More Oil for Everyone . . .

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
What steenken Environment ?

We don't know why our gas decided to hide under all that ice,
but it's coming home to daddy's SUV where it belongs !

Wow - this vast amout of petroleum will give us about one weeks worth of fuel at about twice the price of Arab Oil.

Hallibutron & Bechtel (I will bet on this) will be the 2 major companies to get the government contracts.

How many WMD's will they find there ? we'll know soon - like in maybe another 10 years
(That's how long it will be before any of this oil gets pumped out - and probably sold to China or Japan)
You remember the Alaska Pipeline & all that North Slope Oil ?
It ended up being not for US consumption - it was sold to Asia, after the taxpayer footer the construction bill.

<CLIP>

Amid the backdrop of soaring oil and gasoline prices, a sharply divided Senate on Wednesday voted to open the ecologically rich Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling, delivering a major energy policy win for President Bush.

The Senate, by a 51-49 vote, rejected an attempt by Democrats and GOP moderates to remove a refuge drilling provision from next year's budget, preventing opponents from using a filibuster ? a tactic that has blocked repeated past attempts to open the Alaska refuge to oil companies.

The action, assuming Congress agrees on a budget, clears the way for approving drilling in the refuge later this year, drilling supporters said.

The oil industry has sought for more than two decades to get access to what is believed to be billions of barrels of oil beneath the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the northern eastern corner of Alaska.

Environmentalists have fought such development and argued that despite improve environmental controls a web of pipelines and drilling platforms would harm calving caribou, polar bears and millions of migratory birds that use the coastal plain.

Bush has called tapping the reserve's oil a critical part of the nation's energy security and a way to reduce America's reliance on imported oil, which account for more than half of the 20 million barrels of crude use daily. The Alaska refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production, drilling supporters said.

"We won't see this oil for 10 years. It will have minimal impact," argued Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., a co-sponsor of the amendment that would have stripped the arctic refuge provision from the budget document. It is "foolish to say oil development and a wildlife refuge can coexist," she said.

Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), D-Mass., argued that more oil would be saved if Congress enacted an energy policy focusing on conservation, more efficient cars and trucks and increased reliance on renewable fuels and expanded oil development in the deep-water Gulf where there are significant reserves.

"The fact is (drilling in ANWR) is going to be destructive," said Kerry.

But drilling proponents argued that modern drilling technology can safeguard the refuge and still tap the likely ? though not yet certain ? 10.4 billion barrels of crude in the refuge.

"Some people say we ought to conserve more. They say we ought to conserve instead of producing this oil," said Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., "But we need to do everything. We have to conserve and produce where we can."

The vote Wednesday contrasted with the last time the Senate took up the ANWR drilling issue two years ago. Then, an attempt to include it in the budget was defeated. But drilling supporters gained strength last November when Republicans picked up three additional seats, all senators who favored drilling in the refuge.

Opponents of drilling complained that Republicans this time were trying "an end run" by attaching the refuge provisions to the budget, a tactic that would allow the measure to pass with a majority vote.

"It's the only way around a filibuster" which requires 60 votes to overcome, countered Stevens.

The 19-million-acre refuge was set aside for protection by President Eisenhower in 1960, but Congress in 1980 said its 1.5 million acre coastal plain could be opened to oil development if Congress specifically authorizes it.

Bush, who has urged Congress repeatedly to allow oil companies to tap the refuge's crude, said Wednesday it's "a way to get some additional reserves here at home on the books."
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,317
47,529
136
It tastes great actually, lean and flavorful. Kind of like elk. My dad and brother brought home lots of it from a hunting trip to Quebec 2 years ago, we were grilling caribou for months.
 

smc13

Senior member
Jan 5, 2005
606
0
0
You guys are no fun. I was setting up an "it tastes like Chicken!" joke. C'mon work with me here. ;-)
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Update 3-16-2005

U.S. allows Alaska to be destroyed, yeehaw.

Will have no effect on Oil & Gas prices, just wrecking Alaskan Wildlife :thumbsup:

3-16-2005 Senate Votes to Open Alaskan Oil Drilling

The Alaska refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production, drilling supporters said. But they acknowledge that even if ANWR's oil is tapped, it would have no impact on soaring oil prices

I posted the above in the Alaska Oil thread.

How much will it cost to ship all the Caribou meat down this way???
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Originally posted by: smc13
You guys are no fun. I was setting up an "it tastes like Chicken!" joke. C'mon work with me here. ;-)

Who's this 'Testes like Chicken' you refer to ?

 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), D-Mass., argued that more oil would be saved if Congress enacted an energy policy focusing on conservation, more efficient cars and trucks and increased reliance on renewable fuels and expanded oil development in the deep-water Gulf where there are significant reserves.
Agreed. Surely someday soon there will be an entity in government that realizes that being at the forefront of alternative energy sources and conservation would cement the U.S.'s position at the top of the heap. Until then, I guess oil still owns us.

"The fact is (drilling in ANWR) is going to be destructive," said Kerry.
Extremely disputable. This isn't 40 or even 20 years ago. The oil industry has come a long way.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Update 3-16-2005

U.S. allows Alaska to be destroyed, yeehaw.

Will have no effect on Oil & Gas prices, just wrecking Alaskan Wildlife :thumbsup:

3-16-2005 Senate Votes to Open Alaskan Oil Drilling

The Alaska refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production, drilling supporters said. But they acknowledge that even if ANWR's oil is tapped, it would have no impact on soaring oil prices

I posted the above in the Alaska Oil thread.

How much will it cost to ship all the Caribou meat down this way???

Depends -

Fed-ex pretty fresh but expensive -

If the proposed Alaska Meat Pipeline gets built - fresh alaska meat will be readily and cheaply available.

Tell congress to support the AMP!

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Update 3-16-2005

U.S. allows Alaska to be destroyed, yeehaw.

Will have no effect on Oil & Gas prices, just wrecking Alaskan Wildlife :thumbsup:

3-16-2005 Senate Votes to Open Alaskan Oil Drilling

The Alaska refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production, drilling supporters said. But they acknowledge that even if ANWR's oil is tapped, it would have no impact on soaring oil prices

I posted the above in the Alaska Oil thread.

How much will it cost to ship all the Caribou meat down this way???

Depends -

Fed-ex pretty fresh but expensive -

If the proposed Alaska Meat Pipeline gets built - fresh alaska meat will be readily and cheaply available.

Tell congress to support the AMP!

You know that Caribou herds expanded because of the pipeline right?

They cozied up to the warm pipes and got friskier with the lady Caribou.

It's true, do a google search.

Also don't forget Rush says Clinton/Gore had 8 years and they did nothing for the Environment. ;)

 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Update 3-16-2005

U.S. allows Alaska to be destroyed, yeehaw.

Will have no effect on Oil & Gas prices, just wrecking Alaskan Wildlife :thumbsup:

3-16-2005 Senate Votes to Open Alaskan Oil Drilling

The Alaska refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production, drilling supporters said. But they acknowledge that even if ANWR's oil is tapped, it would have no impact on soaring oil prices

I posted the above in the Alaska Oil thread.

How much will it cost to ship all the Caribou meat down this way???

Depends -

Fed-ex pretty fresh but expensive -

If the proposed Alaska Meat Pipeline gets built - fresh alaska meat will be readily and cheaply available.

Tell congress to support the AMP!

You know that Caribou herds expanded because of the pipeline right?

They cozied up to the warm pipes and got friskier with the lady Caribou.
Yes i know that - but what on earth does that have to do with clinton and gore?

Also don't forget Rush says Clinton/Gore had 8 years and they did nothing for the Environment. ;)

 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
What steenken Environment ?

We don't know why our gas decided to hide under all that ice,
but it's coming home to daddy's SUV where it belongs !

Wow - this vast amout of petroleum will give us about one weeks worth of fuel at about twice the price of Arab Oil.

Hallibutron & Bechtel (I will bet on this) will be the 2 major companies to get the government contracts.

How many WMD's will they find there ? we'll know soon - like in maybe another 10 years
(That's how long it will be before any of this oil gets pumped out - and probably sold to China or Japan)
You remember the Alaska Pipeline & all that North Slope Oil ?
It ended up being not for US consumption - it was sold to Asia, after the taxpayer footer the construction bill.

<CLIP>

Amid the backdrop of soaring oil and gasoline prices, a sharply divided Senate on Wednesday voted to open the ecologically rich Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling, delivering a major energy policy win for President Bush.

The Senate, by a 51-49 vote, rejected an attempt by Democrats and GOP moderates to remove a refuge drilling provision from next year's budget, preventing opponents from using a filibuster ? a tactic that has blocked repeated past attempts to open the Alaska refuge to oil companies.

The action, assuming Congress agrees on a budget, clears the way for approving drilling in the refuge later this year, drilling supporters said.

The oil industry has sought for more than two decades to get access to what is believed to be billions of barrels of oil beneath the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the northern eastern corner of Alaska.

Environmentalists have fought such development and argued that despite improve environmental controls a web of pipelines and drilling platforms would harm calving caribou, polar bears and millions of migratory birds that use the coastal plain.

Bush has called tapping the reserve's oil a critical part of the nation's energy security and a way to reduce America's reliance on imported oil, which account for more than half of the 20 million barrels of crude use daily. The Alaska refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production, drilling supporters said.

"We won't see this oil for 10 years. It will have minimal impact," argued Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., a co-sponsor of the amendment that would have stripped the arctic refuge provision from the budget document. It is "foolish to say oil development and a wildlife refuge can coexist," she said.

Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), D-Mass., argued that more oil would be saved if Congress enacted an energy policy focusing on conservation, more efficient cars and trucks and increased reliance on renewable fuels and expanded oil development in the deep-water Gulf where there are significant reserves.

"The fact is (drilling in ANWR) is going to be destructive," said Kerry.

But drilling proponents argued that modern drilling technology can safeguard the refuge and still tap the likely ? though not yet certain ? 10.4 billion barrels of crude in the refuge.

"Some people say we ought to conserve more. They say we ought to conserve instead of producing this oil," said Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., "But we need to do everything. We have to conserve and produce where we can."

The vote Wednesday contrasted with the last time the Senate took up the ANWR drilling issue two years ago. Then, an attempt to include it in the budget was defeated. But drilling supporters gained strength last November when Republicans picked up three additional seats, all senators who favored drilling in the refuge.

Opponents of drilling complained that Republicans this time were trying "an end run" by attaching the refuge provisions to the budget, a tactic that would allow the measure to pass with a majority vote.

"It's the only way around a filibuster" which requires 60 votes to overcome, countered Stevens.

The 19-million-acre refuge was set aside for protection by President Eisenhower in 1960, but Congress in 1980 said its 1.5 million acre coastal plain could be opened to oil development if Congress specifically authorizes it.

Bush, who has urged Congress repeatedly to allow oil companies to tap the refuge's crude, said Wednesday it's "a way to get some additional reserves here at home on the books."

So you prefer that the oil tankers keep plying and ruining the oceans of the world? At least a pipeline disaster can be contained.

 

Brackis

Banned
Nov 14, 2004
2,863
0
0
Originally posted by: Condor

So you prefer that the oil tankers keep plying and ruining the oceans of the world? At least a pipeline disaster can be contained.

This isn't an alternative method...just pumping more oil...
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,783
6,340
126
The Government of British Columbia(where a pipeline to the US would most likely pass through) has been hinting that no pipeline will be allowed unless the Softwood Lumber issue is resolved.
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
It'll help a little. With 1.5% growth, the US will need 23 mbd in 2015. ANWR will come online at about 200,000 bpd and top off at 800,000 bpd to 1,000,000 bpd after about 10 years after it comes online.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
The Government of British Columbia(where a pipeline to the US would most likely pass through) has been hinting that no pipeline will be allowed unless the Softwood Lumber issue is resolved.
News just in...US places large order for oil tankers...(aka tells BC to fvck off)
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: sandorski
The Government of British Columbia(where a pipeline to the US would most likely pass through) has been hinting that no pipeline will be allowed unless the Softwood Lumber issue is resolved.
News just in...US places large order for oil tankers...(aka tells BC to fvck off)

Pipelines are a lot more efficient, which matters, especially if this is already high extraction-cost oil.

Since the US hasn't got a leg to stand on in the softwood dispute, I can't see it dragging on more than another decade or two.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
How efficient is it shipping the oil for the Saudis? (represent 14% of US oil imports)

They will get the oil out, with or without BC's permission.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
It'll help a little. With 1.5% growth, the US will need 23 mbd in 2015. ANWR will come online at about 200,000 bpd and top off at 800,000 bpd to 1,000,000 bpd after about 10 years after it comes online.
The problem is that by using up this oil now (well, in 10 years) we won't have it 30 years from now when we really need it.

Why should we exhaust our oil reserves now, when oil is plentiful? Instead we should finish off the rest of the world's oil first, and save our reserves for when world oil supplies are closer to depleted.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Estimated cost - double what arab oil costs (according to OP), and that (I assume) is WITH a pipeline;)
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,783
6,340
126
Originally posted by: Stunt
How efficient is it shipping the oil for the Saudis? (represent 14% of US oil imports)

They will get the oil out, with or without BC's permission.

True enough.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Just bribe Yukon and go down through Alberta.
Alberta will never turn down a pipline.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Wow, what a windfall for the energy companies. I guess all of those campaign contributions to the GOP are finally paying off in spades, eh?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,783
6,340
126
Originally posted by: Stunt
Just bribe Yukon and go down through Alberta.
Alberta will never turn down a pipline.

Also an option, but it would make the cost of the pipeline higher. Personally I don't care how they move it or where, just settle the damn Softwood lumber dispute!:|
 

catnap1972

Platinum Member
Aug 10, 2000
2,607
0
76
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Estimated cost - double what arab oil costs (according to OP), and that (I assume) is WITH a pipeline;)

Which is why that oil isn't even going to the US...they're going to sell it to China/Japan if/when they pull it out.

So net benefit to the country = ZERO (other than Bush and the oil companies, of course), and we'll STILL be pwned by China in 10 years when they do pull it out

"United States Republic of China"...better get used to it