Wow...1 million barrels a day and we don't even know for sure if it's oil that can be refined here for gasoline. We also don't know how much will end up being exported.
There is no contradiction in my posts. The amount of oil in ANWR will not lessen our dependence upon foreign oil. Not one bit.
As usual you use conjecture as fact.
10.4 Billion barrels of oil is not a small amount. And if we used your reasoning skills with everything then we would probably still be using the horse and buggy and picking plants out of the fields.
Your rational that there isnt a lot of oil because if we only sucked from that field it would provide us with 502 days of oil is funny.
I'm talking percentages. Geez...if you'd drop your partisan blinders for half a second you'd see that a 502-day supply is bupkis when we'll be needing oil for centuries to come.
My partisan blinders? I am not the one who said ANWR doesnt have much oil when indeed if we run it as a 1 million barrel field it will provide us with a quarter century of oil.
Only a partisan hack can possibly look at the estimated oil and divide by the total amout of oil we consume on a daily rate as reasoning for their opinion.
I would really hope that we arent using oil as our basis for energy for "centuries" to come. If that is your rational for whether or not drilling for oil is worth it then unless we find another Saudi Arabia then it isnt worth it. Reasoning which is just foolish.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
I don't understand this logic. We need oil, but we shouldn't drill for oil? Or is it, we need oil, but we should only drill for some mythical monster strike?
It sounds like someone saying, I need money, but work pays too slowly so I just gonna play the Lotto.
A 502 day supply is monster. America currently imports 55% of its oil. So in truthful terms, ANWR represents not 502 days, but almost 3 years of complete energy independence for the US.
A quarter century of oil, eh? hmmm...1 million bbl/d is hardly "providing". That's less than 5% of our daily consumption. And, that assumes all oil coming out of ANWR will be used here in the U.S.
How about we take the money and resources that would go into ANWR and work to develop something that would actually have a long-term effect?
3 whole years?! Wow! Kiss of Saudi Arabia!!
<3 years later>
Um...Prince? Please, sir, may I have some more?
So what is your plan? To find the monster oil field that supplies us with 21 million barrels of oil a day?
Good luck with that.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Like what? It seems to me that you have lots of condemnations, but never actual solutions.
The analogy was just as apt as your saying it was only 502 days (at 100% usage, which is completely unrealistic). Obviously, the oil will be recovered slowly, not all at once. A 5% reduction in foreign oil dependence is the most likely scenario. That is a bad thing to you?
There isnt any logic behind it. It doesnt make any sense what so ever. He is basically saying since it wont completely wipe away our energy dependance that it isnt worth it.
He completely forgets that we have fields in this country right now that probably spit out less oil than this and for every oil barrel we pump could mean 1 less barrel purchased from a foreign country.
Does he think we will find the lottery of oil fields one day that will completely wipe away dependence on foreign oil?
Obviously the current track we are taking is proving a great one.
That is a smart move if everything turned out perfect. Something we both know is about as realistic as pumping 21 million barrels a day out of ANWR for 502 days straight.
So in 20 years when we havent found the holy grail of energy sources yet we will have higher dependence on foreign oil. Our country will be in a nice bing.
But of course that is great for you because in 20 years you can still be on this msgboard whining about oil prices and our dependence on foreign oil.
5%...AT BEST...and for a limited amount of time.
As I said here months ago:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1490375&enterthread=y&arctab=y
And, as I posted elsewhere up here, gas mileage for cars could be greatly increased if the automobile lobby wasn't so powerful:
Drilling ANWR produces mony. It does not cost resources, it would produce them. There is no reason or way that this would/should detract from research into alternative energy. Why not let the businesses decide whether or not it is a fiscally sound investment for them. I agree, the government should not subsidize a company to go in and drill, but I don't have a problem with letting a company go in there if they feel it is profitable.
Because they are getting tax breaks and such for doing so. It will take away from alternative fuel research. If they're allowed to keep drilling the last vestiges of oil on earth, what incentive do they have for finding alternative sources?
Perhaps somebody should form a company and find alternative sources of energy and make those alternative sources cheap enough for the market to use? If they are years ahead of the competition it will knock the big energy companies out of the race.
The problem is right now oil is cheaper than anything else out there. Why would they want to bring a product out that the market wont embrace?
Of course we both know energy companies are searching for alternative energy sources because they all know the first to find it and bring it the market in a cheap enough fashion will cause the other companies to fall behind while they bring in wild profits.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Compared with just 30 years ago, we have made tremendous progress in all 5 of those areas. And as time goes by, we will continue to make more progress. And you're blaming the wrong group. It's not the automakers that stand in the way of this, it's the auto-buying public. The automakers just want to make what they believe will sell (and not end up being ruined by overzealous legislation). The success of Toyota proves that the public is coming around.
Once again, it seems that you are arguing that if we have to do it piecemeal (as opposed to all at once), then we shouldn't do it all. That just makes no sense at all.
Thanks for illustrating my point. The oil companies aren't being given the incentive to move away from oil.
I just picked one thing as an example. Nuclear energy is another way to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil.
The incentive is the consumer. You cant force people to buy something they arent interested in. Thus you cant force energy companies to develope energy sources nobody wants to buy. Energy companies however are in the process of trying to find the next source of energy because oil will be around for only so long.
Your point is muddled as it continues to progress in this thread after each point is talked about.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter