What was the problem with artic oil drilling?

[CSMR]

As the political difficulties in reducing government spending become more apparent, why is Artic oil drilling being opposed? It seems like a no-brainer to me. And yet it can't get past congress? Not only can it not get past congress, but even when tricks are used (tying it to other legislation) it still can't get past it? Congress is mad surely?
It will bring in a lot of revenue - helping to bring down the budget deficit
It will help stabilize oil prices - trade deficit helped here
Alaska's politicians are in favour.
And yet all this is not enough to outweigh some environmentalists?

 

[ntdz]

There is no problem with it, besides environmentalists who would rather us buy our oil from the middle east than produce it ourselves...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It won't do much at all. It will take years to drill for some small amount of oil. By the time it hits the market, this will be all over, and there won't be enough to make a difference if it isn't.

 

[raildogg]

We all should be enviromentalists. The earth is a delicate planet that should be preserved. The Alaskan wilderness should be kept exactly that. These projects assume minor disruption, but those are estimates only. These projects are usually inefficient and end up doing a lot more damage than expected. Funds will be wasted. If only 1% of the land, for example, was to be used, 4% is likely to be used.

Alaska's politicians are of course in favor. People want the big companies to come to their state, bring revenues and employment. They only see the employment because they can actually see it. They miss out on the other aspects because they would actually have to think about them.

It's like PETA. To me, they are People Eating Tasty Animals, to you, it may be something different.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: CSMR
As the political difficulties in reducing government spending become more apparent, why is Artic oil drilling being opposed? It seems like a no-brainer to me. And yet it can't get past congress? Not only can it not get past congress, but even when tricks are used (tying it to other legislation) it still can't get past it? Congress is mad surely?
It will bring in a lot of revenue - helping to bring down the budget deficit
It will help stabilize oil prices - trade deficit helped here
Alaska's politicians are in favour.
And yet all this is not enough to outweigh some environmentalists?

Can you just run a search and read through one of the 17 other threads on this topic? I'm so tired of this argument.

FYI... I'm from Alaska and I'd give my left nut to start drilling in ANWR.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
It won't do much at all. It will take years to drill for some small amount of oil. By the time it hits the market, this will be all over, and there won't be enough to make a difference if it isn't.

Irrelevant, the risk is all up the drilling companies. They know a lot more about the current and future oil demands, the cost of developing the wells, and when the expect to bring it to the market, than you or I do. Yet they are still willing to buy this desolate land from the govt. I say let them. Its in a frozen tundra, not exactly Yellowstone park.

 

[RichardE]

People do not look more than 1 year in advance in there life. They see drilling in the ANWR and think..oh jobs! Than fail to realise the environmental implications of it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
It won't do much at all. It will take years to drill for some small amount of oil. By the time it hits the market, this will be all over, and there won't be enough to make a difference if it isn't.

Irrelevant, the risk is all up the drilling companies. They know a lot more about the current and future oil demands, the cost of developing the wells, and when the expect to bring it to the market, than you or I do. Yet they are still willing to buy this desolate land from the govt. I say let them. Its in a frozen tundra, not exactly Yellowstone park.

That is your opinion. The risk to national land is not of concern to the oil companies, and there are a great many people who would like to see this frozen tundra remain intact. While you think it's worthless, others do not.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: ntdz
There is no problem with it, besides environmentalists who would rather us buy our oil from the middle east than produce it ourselves...

Do you work for Bush?

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
It won't do much at all. It will take years to drill for some small amount of oil. By the time it hits the market, this will be all over, and there won't be enough to make a difference if it isn't.

Irrelevant, the risk is all up the drilling companies. They know a lot more about the current and future oil demands, the cost of developing the wells, and when the expect to bring it to the market, than you or I do. Yet they are still willing to buy this desolate land from the govt. I say let them. Its in a frozen tundra, not exactly Yellowstone park.

That is your opinion. The risk to national land is not of concern to the oil companies, and there are a great many people who would like to see this frozen tundra remain intact. While you think it's worthless, others do not.

Do you know what a drop in a bucket is?

Alaska is the bucket.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
It won't do much at all. It will take years to drill for some small amount of oil. By the time it hits the market, this will be all over, and there won't be enough to make a difference if it isn't.

Irrelevant, the risk is all up the drilling companies. They know a lot more about the current and future oil demands, the cost of developing the wells, and when the expect to bring it to the market, than you or I do. Yet they are still willing to buy this desolate land from the govt. I say let them. Its in a frozen tundra, not exactly Yellowstone park.

That is your opinion. The risk to national land is not of concern to the oil companies, and there are a great many people who would like to see this frozen tundra remain intact. While you think it's worthless, others do not.

Do you know what a drop in a bucket is?

Alaska is the bucket.

Yes I do. It's the amount of oil to be had.

It's time to put our money where Bush's mouth is and get rid of oil as a fuel supply. Adding a little bit more to the addicts stash isn't very useful in the long run.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: ntdz
There is no problem with it, besides environmentalists who would rather us buy our oil from the middle east than produce it ourselves...

Do you work for Bush?

I would never associate myself with the government or a politician.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
It won't do much at all. It will take years to drill for some small amount of oil. By the time it hits the market, this will be all over, and there won't be enough to make a difference if it isn't.

Irrelevant, the risk is all up the drilling companies. They know a lot more about the current and future oil demands, the cost of developing the wells, and when the expect to bring it to the market, than you or I do. Yet they are still willing to buy this desolate land from the govt. I say let them. Its in a frozen tundra, not exactly Yellowstone park.

That is your opinion. The risk to national land is not of concern to the oil companies, and there are a great many people who would like to see this frozen tundra remain intact. While you think it's worthless, others do not.

Do you know what a drop in a bucket is?

Alaska is the bucket.

That is what they say about all things. A drop becomes 2, then 3, then 4, then 5. It adds up. You have to look at the bigger picture than just the immediate results. Even the immediate results in this case aren't so good. The total amount of know reserves may not last us too long. If for example, something happens and it forces the companies to drill off course, what would the excuse be then?

You never know what you're getting into. This may be an enviromental disaster. We should not do this. If this had proven reserves that lasted a long period, then I'd consider. We have to look beyond Alaska's interests. We have to look at the world's, and therefore, the United States interests. If the earth is polluted, so are our countries. There is nothing that says that the pollution in China cannot come here.

Even if its a tiny piece of land, the other stuff like roads and other infrastructure will disrupt land that has never been touched. Leave that land like it is. There are very few places like that left on this earth.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
It won't do much at all. It will take years to drill for some small amount of oil. By the time it hits the market, this will be all over, and there won't be enough to make a difference if it isn't.

6 to 16 billion barrels estimated. Current price $65 dollars/barrel. $400 to 1000+billion dollars worth. Now I can't find immediately what the value is including costs but I expect it is rather large, and the majority should be split between Alaska and the federal government.
Plus you have the significant reduction in the trade deficit, employment resulting from the oil production. Domestic production of oil should increase by about 25%, hardly insignificant. Direct reduction of 2-3% to the deficit, plus indirect reduction from reduced oil price... I am not competent to work this out naturally.

Now as for timing, reducing deficits in the future is very important. Money in the future is convertable into money now, you can trade them at a bank. The price of oil depends on supply and demand in the future, and has direct current effects.

 

[Meuge]

Just imagine how many nuclear power plants we could built with 1/10th of the drilling budget.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
It won't do much at all. It will take years to drill for some small amount of oil. By the time it hits the market, this will be all over, and there won't be enough to make a difference if it isn't.

Irrelevant, the risk is all up the drilling companies. They know a lot more about the current and future oil demands, the cost of developing the wells, and when the expect to bring it to the market, than you or I do. Yet they are still willing to buy this desolate land from the govt. I say let them. Its in a frozen tundra, not exactly Yellowstone park.

That is your opinion. The risk to national land is not of concern to the oil companies, and there are a great many people who would like to see this frozen tundra remain intact. While you think it's worthless, others do not.

Do you know what a drop in a bucket is?

Alaska is the bucket.

Yes I do. It's the amount of oil to be had.

It's time to put our money where Bush's mouth is and get rid of oil as a fuel supply. Adding a little bit more to the addicts stash isn't very useful in the long run.

I agree we need to get rid of our dependence on oil, but that is irrelavant to the issue of drilling in Alaska. What we get for using a few hundred acres of useless frozen tundra in the middle of nowhere that nobody will ever go to or use, we get to buy less oil from the middle east (cutting trade deficit) and put downward pressure on prices (more supply).

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: RichardE
People do not look more than 1 year in advance in there life. They see drilling in the ANWR and think..oh jobs! Than fail to realise the environmental implications of it.

Well some people see jobs, others see more than that. The people that see more are more perceptive. Sure there are negative environmental consequences, but would you value them at... hundreds of billions of dollars, even a thousand billion dollars? If you had a thousand billion dollars to spend on the environment, I think you could find better ways to spend it.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Meuge
Just imagine how many nuclear power plants we could built with 1/10th of the drilling budget.

Yes, you could use the revenue to build nuclear plants, if you wanted that is.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Can you just run a search and read through one of the 17 other threads on this topic? I'm so tired of this argument.

FYI... I'm from Alaska and I'd give my left nut to start drilling in ANWR.

I'm sorry to have reposted. But then, we like going over the same old ground in the same old way here don't we?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Oh God... this is how it starts.

Lets just hit the main points:

1. Ohh the ireparable damage to the environment... We've been drilling on the North Slope for over 35 years. Those installations are the most heavily regulated and watched drilling platforms on earth. The technology today allows a much smaller footprint, therefore a much smaller impact on the environment.

2. But it's virgin, pristine wilderness... We're talking about a few thousand acres in an area containing 19 million acres in a state with 365 million acres of mostly virgin wilderness. Nobody wants to randomly drill all over the state to see what they can find. We just want to go and extract the massive reserves contained in that one small area.

3. There's not that much oil there... Yes, I said massive reserves up there. The mean estimate for that field is 10 billion barrels. Possibly as high as 16 billion and possibly as low as 6 billion. It would be the third, and possibly second, largest field in the US. Massive... AND significant.

4. It's only enough oil to last for six months. *BZZZ* Wrong again. It is just plain silly to approach this field and say that if it were our only oil source it would only last this long. At peak production ANWR will pump about 1 million barrels a day. Possibly more... That peak level of production is expected to last anywhere from 20-30 years by current estimates. (As an aside, "current estimates" in the early 70's placed Prudhoe Bay's life span at 15-20 years... 30 years later and it's still going strong thanks to new technology and drilling techniques that enable us to get to oil that was considered unrecoverable when the field was first tapped.) For those of you keeping score 1 million barrels is just less than half of the amount of oil we import from the ME today. If the argument is that by the time we hit peak production we'll be importing more... OK then, it'll supplement 1/3 of our ME imports. Still very significant. And very long term.

5. It'll take ten years to get production up and running. Not really... It will take UP TO ten years to reach PEAK PRODUCTION. These guys are good and they're fast. Building the spur to the pipeline will probably be the determining factor as to how long it will take for oil to start pumping. Considering it only took about 5 years to build the whole enchilada from Prudhoe to Valdez back in the 1970's with the technology available at the time it shouldn't take anywhere near as long to punch this one through.

6. The poor caribou and other critters... We'll kill them all. Eeesh... This is the biggest fallacy of them all. The caribou have not only survived drilling on the Slope, they have thrived. Numbers don't lie. The major herds on the Slope have tripled in size since the beginning of drilling and the installation of the pipeline. The caribou walk over it, under it and around it. They hold their newborns up against it to keep them warm. They walk right through fields and camps without a care. I've been there... I've seen it.

I think I hit the major points against drilling. Can't think of any more off the top of my head. I'm sure some creative person will come up with another reason but these seem to be the recurring objections that pop up over and over and over...

 

[marincounty]

Why can't people seem to understand the word reserve? This should be reserved for a time of crisis, like if the middle east cut off its oil. Drilling in ANWR should be a last resort. Let's use up all of the easy to get oil first, like drilling a hole in the Saudi desert and oil comes out.
Of course Alaskans are for it , they get paid! Funny how they are the biggest recipient of tax dollars per capita, and they still get checks if we find oil there.
I'm thinking of becoming an Alaskan citizen.
The big push for drilling is actually to keep their pipeline open. It is running out of oil from Prudhoe bay? and may be closed it they can't find more oil to pump through it. What a great reason to destroy an unspoiled nature reserve.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: marincounty
Why can't people seem to understand the word reserve? This should be reserved for a time of crisis, like if the middle east cut off its oil. Drilling in ANWR should be a last resort. Let's use up all of the easy to get oil first, like drilling a hole in the Saudi desert and oil comes out.
Of course Alaskans are for it , they get paid! Funny how they are the biggest recipient of tax dollars per capita, and they still get checks if we find oil there.
I'm thinking of becoming an Alaskan citizen.
The big push for drilling is actually to keep their pipeline open. It is running out of oil from Prudhoe bay? and may be closed it they can't find more oil to pump through it. What a great reason to destroy an unspoiled nature reserve.

The PFD is an investment fund. It's made of mostly stocks and bonds with a little real estate thrown in. Almost no oil revenues find their way into the fund any more. The cost of oil could go to $1000/barrel and it wouldn't change the size of the fund. We're more interested in the jobs and the boost to our economy. Oil royalties basically pay for our state government and that's about it.

Edit: It's not our pipeline. It belongs to the oil companies. They built it. When they are done with it they have to remove it. The funds for removal have been paid for through mandatory contributions to a removal fund so NO it will not cost them billions to remove it. (Thought I'd take away that reason while I was at it)

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: marincounty
Why can't people seem to understand the word reserve? This should be reserved for a time of crisis, like if the middle east cut off its oil. Drilling in ANWR should be a last resort. Let's use up all of the easy to get oil first, like drilling a hole in the Saudi desert and oil comes out.
Of course Alaskans are for it , they get paid! Funny how they are the biggest recipient of tax dollars per capita, and they still get checks if we find oil there.
I'm thinking of becoming an Alaskan citizen.
The big push for drilling is actually to keep their pipeline open. It is running out of oil from Prudhoe bay? and may be closed it they can't find more oil to pump through it. What a great reason to destroy an unspoiled nature reserve.

Why wait? It'll do the same "damage" to the environment in 20 years as now...and if it takes 10 years to develop, why not start developing it now rather than wait when we need it and can't access it? Doesn't make much sense to me to wait...

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: CSMR
As the political difficulties in reducing government spending become more apparent, why is Artic oil drilling being opposed? It seems like a no-brainer to me. And yet it can't get past congress? Not only can it not get past congress, but even when tricks are used (tying it to other legislation) it still can't get past it? Congress is mad surely?
It will bring in a lot of revenue - helping to bring down the budget deficit
It will help stabilize oil prices - trade deficit helped here
Alaska's politicians are in favour.
And yet all this is not enough to outweigh some environmentalists?

There's a HELL of a lot more to life than economics. Continuing to live for instance, which eventually will become impossible if we continue the needless and reckless destruction of remaining natural areas. It is essential that we stop before we do irreversible damage (assuming we haven't already).

As for the 'some environmentalists' comment, let's examine that. Numerous environmental lobby, activist, and even terrorist organizations worldwide. Global acceptance of environmentally focused politics (ie Kyoto). Worldwide political party affiliation. The emergence of 'growth management' requirements in many states (might be most by now). Environmental concerns ranked extremely or very important with 62% of the population in public opinion surveys (exact data of course will vary by poll, but 55-65% seems fairly average).

In other words, even if you don't personally have a major interest in environmental concerns, at least half of this country does, and therefore it's GOING to be considered.

I'm not saying the drilling couldn't be done responsibly with minimal impact, but there ARE things to consider carefully, that's all.

 

[theeedude]

We should leave the oil there, environmental reasons or not. Frankly America may need this oil more in the future than we do right now. What would we do with that oil? Buy more gas guzzlers and use it up for very little economic benefit, and become even more dependent on oil. Maybe the future generations will be more energy efficient and use that oil a lot better than we do. Maybe they'll need that oil just to make plastics and use something else for energy. We shouldn't just use up all the resources now, and leave nothing to future Americans.