So what? 10% is a lot, its probably as much as we import from Saudi Arabia, its a full FIFTH or our imported oil. And thats still only the LOW ESTIMATE of how much there is. No individual field is going to produce 100% of our oil, thats stupid, each field contributes a small amount, and in total they are significant. Additoinally, if our oil demand will increase in the future, than we need to start drilling now, so the oil is ready when we need it.

4. Again, so what? Oil is sold on a worldwide market, where any individual barrel goes is irrelevant. If Alaska goes to Japan, than thats less oil they'll get from Indonesia, and then that oil will go somewhere else, like maybe the U.S.

This is also really retarded economics. Just reading it should give most rational readers an inkling of why it is retarded. Yes, your instincts saying that an increase in domestic supply couldnt possibly increase our demand for foreign oil is impossible are correct. As any basic econ student knows, increasing supply does not change demand, all we're doing is shifting the supply curve to the right, we're not moving the demand curve and the new equilibrium.

The original poster also needs to make up his mind on whether this is such a small amount that it wont effect anything, or so large that its going to have a large effect on the entire US demand for oil

 

[imported_Stratago]

Originally posted by: Helenihi


This is also really retarded economics. Just reading it should give most rational readers an inkling of why it is retarded. Yes, your instincts saying that an increase in domestic supply couldnt possibly increase our demand for foreign oil is impossible are correct. As any basic econ student knows, increasing supply does not change demand, all we're doing is shifting the supply curve to the right, we're not moving the demand curve and the new equilibrium.

The information that I posted was from a part in my econ class. What is not to understand about the reasoning. There is more oil in the world, therefore oil prices decreace, therefore people buy more oil because the price is lower. Because of this we have to import more oil and thus increasing not decreasing our dependancy for oil from other countries. And don't try to tell me that if oil is selling for 1.80 instead of 2.20 people aren't going to buy more.

And for the things you call lies, unless my econ teach is lying to the class I think I will take his word.

 

[0marTheZealot]

ANWR is not 10%. From what I've read, it will be 100,000 - 150,000 bpd initally (10 years from) ramped up gradually to 800,000 - 1,000,000 barrels per day in 10 years.

1,000,000 barrels today is 5% supply. In 20 years time, the US is projected to consume about 30 mbd, of which 25+ will have to be imported due to declining domestic oil production.

 

[imported_Stratago]

I'm sorry about just sticking 10% in there, I was too lazy to find my notes.

USGS releases ANWR reevaluation
A new fact sheet from the U.S. Geological Survey provides results of the latest assessment of petroleum resources in the 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, including new estimates of how much petroleum may be present. The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 10.3 billion barrels.