Drilling in Alaska

[Auburn85 432]

Should we drill for oil in Alaska? Could mean less dependency on foreign oil

[Tigermike 3,050]

If the citizens of Alaska say yes then the answer should be yes.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

I read on Boortz yesterday that when ANWR was designated as such by Congress, part of it was actually set aside for drilling. I looked that up and this is what I found:

Although drilling has never been allowed in the refuge, in section 1002 of the Act, Congress left open the possibility of drilling in 1.5 million acres of the northern coastal plain (commonly referred to as the 1002 area) between the Brooks Range and the Beaufort Sea.

THIS LINK provides a pretty interesting history of the legislation and discussion of drilling in ANWR.

The Alaska delegation has been seeking to open ANWR for exploration ever since it was created.

[Piglet 0]

I'm not sure--I think they're ripping up the land too much and some of it ought to be conserved so we'll always have a place to hunt and see nature. And I think the amount of oil we'd find up there would probably be just a drop in the bucket.

Then again, it's kinda hard to get all worked up about "saving" a big ol' snowfield 900 miles from nowhere. It's not like folks are lining up to make the trek out there to admire the scenery, and how much wildlife could there really be that far north?

[Tigermike 3,050]

According to this, that is a pretty big "drop in the bucket".

*

The USGS made the following estimates in 1998 of technically recoverable oil and natural gas liquids from the ANWR Coastal Plain:

*There is a 95 percent probability (a 19 in 20 chance) that at least 5.7 billion barrels of oil are recoverable.

*There is a 5 percent probability (a 1 in 20 chance) that at least 16 billion barrels of oil are recoverable.

*The mean (expected value) estimate is 10.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

By comparison, total 1998 U.S. proved reserves of crude oil were estimated to be 21 billion barrels and the 1993 estimate of undiscovered technically recoverable oil for the onshore lower 48 States (that would come from tens of thousands of small fields) was about 23 billion barrels.

EIA postulated yearly development rates of the resources without specifying the effect of various levels of oil prices and technology advances, and then projected daily production rates based on the USGS estimates, as follows:

*Low and high ANWR yearly development rates ranging from 250 to 800 million barrels per year are postulated for each of the three USGS estimates, forming 6 cases.

*Projected ANWR peak production rates range from 650,000 to 1.9 million barrels per day across the 6 cases.

*For the mean resource case (10.3 billion barrels technically recoverable), ANWR peak production rates range from 1.0 to 1.35 million barrels per day.

*Even with nearby production infrastructure, 7 to 12 years would be needed for lease sales, permitting and environmental reviews after approval for leasing. It is projected that initial ANWR production could occur around 2010 if leasing approval occurred within the next few years.

*The imported refiner acquisition cost in 2020 is projected in EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2000 reference case at $22.04 (1998 dollars). At this price, the potential ANWR oil recovered would have a value between $125 and $350 billion (in 1998 dollars.)

link

[AURaptor 1,126]

I'm not sure--I think they're ripping up the land too much and some of it ought to be conserved so we'll always have a place to hunt and see nature.  And I think the amount of oil we'd find up there would probably be just a drop in the bucket.

Then again, it's kinda hard to get all worked up about "saving" a big ol' snowfield 900 miles from nowhere.  It's not like folks are lining up to make the trek out there to admire the scenery, and how much wildlife could there really be that far north?

150615[/snapback]

Piglet..I would suggest you go check out a map of the ANWR. See where it's located, and then notice the area which is slotted for oil exploration. Once you've done that, come back and tell us if you still have concerns about us 'ripping up the land too much'.

Click for MAP

[AURaptor 1,126]

No reply from piglet, or anyone else, for that matter. Perhaps just looking at the map of ANWR ends all discussion? Sure seems like it.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Honestly, drilling for oil does not do a lot of PERMANENT damage to the surface. How else could they drill in backyards and parking lots (there is a rig in the parking lot behind my hubby's old office, right off of one of the busiest interchanges in all of Houston!)? Yeah, bringing in trucks and equipment will scar up the grass and stuff for a while, but it grows back, and I HAVE to ask - just how much grass is growing on a frozen tundra?????

I remember reading somewhere once before that the Alaskan pipeline has actually helped INCREASE the size of the caribou herds, because the pipeline is warm, and they hang out underneath it in blizzards and don't freeze to death.

The pinkos need to actually VISIT ANWR and see whta it is they are fighting about - besides "WE HATE BUSH".

[Tigermike 3,050]

I am still receiving a news letter from John Kerry, this is how the latest one started out.

We have only 24 to 48 hours to try and save the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The Republicans are trying to sneak legislation through the Senate approving oil drilling and they are incredibly close to winning. We have to stop them.

I am joining with Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) in offering a critical amendment to stop this sneak attack on our environment. We will fight on the floor of the Senate, but we need you by our side.

[Auburn85 432]

I am still receiving a news letter from John Kerry, this is how the latest one started out.

We have only 24 to 48 hours to try and save the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The Republicans are trying to sneak legislation through the Senate approving oil drilling and they are incredibly close to winning. We have to stop them.

I am joining with Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) in offering a critical amendment to stop this sneak attack on our environment. We will fight on the floor of the Senate, but we need you by our side.

151099[/snapback]

Good lord

[Jenny AU-92 0]

I got one from ROBERT REDFORD, addressed to Dear Supporter of the Environment or something like that (didn't read it closely, just pitched it). Geez, just because I send money to the SPCA does NOT make me a tree hugging pinko!!! It was FOUR PAGES of crap about drilling in ANWR - "destroying fragile ecosystems", "wiping out whole species of animals and plants"...

This is what made me pitch it right off - "President Bush claims he has a mandate to enact his energy policy just because he won the election. We are sure YOU never voted for him to destroy one of America's last remaining unspoiled natural areas."

Man... exagerate much?

Yeah, and the Sundance Film Festical didn't destroy an entire community by Californicating all over it, putting extreme strain and drain on the tiny little town's public resources - police, fire, sewer, LITTER PICKUP. No, no damage there, BOB.

[channonc 466]

I know I am going to throw everyone for a loop here, but...

I am actually FOR drilling in ANWR. I always have been, so this is not a new opinion. I think this is where some of the dems are wrong (some are actually voting for this).

I would have to agree with Jenny on the environmental impacts. Virtually, ALL of the environmental impacts are actually good. In fact, with the Alaskan Pipeline, they have actually seen wildlife INCREASE, b/c of it.

The US has the strictest environmental standards as far as oil drilling, exploration and refining goes. Unfortunately, even if drilling is authorized by the US in ANWR, it will be about 15-20 years before we actually see the affects of drilling in ANWR. This unfortuantely, will not be an immediate answer to slowly reducing the dependancy on foreign oil.

[Ranger12 46]

The dems are and tree huggers are acting like we are going to be drilling every acre of the ANWR. 1.5 million acres does sound like alot, but compared to how big the whole reserve is, it is nothing! That map should be distributed to all tree huggers and liberals to show them how silly their argument is.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

I know I am going to throw everyone for a loop here, but...

I am actually FOR drilling in ANWR.  I always have been, so this is not a new opinion.  I think this is where some of the dems are wrong (some are actually voting for this).

I would have to agree with Jenny on the environmental impacts.  Virtually, ALL of the environmental impacts are actually good.  In fact, with the Alaskan Pipeline, they have actually seen wildlife INCREASE, b/c of it. 

The US has the strictest environmental standards as far as oil drilling, exploration and refining goes.  Unfortunately, even if drilling is authorized by the US in ANWR, it will be about 15-20 years before we actually see the affects of drilling in ANWR.  This unfortuantely, will not be an immediate answer to slowly reducing the dependancy on foreign oil.

151145[/snapback]

No one ever said you weren't rational, channon. Left-guided, sometimes, but always rational.

The fact that you and other moderate Dems can see the logic behind drilling in ANWR shows that it really should not be a "Bash Bush" issue - that when considered completely on merit, without spin and propaganda about wiping out entire species and destrying ecosystems, then anyone who thinks about it can see the benefits.

The spin in the OTHER direction - significant reduction in dependence on foreign oil - should also be taken with a grain of salt. Sounds great, but really... Being part of "the bidness" as I am, I can testify to the YEARS it takes to go from developing the infrastructure to support field work to actually drilling to actually refining and shipping an end product. I agree that there will be no immediate impact - and maybe little future impact - on foreign oil dependence, but I DO think that it will give OPEC something to think about in terms of supply, demand and price gouging. The thing most people don't think about is that oil is a FUTURES game. The $56 price for a barrel right now is for oil that won't be delivered until later this year - but that price affects gas prices NOW. So the promise of several BILLION barrels of oil at a future date will have an impact long before that oil is delivered.

We still need to have cars that get more miles to the gallon with less pollution - and that should be a priority whether we drill in ANWR or not.

I also think that the jobs that would be created in Alaska will be of benefit - there are so many skilled oil workers in the US - it won't be immigrant labor taking these jobs.

[TitanTiger 20,509]

For those who didn't know, the drilling passed the Senate today, 51-49.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/16/...g.ap/index.html

[Tigermike 3,050]

I just received this from John Kerry. Ole Lerch lost again didn't he.

We are hours away from the vote to save the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the heat is on thanks to your efforts over the last 24 hours. A vote is expected around 1:00 PM EST and floor debate begins at 10:15 AM EST. Tune in and watch live on C-SPAN2.

In the last 24 hours we have seen an amazing display of our johnkerry.com community's ability to quickly mobilize - and a passionate outpouring of commitment to the Arctic Refuge. And you got the attention of the Republicans too. In fact late last night Republican leaders came to the floor of the Senate to complain directly about our Citizens' Roll Call to stop this special interest giveaway.

So far, a quarter of a million citizens - more than 260,000 people, have signed our Citizens' Roll Call in support of the Cantwell-Kerry Amendment to prevent the oil drills from invading one of our greatest natural treasures. With the roll call vote in the Senate fast approaching TODAY, we must keep the pressure on - and our Citizens' Roll Call growing.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

I just received this from John Kerry.   Ole Lerch lost again didn't he.

a quarter of a million citizens - more than 260,000 people, have signed our Citizens' Roll Call in support of the Cantwell-Kerry Amendment to prevent the oil drills from invading one of our greatest natural treasures.

151177[/snapback]

Wow - 260,000 whole people!

Over 120 million people voted for American Idol last week. Kind of puts things in perspective, huh?

I felt led to email SENATOR Kerry:

Nice try but you lost again.  Any person with a lick of sense can look at the ANWR map and see what a minimal impact drilling will have, not to mention the multiple benefits for this country.  This was nothing more than another way to try and bash PRESIDENT Bush.  You claim that "a quarter of a million citizens - more than 260,000 people, have signed our Citizens' Roll Call in support of the Cantwell-Kerry Amendment to prevent the oil drills from invading one of our greatest natural treasures."  Wow - a whole 260,000 people.  Last week, American Idol got 120 million votes.  Kind of puts things in perspective, huh?  Still out of touch with real Americans.  Enjoy your ivory tower - we are all so glad it is not a white house.