• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Senate Rejects Alaskan Oil Drilling Bill

I don't see how it's sad. According to the linked article, there may be 11.6 billion barrels of oil in ANWR. At our current consumption rate of 19 million barrels per day that's 1.7 years of oil to be drilled. Not really all that much. Not to mention, it wouldn't even be available for another 7 years or so....which of course does nothing to allay the current situation with the middle east. This would be a tiny bandaid on a huge problem at best.

Fausto
 
My Senators, Santorum and Specter, also voted correctly.

OK, we can't drill for oil: time to raise CAFE standards. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
 


<< No one knows exactly how much is there and I'd rather buy my oil from Alaska than Saudi Arabia. >>


Well, if I read that article correctly the 11.6 billion barrel figure was the upper end of the estimate for how much oil is there. Again, at our current rate of consumption, this is not even two year's worth. I completely agree that we need to cut the middle east oil apron strings, but I think we need to look to more longterm solutions than ANWR. The fact that we consume such a disproportionate amount of oil as a nation relative to the world population really says a lot....it also points to the most obvious solution: reduction of demand.

Granted, this will be an enormous PITA for most of us as there will be much money to spend and much upheaval of our nation's infrastructure as we've all gotten pretty comfy with the way things are (cars in particular). It's something we're going to have to face sometime anyway...might as well get started.

Fausto
 


<< Well at least my Senators, Inhofe & Nickles, voted correctly. >>



Mine as well. Its too bad people are not more educated on the amount of land being used, the precautions made for the land, and the alternative fuel source we have to rely on without it.
 


<<

<< No one knows exactly how much is there and I'd rather buy my oil from Alaska than Saudi Arabia. >>


Well, if I read that article correctly the 11.6 billion barrel figure was the upper end of the estimate for how much oil is there. Again, at our current rate of consumption, this is not even two year's worth. I completely agree that we need to cut the middle east oil apron strings, but I think we need to look to more longterm solutions than ANWR. The fact that we consume such a disproportionate amount of oil as a nation relative to the world population really says a lot....it also points to the most obvious solution: reduction of demand.

Granted, this will be an enormous PITA for most of us as there will be much money to spend and much upheaval of our nation's infrastructure as we've all gotten pretty comfy with the way things are (cars in particular). It's something we're going to have to face sometime anyway...might as well get started.

Fausto >>



the problem is different experts have differnt opinions as to how much oil is really up there. We need to find out. The alternative is to buy from Saudi Arabia.
 


<< the problem is different experts have differnt opinions as to how much oil is really up there. We need to find out. The alternative is to buy from Saudi Arabia. >>


Any idea as to what the range of estimates are? I'd be curious to see those figures as it's kind of the deal-breaker currently.

Fausto
 
http://www.anwr.org/

This site has a lot of good info, although definetly a "pro-drilling" site.

Personally, even though I am a hippie-tree-humping-liberal, I think a little EXPERIMENTAL drilling wouldn't hurt. Just to see what is really in there.......
 


<<

<< the problem is different experts have differnt opinions as to how much oil is really up there. We need to find out. The alternative is to buy from Saudi Arabia. >>


Any idea as to what the range of estimates are? I'd be curious to see those figures as it's kind of the deal-breaker currently.

Fausto >>



oh man. when this issue was hot I knew. Haven't been keeping up but some were saying it had the possiblity of supporting the US for 30 years



<< Personally, even though I am a hippie-tree-humping-liberal, I think a little EXPERIMENTAL drilling wouldn't hurt. Just to see what is really in there....... >>



Now that would be a hard bill to turn down. Its too reasonable 🙂
 
Maybe the democrats can now get some of that media coverage they have have been begging for from the major news networks.
 
I guess you can say this is another example of how Democrats (who largely opposed the drilling) make life expensive for ordinary folks. They kill off a source of potential supply in the name of a few herds of caribou. Somebody needs to release a study that effectively places a value on these caribou's heads because we consumers are now going to pay more so they can live in the tundra unimpeded. Consider how much more we have to spend on national security because we are still so reliant on OPEC and Middle East oil reserves. The ANWR reserves are no panacea or replacement for OPEC, but it would give us a little more wiggle room and safety.
 


<< oh man. when this issue was hot I knew. Haven't been keeping up but some were saying it had the possiblity of supporting the US for 30 years >>


Here we go, compliments of your friends at the USGS.🙂

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998, Including Economic Analysis

Here's the relevant bit:


<< 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 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).

Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 0 and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 1.2 BBO. >>



Fausto
 
We have two choices.
1) Drill out all the American oil and be dependent completely on foreign oil forever, or
2) Buy foreign oil until they run out and we are the ones left with oil.

I perfer option (2) at the moment.
 


<< I guess you can say this is another example of how Democrats (who largely opposed the drilling) make life expensive for ordinary folks. They kill off a source of potential supply in the name of a few herds of caribou. Somebody needs to release a study that effectively places a value on these caribou's heads because we consumers are now going to pay more so they can live in the tundra unimpeded. Consider how much more we have to spend on national security because we are still so reliant on OPEC and Middle East oil reserves. The ANWR reserves are no panacea or replacement for OPEC, but it would give us a little more wiggle room and safety. >>


About 600 days of wiggle room. And not for another 5-10 years. Not to mention drilling in Alaska is freaking expensive. It's not about saving Caribou, it's about not wasting time and money on a relatively small source of oil. You have to look at the big picture and think about what the hell is going to happen as oil becomes more and more scarce. Put down the Excursion....and slowly back away.😉

FWIW- I've been hearing murmurs that the Republicans made a big stink about this bill, knowing full well that it would fail in the Senate, because they wanted to be able to go back and blame the Dems this fall around election time just in case gas prices happen to be high by then. Rather crafty I must say.

Fausto
 


<<

<< oh man. when this issue was hot I knew. Haven't been keeping up but some were saying it had the possiblity of supporting the US for 30 years >>


Here we go, compliments of your friends at the USGS.🙂

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998, Including Economic Analysis

Here's the relevant bit:


<< 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 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).

Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 0 and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 1.2 BBO. >>



Fausto >>



Thats great but again thats one group's opinion.

No exploratory drilling has been accomplished in the area except for one well commenced in the winter of 1984-85 on Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation lands southeast of Kaktovik on the Coastal Plain.

Hmmm. Now how could the government have that accurate an estimate if there hasn't been Any exploratory drilling? 🙂

Link
 
According to the USGS survey that is really not a whole heck of a lot of oil even on the most optimistic estimates. Thier is way more than 11 billion barrells sitting in the fields in the Gulf of Mexico in leases that the oil companies have chosen not to exploit due to the fact that it is WAYYYYY more of an initial expense for them to drill offshore than in someplace like ANWR. If we really want to mitigate to some extent the US dependence on foriegn oil imports we need to go after the big scores not something relatively petty like ANWAR.

I am not arguing from an enviornmental standpoint here, but from a strategic one. I find it funny how the supporters of drilling in ANWR make such ridicoulous claims in regards to it's potential for US energy needs. I almost died laughing when Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson went on TV and siad we could be pulling usable quantities of oil out of there in 1 year. Does anyone here seriously believe they could build the roads, tanker laoding ports, airstrips, and actual drilling equipment to get oil from Anwar (a complete wilderness in the middle of nowhere in 1 year) I think even 5 years is very optimistic.


This just seems like a way to make some more ENRON types very very rich, and to give the people of Alaska thier royalty checks every year.
 


<< According to the USGS survey that is really not a whole heck of a lot of oil even on the most optimistic estimates. Thier is way more than 11 billion barrells sitting in the fields in the Gulf of Mexico in leases that the oil companies have chosen not to exploit due to the fact that it is WAYYYYY more of an initial expense for them to drill offshore than in someplace like ANWR. If we really want to mitigate to some extent the US dependence on foriegn oil imports we need to go after the big scores not something relatively petty like ANWAR.

I am not arguing from an enviornmental standpoint here, but from a strategic one. I find it funny how the supporters of drilling in ANWR make such ridicoulous claims in regards to it's potential for US energy needs. I almost died laughing when Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson went on TV and siad we could be pulling usable quantities of oil out of there in 1 year. Does anyone here seriously believe they could build the roads, tanker laoding ports, airstrips, and actual drilling equipment to get oil from Anwar (a complete wilderness in the middle of nowhere in 1 year) I think even 5 years is very optimistic.


This just seems like a way to make some more ENRON types very very rich, and to give the people of Alaska thier royalty checks every year. >>



What part of No exploratory drilling has been accomplished in the area except for one well commenced in the winter of 1984-85 on Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation lands southeast of Kaktovik on the Coastal Plain.


didn't you read? Its takes an actual look on the ground (and a little thing called drilling) before passing judgement little buddy
rolleye.gif
 


<< We have two choices.
1) Drill out all the American oil and be dependent completely on foreign oil forever, or
2) Buy foreign oil until they run out and we are the ones left with oil.

I perfer option (2) at the moment. >>



3) Research alternative fuels.
 
I have to agree that some exploratory drilling is in order here. May indicate that there is even more oil than the seismic data indicates....or may indicate that there is less or that what is there is less recoverable than previously estimated. Either way, it's going to give a much clearer indication as to which way the vote should go this time around rather than one side yelling "Save the caribou!!" and the other yelling "Jobs for steelworkers!!", etc.

On the other side of the coin, I still think that reduction of demand is not only crucial in the long run, but will also have the largest and most immediate effect in the short term. I have mused in other oil threads about what kind of impact a concerted effort on our collective behalves to drive less would have.....I don't think that this is such an unreasonable demand. We're just lazy, unfortunately.

Fausto
 
Fairly off topic you shouldn't be upset that it was rejected since it is just a patch on the energy problem. The US relies too much on oil (the industrialized world does, not just the US). Instead of being pissed that you aren't getting at oil why not put efforts into researching alternative fuel sources?

I have a feeling that the way many people would like to see it is we all run out of oil and THEN go for alternative sources. It's a bit late then.

<< On the other side of the coin, I still think that reduction of demand is not only crucial in the long run, but will also have the largest and most immediate effect in the short term. I >>

Yep.
 
No one knows exactly how much is there and I'd rather buy my oil from Alaska than Saudi Arabia.

I have a better idea - Why don't we explore other options? Solar, Hydrogen fuel cell's, whatever...

Come up something better than internal combustion! That was good in 1903 or whatever when Henry Ford started this thing going. C'mon people throw me a frickin' bone here...

WE cannot keep using up this planets oil at this rate or it will be ALL GONE in the VERY NEAR future. Don't plastics come from Petroleum? Can you imagine a world with out plastic?

Doesn't petroleum jelly come from Petroleum? How are we going to wack off without Vaseline? 😉

Seriously, we have to come up with a MUCH BETTER way of conveying ourselves around this planet before the stuff is all GONE!

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top