Drilling would destroy one of the things that is special about ANWR. IT IS PRISTINE. there is the misconeption that it is a barren wasteland. this is true during the winter. but there is so much life there in the summer. Any development would cause irreversible disruption to the ecosystem. There is very little industrial pressure to drill in ANWR it is almost all political.
killface
Golden Member
- Aug 17, 2001
- 1,416
- 0
- 0
Current estimates state there's only about 12 billion barrels of oil in the ANWR. At the current usage in the US of 19 million barrels of oil a day, this means there's only enough oil in the reserves for about 1.7 years.
As Fausto1 said yesterda this would only be putting a very small bandaid on a very huge problem.
As Fausto1 said yesterda this would only be putting a very small bandaid on a very huge problem.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
I'm not going to rehash the arguments pro and contra, that's been done to death already. I'll quickly summarize and give typical examples of the position of both sides..
Situation:
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.
Typical argument Pro: No one knows exactly how much is there and I'd rather buy my oil from Alaska than Saudi Arabia.
Typical argument Con: 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.
My compromise: Begin drilling, and get production ready to ramp on short notice. Once setup is completed, oil isn't to be pumped or sold on the open market. Rather, ANWR becomes the new U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, ready to begin pumping at a moments notice, with a level of oil reserves (a couple of years rather than a couple of weeks) much more commensurate with our requirements, especially when on a wartime footing fighting terrorism.
Situation:
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.
Typical argument Pro: No one knows exactly how much is there and I'd rather buy my oil from Alaska than Saudi Arabia.
Typical argument Con: 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.
My compromise: Begin drilling, and get production ready to ramp on short notice. Once setup is completed, oil isn't to be pumped or sold on the open market. Rather, ANWR becomes the new U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, ready to begin pumping at a moments notice, with a level of oil reserves (a couple of years rather than a couple of weeks) much more commensurate with our requirements, especially when on a wartime footing fighting terrorism.
<< My compromise: Begin drilling, and get production ready to ramp on short notice. Once setup is completed, oil isn't to be pumped or sold on the open market. Rather, ANWR becomes the new U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, ready to begin pumping at a moments notice, with a level of oil reserves (a couple of years rather than a couple of weeks) much more commensurate with our requirements, especially when on a wartime footing fighting terrorism. >>
That still in no way addresses the basic fact of drilling into that area, and setting up the infrastructure needed to get it set up and use it if it was necessary. So I'll assume you consider that a non-argument. And so I'll accept that discussion of your ideas is pointless as well.
As to the end line...the continuing 'war on terrorism' farce...I'm REALLY curious to know what public opinion will be in 325 years when terrorism still exists (since it's an idea, not a group). I wonder often if it will still be used as a 'catch phrase' to push ignorant radical change on individuals. *sigh*
Random Variable
Lifer
- Aug 10, 2001
- 10,420
- 2
- 0
I have no problem with the democrats who voted againt drilling in ANWR, but voted for the tougher CAFE standards. I do, however, have a problem with those democrats who voted against both. :frown:
<< I have no problem with the democrats who voted againt drilling in ANWR, but voted for the tougher CAFE standards. I do, however, have a problem with those democrats who voted against both. :frown: >>
tougher cafe standards??
Random Variable
Lifer
- Aug 10, 2001
- 10,420
- 2
- 0
<<
<< I have no problem with the democrats who voted againt drilling in ANWR, but voted for the tougher CAFE standards. I do, however, have a problem with those democrats who voted against both. :frown: >>
tougher cafe standards?? >>
federal fuel-economy standards
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
<< That still in no way addresses the basic fact of drilling into that area, and setting up the infrastructure needed to get it set up and use it if it was necessary. So I'll assume you consider that a non-argument. And so I'll accept that discussion of your ideas is pointless as well.
>>Great. You don't care how much oil is there or not there, you just oppose the idea of drilling on principle. Fine with me, you just marginalized yourself out of the debate then, because to the rest of us, it actually does matter how much oil is there. To say you would oppose drilling if there were a trillion barrels there is as stupid as someone who would say "let's drill!" if there was ten gallons.
Since you've made your position clear, why don't you stop adding on your latest bit of nothing new to the thread, and let the rest of us discuss it like adults rather than the petulant position you've taken?
- It will damage the ecosystem there and there is no going back
- It's not about oil, it's about money, Bush wants more money and jobs for his pals
- In the best case scenerio, only 2% of our oil supply would comes from this drilling, not enough to make us non-dependant
- It would take 7-10 years for the drilling to be functional, by that time who knows what will happen, so no price drops if any.
- It's dumb to invest all this money and the environment in an inefficient dirty power source. We should invest the money in Fuel Cell research.
- MOST IMPORTANTLY - the price of oil will not come down based on us pumping more oil, the price is determined on the world market.
So I think the Senate did the right thing, who would you trust on this, a large group of well educated wise people who look out for everyone, or some oil driller from Texas who only cares about quick cash.
- It's not about oil, it's about money, Bush wants more money and jobs for his pals
- In the best case scenerio, only 2% of our oil supply would comes from this drilling, not enough to make us non-dependant
- It would take 7-10 years for the drilling to be functional, by that time who knows what will happen, so no price drops if any.
- It's dumb to invest all this money and the environment in an inefficient dirty power source. We should invest the money in Fuel Cell research.
- MOST IMPORTANTLY - the price of oil will not come down based on us pumping more oil, the price is determined on the world market.
So I think the Senate did the right thing, who would you trust on this, a large group of well educated wise people who look out for everyone, or some oil driller from Texas who only cares about quick cash.
todpod
Golden Member
- Nov 10, 2001
- 1,275
- 0
- 76
I really don't think Americans give a damn about the eviroment, we like to think its important, but the two top selling vehicles in the US ford and chevy pickups, with the dodge about number 6, this is only one or two cars on top 10 that might get 30+mpg. With they explorer(3) and Blazer(15) and expedition(20) that more then makes up for the Civic and such. You want to sell fuel efficenct cars, a gas tax of about $3 a gallon would do wonders and will never happen.
It makes good politics and the only reason people are yelling about it, protecting the enviroment is just the cover.
It makes good politics and the only reason people are yelling about it, protecting the enviroment is just the cover.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,800
- 6,356
- 126
Glenn1: Your compromise is not a bad idea, although in that case the US would still have to ration petroleum usage somewhat(though less to be sure). It probably won't be used that way though.
I have environmental concerns, as most should, but the impact could be limited if developed at the proper times of year(before/after migration) . Besides the disturbing of the land from road building, pipelines, and drill site areas, probably the worst environmental impact comes from the burning of sour gas. Sour gas burning has had serious health effects on cattle and other livestock in farming areas.
I have environmental concerns, as most should, but the impact could be limited if developed at the proper times of year(before/after migration) . Besides the disturbing of the land from road building, pipelines, and drill site areas, probably the worst environmental impact comes from the burning of sour gas. Sour gas burning has had serious health effects on cattle and other livestock in farming areas.
<< Since you've made your position clear, why don't you stop adding on your latest bit of nothing new to the thread, and let the rest of us discuss it like adults rather than the petulant position you've taken? >>
Bwahahahahhaah!
yeah, Glenn1, I wish I could be a big adult like you...and not be able to think outside what I'm told, not be able to see the possibilities of the future because I'm blinded by my own needs in the present...I wish I could be afraid of tough times in order to achieve a greater end...but unfortunately, I'm too busy having a mind and a heart. Oh well...maybe someday I'll be blind and jaded just like you.
Have a nice day.
<< Take a look at the Pic from the article.
Do we have any right to take their homes from them? We are all the way down here in the warm and sunny mainland, and they are way up there in the cold arctic. We shouldn't even have the right to mess with what is theirs. >>
You better sit down and have a good cry.
What's happened to the younger generation? They have no problem knocking each other off in school like mosquito's, but get their undies in a major bundle if we do what needs to be done to keep them all warm and happy in their current way of life.
Some of you kids need a reality check.
I agree, we should listen and respect the wishes of the inhabitants of the region.
anwr.org/flash
novon
- It will damage the ecosystem there and there is no going back
There is no proof that the environment will be damaged.
- It's not about oil, it's about money, Bush wants more money and jobs for his pals
Haha, tell me another one. Typical liberal BS without a bit of fact or substance.
- In the best case scenerio, only 2% of our oil supply would comes from this drilling, not enough to make us non-dependant
So? The oil in ANWR is enough to supply the U.S. for at least two full years. That would be a very good cushion in case some dictator in another country tries to use oil as a weapon against the U.S. It?s happened before, it could happen again.
- It would take 7-10 years for the drilling to be functional, by that time who knows what will happen, so no price drops if any.
Once more, can you guarantee that we will not need that oil in seven years?
- It's dumb to invest all this money and the environment in an inefficient dirty power source. We should invest the money in Fuel Cell research.
It?s dumb to think that we cannot do both. Investors and corporate boards drive the companies that will drill ANWR. The money that is being invested there does not take away or inhibit in any way people or companies that want to invest in any alternative energy research.
- MOST IMPORTANTLY - the price of oil will not come down based on us pumping more oil, the price is determined on the world market.
That is not most important and is not the reason for drilling in the U.S. ANWR is in the U.S., not overseas where we have no control over the oil supply.
I agree that we need to develop alternative energy sources. Until we have a viable one at least in development we need to have secure sources of energy.
anwr.org/flash
novon
- It will damage the ecosystem there and there is no going back
There is no proof that the environment will be damaged.
- It's not about oil, it's about money, Bush wants more money and jobs for his pals
Haha, tell me another one. Typical liberal BS without a bit of fact or substance.
- In the best case scenerio, only 2% of our oil supply would comes from this drilling, not enough to make us non-dependant
So? The oil in ANWR is enough to supply the U.S. for at least two full years. That would be a very good cushion in case some dictator in another country tries to use oil as a weapon against the U.S. It?s happened before, it could happen again.
- It would take 7-10 years for the drilling to be functional, by that time who knows what will happen, so no price drops if any.
Once more, can you guarantee that we will not need that oil in seven years?
- It's dumb to invest all this money and the environment in an inefficient dirty power source. We should invest the money in Fuel Cell research.
It?s dumb to think that we cannot do both. Investors and corporate boards drive the companies that will drill ANWR. The money that is being invested there does not take away or inhibit in any way people or companies that want to invest in any alternative energy research.
- MOST IMPORTANTLY - the price of oil will not come down based on us pumping more oil, the price is determined on the world market.
That is not most important and is not the reason for drilling in the U.S. ANWR is in the U.S., not overseas where we have no control over the oil supply.
I agree that we need to develop alternative energy sources. Until we have a viable one at least in development we need to have secure sources of energy.
it'd be a waste if we drilled there... take too long to build the damn pipe, and according to estimates, it would not provide that much oil anyways...
if you wanna see scandal.. check out the coverage on the ETHANOL ADDITIVE to gasoline backed by the Corn Industry!!
...NOW THAT'S SHADY... :|
if you wanna see scandal.. check out the coverage on the ETHANOL ADDITIVE to gasoline backed by the Corn Industry!!
...NOW THAT'S SHADY... :|
Mean MrMustard
Diamond Member
- Jan 5, 2001
- 3,144
- 10
- 81
If you really want to reduce foreign oil dependency, you'll use less oil. End of discussion.
YES!!! Let's put "conserve" back into conservative.
YES!!! Let's put "conserve" back into conservative.
<< it'd be a waste if we drilled there... take too long to build the damn pipe, and according to estimates, it would not provide that much oil anyways...
if you wanna see scandal.. check out the coverage on the ETHANOL ADDITIVE to gasoline backed by the Corn Industry!!
...NOW THAT'S SHADY... :| >>
Wow, I didn't know that a replacement for MBTE was shady...
PsychoAndy
Re: ethanol
Do some research on how much energy it takes to produce a gallon of ethanol. Include the energy it takes for the fertilizer, the tractors to plow the field, the distillation and transport etc.. Then find out how much energy there actually is in a gallon of ethanol.
Now it's being used as an additive to oxygenate the fuel so that doesn't count but keep it in mind.
Now research what Reid vapor pressure of gasonline is. Why is it important to keep it low in the summer and what ethanol does to the RVP when added to gasoline.
Re: ethanol
Do some research on how much energy it takes to produce a gallon of ethanol. Include the energy it takes for the fertilizer, the tractors to plow the field, the distillation and transport etc.. Then find out how much energy there actually is in a gallon of ethanol.
Now it's being used as an additive to oxygenate the fuel so that doesn't count but keep it in mind.
Now research what Reid vapor pressure of gasonline is. Why is it important to keep it low in the summer and what ethanol does to the RVP when added to gasoline.
Somebody explain to me what's "shady" about ethanol.
I don't see a downside.
It's renewable, it's proven, if made mandatory across the country it would displace 5-10% of the gasoline we currently use.
It won't polute the ground water like MTBE. Have they got that mess cleaned up in California yet?
I don't see a downside.
It's renewable, it's proven, if made mandatory across the country it would displace 5-10% of the gasoline we currently use.
It won't polute the ground water like MTBE. Have they got that mess cleaned up in California yet?
Tiger,
Do you know what Reid Vapor Pressure is?
If not please do some research before you develop on opinion.
Do you know what Reid Vapor Pressure is?
If not please do some research before you develop on opinion.
Yes, I know what Reid vapor pressure is and in this case it's irrelevant.
We're talking about an additive to gasoline that will replace 5-10 of the gasoline we burn.
Reid vapor pressure only comes into the equation when we talk about converting to straight ethanol.
Nobody is suggesting that.
Check my profile and my location. I do know something about the ethanol industry.
We're talking about an additive to gasoline that will replace 5-10 of the gasoline we burn.
Reid vapor pressure only comes into the equation when we talk about converting to straight ethanol.
Nobody is suggesting that.
Check my profile and my location. I do know something about the ethanol industry.
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