Drilling Anwr

[dairygirl4u2c]

even if drilling in ANWR was not bad for the environment, it's still not wise to drill right now.

primiarly, this is because we have a few months strategic reserve, that's it. if we ever have an emergency, we'd need that gas in alaska. if we upped the reserves, then i probably wouldn't be all that against it.

but also... is it better to relieve the country now, or do it when gas is really really high? it's bad now, but it will be worse later, and that's when it'll be needed. when it's more clearly changing things significantly. maybe when it does get to 10 then we could drill.

if it were a ton of gas up there... then sure we could drill and be happy for awhile. but it'd only run our country for six months. since it's only a token amount relatively, but still not compltely petty change,,,, it's better to have the rainy day fund, and/or high gas relief fun.

not a short term fix for a long term problem.

[fides quarens intellectum]

start drilling now - it's going to take a long, long time to set it all up anyway.

[goldenchild17]

The government's going to need to figure out what's more important. "Going Green" and taking care of the environment or alleviating our dependence on foreign oil. I consider myself an earth loving hippie to a certain extent, but I think the most responsible thing is to drill there and collect the oil. I believe God meant for us to use it so we should and not keep stressing our economy, while feeding the economies of other nations who are using their oil. Of course I believe that nuclear energy is probably the best option overall both for the economy and for the earth, but with the bad stigma attached to it as of late I don't really see that happening for awhile.

[dairygirl4u2c]

that is a good point... i'm not sure how to respond to that, other than to say we'd have to look at the details of how long they think it'd take.

as a matter of judgement, i'd guess it'd take six month to a year tops. if that were the case, we should surely wait for the reasons i said.

as to how it'd affect us if there were an emergency.. i don't see there being a big enaough threat right now, given we have canada, and stuff... that would just ify thinking we had to do it for an emergency when really we'd be doing it to have it now.

at most, we would set it up, and then wait for an emergeny. since that's not going to happen, we should just wait.

but as usual... my stance is more contingent on empiracal facts than anything though, given how long it'd take to make it.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm not trying ot argue God doesn't want us to use it... i think he wants us to use it. i only think he wants us to use it wisely.
i haven't necessarily seen any reasoning that says it's wise to do it now.

[goldenchild17]

Personally, and I know this isn't a consensus, but I personally believe the strain that foreign oil is creating on our economy is an emergency. I think even if it were a temporary situation we could drill there and maybe ride out the price surges of foreign oil for awhile until they dropped again. If that other thread was right and there is a possibility of gas going up to 10 bucks an hour I'd say that's probably an emergency.

[picchick]

I agree that God wants us to use his gifts wisely.

My fear is what drilling in Alaska will do for the wildlife there. I know that someday we will have to go there but have we exhausted all other possiblities of an alternate energy source?


Edit: I should mention that I am new to this topic so I am not totally familiar with its content.

Edited April 28, 2008 by picchick

[dairygirl4u2c]

well.. if there was more certainty that it would go up, i might agree with you. i can see, if you insist that you think it's going up to 10, how you would think that.

i guess you do have the fact that the european countries are at 10 dollars a gallon, and the dollar is historically down. i would say though, that i doubt it's going to go up, cause that would be so unheard of thing to do in such a short period. the oil regulators you'd think would ease us into it if there's a sudden problem. i could see how you might say otherwise if that's your argument. i disagree though as a matte of judgment.

note though... this is only because of teh dollar down and the 10 dolalr argument... pepole who've been saying drill all along have been baseless and usually just wimpered away from the threads on the matter.

Edited April 28, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[fides quarens intellectum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1512995' date='Apr 28 2008, 06:04 PM']that is a good point... i'm not sure how to respond to that, other than to say we'd have to look at the details of how long they think it'd take.

as a matter of judgement, i'd guess it'd take six month to a year tops. if that were the case, we should surely wait for the reasons i said.

as to how it'd affect us if there were an emergency.. i don't see there being a big enaough threat right now, given we have canada, and stuff... that would just ify thinking we had to do it for an emergency when really we'd be doing it to have it now.

at most, we would set it up, and then wait for an emergeny. since that's not going to happen, we should just wait.

but as usual... my stance is more contingent on empiracal facts than anything though, given how long it'd take to make it.[/quote]

So, you think there isn't much oil up there? Is that why you think we should wait?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote][url="http://www.anwr.org/features/akeval.htm"]California Surprises[/url]

The MMS Pacific OCS report documents the oil and gas commodities, resource categories, data and methodologies of the assessment of the federal offshore area of California, Oregon and Washington.

Its significant findings include:

* Nearly 11 billion barrels of undiscovered oil and 19 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered gas in the region may be recoverable using existing technology.
* Relatively large volumes of undiscovered oil may exist offshore central and southern California, due largely to the presence of Monterey-type strata, which are potential source and reservoir rocks.
* Half of the undiscovered, conventionally recoverable oil and gas in the region may be economically recoverable under existing conditions.[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

"So, you think there isn't much oil up there? Is that why you think we should wait?"

partly. the main reason is bc emergency and relief when we really realy need it.

but, if we had like, years of it then sure, as i said in my initial post. years of it, combined with all the other oil, would be a way to relieve us now and keep it there for a signficant amount of time.

as it is... now it's only somewhat substantial... it'd run our country for six month as i initially said... but not so substnatial that we could just break away and do our own thing, or think it safe to drill now.

it's the perfect size to wait.

Edited April 28, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[goldenchild17]

I don't know what's going to happen to the prices. What I know is that they are already unacceptable (in my opinion) and there is no reason for me to think they are going to stay the same or go down. 10 is just the number I threw out there based on the topic in open mic which is predicting similar numbers. I do believe there is more oil in ANWR than you probably think, but I don't really know for sure not being an expert in the area.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1513069' date='Apr 28 2008, 06:39 PM']"So, you think there isn't much oil up there? Is that why you think we should wait?"

partly. the main reason is bc emergency and relief when we really realy need it.

but, if we had like, years of it then sure, as i said in my initial post. years of it, combined with all the other oil, would be a way to relieve us now and keep it there for a signficant amount of time.

as it is... now it's only somewhat substantial... it'd run our country for six month as i initially said... but not so substnatial that we could just break away and do our own thing, or think it safe to drill now.

it's the perfect size to wait.[/quote]

In general I'd be a proponent of waiting. But I have to wonder, what are we waiting for exactly? Do we know for sure how much is there? Possibly more than you think, but possibly not. Can we really know until we get things set up there? I think we should at least get set up there and be prepared to check it out. If its not much then we may have to wait until it could serve a real use. If its more then we could start using it and alleviating our dependence on foreign oil, at least until either the prices on foreign oil go down or we can develop another means of energy dependence (i.e. nuclear). But at the least I think we (figuratively) should be up there setting things up. I don't like what it could do to the animal/plant population up there, which is why I think nuclear energy is a better option, but as it is now, I think its our best temporary solution.

Edited April 28, 2008 by goldenchild17

[dairygirl4u2c]

if you wiki anwr etc, the probability is that it's six months.... there's varying lower probabilityes that it's more.... like a five percent chance it'd last a year or something like that.

[CatherineM]

If you want to talk strategic, if you leave it in the ground, then you have to defend the arctic. That's vulnerable. If we got into a WWII kind of situation, our biggest problem might end up being steel. We don't make our own anymore like we did 60 years ago. It's not just that the mills are closed, they have been dismantled. Ditto for a lot of the auto factories that would be needed to make tanks and planes. Then you've got shut down cotton mills and trying to make uniforms. The US is really a different place than it was when we last had a whole scale mobilization. That's just commodities. How about people. The school lunch program was started during WWII because recruits were undernourished. When my oldest went in the Navy his recruiter said that 50% of highschool seniors can't pass the physical because of excess weight, and 25% because of hearing loss (ear bud head phones).

[goldenchild17]

I'm not sure what wiki is relying on for information but regardless of who is right I don't think we know for sure, at least it is far from conclusive. Here is an interesting article:

[url="http://www.anwr.org/Background/How-much-oil-is-in-ANWR.php"]http://www.anwr.org/Background/How-much-oil-is-in-ANWR.php[/url]
[quote][b] How much oil is in ANWR? [/b]

Geologists agree that the Coastal Plain has the nation's best geologic prospects for major new onshore oil discoveries. According to the Department of Interior's 1987 resource evaluation of ANWR's Coastal Plain, there is a 95% chance that a 'super field' with 500 million barrels would be discovered. DOI also estimates that there exists a mean of 3.5 billion barrels, and a 5% chance that a large Prudhoe Bay type discovery would be made.

High potential. The high potential for significant discoveries of oil and gas in ANWR has long been recognized. Early explorers of the region at the turn of the century, found oil seeps and oil-stained sands. However, since ANWR was established in 1960, exploration in the region has been restricted to surface geological investigations, aeromagnetic surveys, and two winter seismic surveys (in 1983-84 and 1984-85). 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.

Location to big finds. Although little oil and gas exploration has taken place in ANWR, the Coastal Plain is believed to have economically recoverable oil resources. The Coastal Plain lies between two known major discovery areas. About 65 miles to the west of the Coastal Plain, the Prudhoe Bay, Lisburne, Endicott, Milne Point, and Kuparuk oil fields are currently in production. Approximately 1.5 million barrels of oil a day are produced from these fields, representing 25% of our domestic production. To the east of the Coastal Plain, major discoveries have been made in Canada, near the Mackenzie River Delta and in the Beaufort Sea.

U.S. Geological Survey - 1980. In 1980, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated the Coastal Plain could contain up to 17 billion barrels of oil and 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

U.S. Department of Interior - 1987. After several years of surface geological investigations, aeromagnetic surveys, and two winter seismic surveys (in 1983-84 and 1984-85), the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), in its April, 1987 report on the oil and gas potential of the Coastal Plain, estimated that there are billions of barrels of oil to be discovered in the area. DOI estimates that "in-place resources" range from 4.8 billion to 29.4 billion barrels of oil. Recoverable oil estimates ranges from 600 million barrels at the low end to 9.2 billion barrels at the high end. They also reported identifying 26 separate oil and gas prospects in the Coastal Plain that could each contain "super giant" fields (500 million barrels or more).

U.S. Geological Survey � 1998. The most recent petroleum assessment prepared by the USGS in 1998 (OFR 98-34), increased the estimate for technically recoverable mean crude oil resources. (See Oil in the ANWR? It�s Time to Find Out!)

Only drilling will tell. The geologic indicators are very favorable for the presence of significant oil and gas resources in ANWR, but the limited data means that there is a high level of uncertainty about how much oil and gas may be present. Consequently, current estimates represent the best scientific guesses. However, most geologists agree that the potential is on the order of billions of barrels of recoverable oil and trillions of cubic feet of recoverable gas and that these resources may rival or exceed the initial reserves at Prudhoe Bay. The validity of these estimates can be proved only by drilling exploratory wells. Authorization for exploration must be given by Congress and the President.

In 1996 the North Slope oil fields produced about 1.5 million barrels of oil per day, or approximately 25 percent of the U.S. domestic production. However, Prudhoe Bay, which accounts for over half of North Slope production, began its decline in 1988, and no new fields have yet been discovered with the potential to compensate for that decline.[/quote]

[goldenchild17]

Here's an article that contends that there is possibly 30 years worth of oil there. Just a little higher than the 6 month estimate. I don't know if its completely accurate or not, but it does prove that there is no conclusive answer on the issue. It could have only 6 months of supply. Or it can have 30 years.

[url="http://www.anwr.org/Resources/Worried-About-Fuel-Prices-ANWR-Equals-30-Years-of-Saudi-Oil.php"]http://www.anwr.org/Resources/Worried-Abou...f-Saudi-Oil.php[/url]
[quote]ANWR = 30 years of Secure Oil & Gas Supplies

Alpine ExplorationRising Prices: America’s homes and businesses have experienced dramatic spikes in their electric bills and the prices they pay for gasoline, heating oil and diesel fuel. Public service agencies have cut vital services to pay skyrocketing energy bills. Prices for everything from airline tickets to consumable goods are being recalculated to capture these increased costs. Policy analysts say relief will not come soon enough.

Shrinking Supply: Consumers have good reason to be worried about the future. They worry about our growing dependence on foreign oil imports—now nearing 60% of total supply. They fear the loss of mobility, of not being able to go where they want, when they want. They fear a repeat of the 1970s gas lines and price volatility, and the likelihood of brownouts and blackouts at home. Will there be another war with foreign suppliers? Americans now realize the growing costs of energy can gravely affect their livelihoods, their sense of security, their savings and investments. They demand to know why this situation exists, what can be done about it, and who will do it.

Solutions Sought: There are, unfortunately, no quick fixes. The fundamental problem is that national energy policy, largely fashioned by groups opposed to fossil fuel use, has seriously jeopardized industry’s ability to meet energy needs in a timely fashion. This failed, shortsighted policy has ignored abundant U.S. energy resources while encouraging foreign countries to produce more oil for the United States. Last year alone the U.S. bought more than $120 billion worth of imported oil while exporting thousands upon thousands of American jobs. This has resulted in huge spinoff costs to consumers and our economy.

The time to balance energy, economic and environmental concerns is long past due. It is up to the nation’s policymakers, from local and state elected officials to Congress and the President, to resolve this growing crisis. It is their responsibility to find solutions, in concert with energy conservation, and we must hold them to it. While we will always rely on substantial levels of imports, increased domestic production will provide needed leverage to negotiate from strength with foreign producers.

Alaska’s Role: Policy leaders now realize our government must reconsider rules that prevent industry’s exploring for oil and gas in America’s most promising locations. Obviously, Alaska’s Arctic is one such place. Both government and industry experts recognize the non-park area of ANWR, its coastal plain, as the single most promising unexplored region for major oil and gas discoveries.

Developing this tiny sliver of land, which would impact but two thousand acres (the size of a regional airport) of the 20-million acre refuge, could yield up to 16 billion barrels of oil. This would equate to 30 years of Middle East imports, and possibly more.

(The North Slope, originally thought to contain nine billion barrels of oil, has to date produced 13 billion barrels.) With new technology, production could occur sooner than expected. While the last major Arctic oil field took just seven years to bring on line, companies project it can be done in five years—assuming no delaying lawsuits—as opposed to the ten years claimed by development opponents.

America’s Environmentalists: More than 75% of Alaskans support careful energy exploration in ANWR, including the Inupiat Eskimos who live in ANWR’s coastal plain and have been stewards of the land for centuries. They’ve seen the Prudhoe Bay caribou herds grow nine times larger in the 34 years since oil was discovered there, and the environment negligibly affected. They’ve seen oil produced under the world’s strictest environmental standards, and Alaskans would have it no other way. (Some Canadian and Alaskan Gwich’in Indians, who live outside the Refuge, opposed ANWR exploration only after Exxon and BP let their leases on Gwich’in tribal lands expire.)

Oil and Gas vs. Wind and Solar Energy: A nationally organized advocacy effort seeks to prohibit oil and gas exploration in key prospective areas. Proponents favor using renewable energy resources instead, particularly wind and solar systems, believing they are more environmentally benign and less polluting. While increased use of home solar systems would likely be well received by communities, their cost (about $20,000 for a 2,000 sq. ft. home) is out of reach for typical homeowners. At the community level, it would be difficult to overstate the complexities of siting, permitting, legal challenges and construction problems associated with large commercial wind or solar installations.

Paul K. Driessen of Fairfax, Virginia calculates that producing 50 megawatts of electricity from photovoltaics would mean covering 1,000 acres with solar panels. To produce the same amount of electricity with wind towers (100-200 feet high) would require some 4,000 acres. By comparison, less than half an acre would be required to produce 50 megawatts of electricity from oil, or 2 to 5 acres for natural gas.

The noise, access roads, visual blight and wildlife impacts from wind turbines would be unacceptable to nearby residents. To transmit electricity to urban areas, wind and solar farms would have to be linked to miles of high-tension power lines; and fossil-fuel generators would still be required to supplement intermittent power generation.

Access: With projected energy shortfalls, access to public lands is critical for fossil fuel exploration, production and pipelines, as well as for staging areas for wind, solar and other non-fuel resources. Americans are now recognizing the need for choices among a combination of all energy resources that, along with energy conservation, will assure progress and prosperity over coming decades.

Arctic Power
April 01, 2001[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1513116' date='Apr 28 2008, 07:06 PM']If you want to talk strategic, if you leave it in the ground, then you have to defend the arctic. That's vulnerable. If we got into a WWII kind of situation, our biggest problem might end up being steel. We don't make our own anymore like we did 60 years ago. It's not just that the mills are closed, they have been dismantled. Ditto for a lot of the auto factories that would be needed to make tanks and planes. Then you've got shut down cotton mills and trying to make uniforms. The US is really a different place than it was when we last had a whole scale mobilization. That's just commodities. How about people. The school lunch program was started during WWII because recruits were undernourished. When my oldest went in the Navy his recruiter said that 50% of highschool seniors can't pass the physical because of excess weight, and 25% because of hearing loss (ear bud head phones).[/quote]

as per strategy... the likly hood that we'd have to defend it significanlty is far far less than the simple planning i mentioned... so, for that reason, we should stick to my simply plan.

you have a point.. maybe we shouldn't be taking all that steel and stuff. we probably should'nt shut it all down, but we reserve some. and, oil is much more a central aspect of our economy and stuff whwereas some other things like are not as much.
but that we may be abusing one thing doesn't mean we should abuse another. it's not really an argument as to why we should drill not pointing out potenital abuse elsewhere. you gotta argue against my reasoning.

i'm not sure what your poit is regarding the overwight people etc.

[fides quarens intellectum]

Like you suggested, i checked Wikipedia:

[quote]If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil reserves were used to supply 5% of the U.S. daily consumption -- most is imported from Canada (19%), Mexico (15%), Saudi Arabia (11.5%), Nigeria (10.5%) and Venezuela (10.5%)[12] -- the reserves, using the low figure of 4.3 billion barrels (680,000,000 m³), would last approximately 4300 days, or almost 12 years. Using the high estimate, the reserves would last approximately 11800 days, or 32 years. If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was used to meet 100% of U.S. demand, it would last for 215 days under the low estimate, and 525 days or just 1.4 years if it contained 10.4 billion barrels (1,650,000,000 m³).[/quote]

So, it sounds like the six month figure you're using is only if we relied on ANWR 100%, which would never happen.

[dairygirl4u2c]

golden. you need ot rethink wiki as most people do. a lot of them automatically assume it's wrong. the fact is, it's usually right. it's a starting point... a rebuttable presumption of accuracy.

you're the same one who say ordinary magisterium was always infallible, depsite most of the internet and respected theologians saying otherwise, a wikipedia article included. wiki presumption was probably right there if all those others are.

with taht said... the US uses 20 ish billion of oil per day.

""Developing this tiny sliver of land, which would impact but two thousand acres (the size of a regional airport) of the 20-million acre refuge, could yield up to 16 billion barrels of oil. This would equate to 30 years of Middle East imports, and possibly more.""

you do the math. i'd trust a wikipedia article over a bias website any day, especially at least looking at how they portray their figures even if accurate. ("lies, damned lies, and statistics")
the only thing htey could be arguing... is that if you use part of that oil with the rest of the world's oil, that it'd be last that long. that is not the comparision to use.
an emergency mindset should mean we anticipate that's our only source or we'll slowly reduce ourselves to next to nothing for when there is an emergency. that also answers intellectum's response.

also... if it's only suppling 5% of our supply... that translates perhaps into a five percent reduction in costs.... so.... if gas is 3.50 a gallon... we'd have 3.33 gas instead. whopdedoo.
the main point being.. if you raise it such taht we have a signifiant reduction.... we'd be using it up in no time.

i think there's another article or soemwhere else that says the liklihood is closer to half a year, like 95% probability that's the case or something. whatever the case, 215 days is close to .6, maybe .7 or something. we should'nt defer to it being 1.4 instead to be conservative. and even if it was 1.4, that's still not a super amount. that's a drop in the bucket compared to how long we expect to last as a nation, expeislaly as an oil nation.

Edited April 29, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c