Senate Approves Oil Drilling in ANWR

[michaeledward]

I suppose it is nice to see some conservatives arguing against a regressive tax ... such as a fuel tax. Almost could be seen as an argument in favor of a progressive tax, almost.

Yes.... transportation is an issue. If you follow it through, we would find that higher transportation costs would lead to lower actual transportation. More people would buy more things that were grown or built locally. Local markets and local suppliers would benefit. I don't think that is a negative.

Many things would become closer together ... now that is scary to some, but the cocooning of our society, I think, has not been a positive influence.

The domino of higher fuel prices would be that appropriate cost housing would be available where it needed to be. If you don't like living close to other people, you would certainly have the freedom to pay higher transporation costs. But, walking to the grocery store didn't kill any of our grandparents.

 

[Makalakumu]

7,305,000,000 barrels per year. 42 gallons per barrel. 306,810,000,000 gallons per year. 5 cent per gallon national gas tax. $15,340,500,000 dollars. We could build a mass transit system to the moon with that much money...well maybe not to the moon, but at least in every major city in the US.

 

[7starmantis]

I seriously can't believe what I'm hearing. "I want it my way, screw all those who disagree! Oh, and make them pay $3 tax on gas to get to work."

I hear, in the same breath, a proposal for $3 tax on gas and then somehow trying to say small local farmers would benefit. I dont know where you guys live, but living in an agricultural area, I know many small produce farmers and such that would be out of business with the proposals your posting.

It seems some are so enamored with refusing the drilling of ANWR that they ignore the consequences of their proposed actions. Its not plausible to get all americans to take off 1 mph of theri top driving speed, simply not feasable. Yet this seems to be the best counter offer to drilling in ANWR?

Take notice of those against drilling in ANWR and their proposed solutions....higher taxes. Each and every one. These proposed outrageous taxes alienate and hurt the common workers of america. I've heard much ado about promises and commitments to our children, what about commitment to our children and current citizens to keep life affordable? One person's fellings of what they would rather do without is not what we should force on all of our "free" citizens of America.

We must find solutions that benefit us all, not just the super rich, or those willing to do without everyday needs.

7sm

 

[Marginal]

Trollies/subways were only in specific areas, never truly wide-spread. Trains used to be alot more common, I'll give you that... Where my parents live they are getting a light rail system in the next 5 years.

Yes, and anecdotes aside, it does beg a serious question. Would mass transit be more attractive if it was better developed? Europe's rail systems work because they've been actively developed for years and years.

We've got... Amtrack.

Still, public transportation -does- exist. Are you using it to the fullest? If not, got your hybrid/electric yet?

I usually walk or take the bus.

btw, I hate the term "special interest". thats not too important of a point LOL

Doesn't really matter. It wasn't the god fearin' heartland that demanded all those interstates. 'twas Ford etc.

 

[michaeledward]

I seriously can't believe what I'm hearing. "I want it my way, screw all those who disagree! Oh, and make them pay $3 tax on gas to get to work."

I hear, in the same breath, a proposal for $3 tax on gas and then somehow trying to say small local farmers would benefit. I dont know where you guys live, but living in an agricultural area, I know many small produce farmers and such that would be out of business with the proposals your posting.

It seems some are so enamored with refusing the drilling of ANWR that they ignore the consequences of their proposed actions. Its not plausible to get all americans to take off 1 mph of theri top driving speed, simply not feasable. Yet this seems to be the best counter offer to drilling in ANWR?

Take notice of those against drilling in ANWR and their proposed solutions....higher taxes. Each and every one. These proposed outrageous taxes alienate and hurt the common workers of america. I've heard much ado about promises and commitments to our children, what about commitment to our children and current citizens to keep life affordable? One person's fellings of what they would rather do without is not what we should force on all of our "free" citizens of America.

We must find solutions that benefit us all, not just the super rich, or those willing to do without everyday needs.

7sm

It's called a discussion.

Someone asked what it would take to get Americans to conserve. There are ramifications to the actions taken to promote conservation.

Now, if you look closely, you will not see that I proposed this as a solution. I am strictly discussing what would it take to conserve and what would the ramifications be.

The taxes I am discussing (I did not propose them), would have an impact on all Americans. THAT'S THE POINT. It would change behavior. Yes, it would hurt for a little while. Yes, some things would have to change. Off the top of my head, here's somethings that I think would change.

Traffic Jams - gone
Car Pooling - increased
Hummer Dealerships - gone
Victory Gardens - in your backyard


By the way, I certainly am in the top quintile of income, just barely, but I hardly consider myself 'super-rich'. And to hear you call for solutions that benefit all, and not just the super rich, is interesting. You almost sound like a Demoncrat.

Oh, one last thought ... if you know many small produce farmers, count your blessings. Because small produce farmers are disappearing as fast as Amazon Rain forests. Don't worry, even without any taxes, they will all be gone in 20 years.

 

[7starmantis]

The taxes I am discussing (I did not propose them), would have an impact on all Americans. THAT'S THE POINT. It would change behavior. Yes, it would hurt for a little while. Yes, some things would have to change. Off the top of my head, here's somethings that I think would change.

Traffic Jams - gone
Car Pooling - increased
Hummer Dealerships - gone
Victory Gardens - in your backyard

Actually, your the one that posted the idea of a $3 tax on gas, so in this thread you did "propose" it. However, semantics aside, tax isn't a tool to control people with. You speak so willingly of "fear-mongering" and the current administrations "hype to create fear in order to keep the populous submisive". Yet you are so willing to accept a monsterous tax hike to make people do what you want done. :idunno:
Mr. Kettle, it seems you are quite black - Mr. Pot.

Taxes aren't something you use to control people or punish people. Thats dictatory at its very heart. Freedom must still be nurtured. Your offering alternatives to drilling in ANWR that not only complicate the problem but create myriads of other problems. Your willing to crush those whom you dont agree with in order to reach the "solution" you want. You offer no chance for small business people, small farmers (oh, they are allready dying, we dont need to worry about them, i.e. small business kevorkianism), those who do not make as much money as you, those who prefer to have the freedom to drive where they want, what they want, when they want. Your willing to crush freedoms to reach your goal of not drilling on .5% of ANWR. Thats asinine!

Your list of "Gone Things" is only a pipe dream. Your ignoring those who cannot carpool, or cannot ride public transportation. You dont try to "out rich" people to get them to do what you want. Thats a tactic taught well by Donalnd Trump, but not one we need to use in dealing with our own citizens.

By the way, I certainly am in the top quintile of income, just barely, but I hardly consider myself 'super-rich'. And to hear you call for solutions that benefit all, and not just the super rich, is interesting. You almost sound like a Demoncrat.

What you consider yourself is moot. I'm glad your proud of the money you make, but your willingness to throw it around to control people is disturbing. I dont really believe in labeling people or large groups. I consider myself neither republican or democrat...I attempt to look at each issue and support the best solution.

Oh, one last thought ... if you know many small produce farmers, count your blessings. Because small produce farmers are disappearing as fast as Amazon Rain forests. Don't worry, even without any taxes, they will all be gone in 20 years.

So taxing the hell out of them is ok since they are allready on the way out? Dont forget, cars and hummers aren't the only machines that need fuel, their tractor equipment also uses that $3 tax gas. As does all emergency and police vehicles...military vehicles....mass transit vehicles....etc

7sm

 

[Makalakumu]

It seems some are so enamored with refusing the drilling of ANWR that they ignore the consequences of their proposed actions.

Drilling in ANWR will have a .017 cent reduction in the price of gas. Drilling in ANWR will only give us .068% of our total oil usage. Based on these numbers, I can say that its just not worth drilling in a parcel of land we designated as wilderness.

Its not plausible to get all americans to take off 1 mph of theri top driving speed, simply not feasable. Yet this seems to be the best counter offer to drilling in ANWR?

In response to the oil shocks of the 70's the national speed limit was reduced on all roads to 55 mpg. This cut a huge chunk from the demand of US oil and helped our country get through those times. We don't need to cut 15 mpg from our top end. We only need to cut 1 mpg from our top end to save 25 times the amount of oil that exists in ANWR.

If we cut back our national speed limit to 65 mpg, statistically, enough people would slow down in order to hit that one mpg reduction in speed.

Take notice of those against drilling in ANWR and their proposed solutions....higher taxes. Each and every one. These proposed outrageous taxes alienate and hurt the common workers of america. I've heard much ado about promises and commitments to our children, what about commitment to our children and current citizens to keep life affordable?

A cut in the national speed limit equals a tax?

As far as MASS TRANSIT is concerned, how can you say that 5 cents a gallon is a great burden? Especially when gas prices hit almost four bucks a gallon in some places. Now they are much lower...the national average is $2.15. We could reduce this five cent gas tax by one penny each year as we were building it and by the time we got down to one cent per year, we'd have enough money to maintain the entire national system.

One penny.

One penny to reduce our dependence on foriegn oil. One penny to make us safer in the world. One penny to improve America. One penny to demonstrate that we care about wilderness.

One penny is not that big of a sacrifice for all of that IMO...

We must find solutions that benefit us all, not just the super rich, or those willing to do without everyday needs.

I agree, that is why drilling in ANWR is not a solution for America. It's good for the oil companies, though...

 

[michaeledward]

... tax isn't a tool to control people with....

...Taxes aren't something you use to control people or punish people....

...I attempt to look at each issue and support the best solution.

OK ... look at the issue.

What is the function of taxation?

What is the result of taxation?

 

[mrhnau]

OK ... look at the issue.

What is the function of taxation?

What is the result of taxation?

Lets look deeper. What is the function of government? I think this is at the root of the issue.

 

[michaeledward]

Lets look deeper. What is the function of government? I think this is at the root of the issue.

One of the functions of government is to create and enforce rules by which the members of a community will function.

 

[7starmantis]

One of the functions of government is to create and enforce rules by which the members of a community will function.

Rules which are bypartisen and beneficial to all, not rules that squelch freedom and target certain groups of people. Thats not American or constitutional. Wether its been done or not in the past is a moot point, it shouldn't be done. Raising tax on gas to $3 per gallon in order to make hummers and traffic jams go away and make everyone act in accordance with your wishes is simply not what tax or gevernment is for.

7sm

 

[arnisador]

Lets look deeper. What is the function of government? I think this is at the root of the issue.

Yes, we have dueling philosophies here of what the govt. should or should not be responsible for providing.

Meanwhile, I noticed that today's USA Today has a big graphic on the front page showing that Soc. Sec. costs are going to bankrupt us all anyway.

 

[arnisador]

Raising tax on gas to $3 per gallon in order to make hummers and traffic jams go away and make everyone act in accordance with your wishes is simply not what tax or gevernment is for.

Well, it's a sort of 'sin tax' that would pay for the costs associated with automotives. Is it OK to do this with tobacco, or alcohol?

 

[7starmantis]

It seems people are only seeing this as lowering gas prices. Thats not the only reason to drill in ANWR. While we on that fact however, lets take a look at the facts. The truth is there is no way to tell the true amount of oil or natural gas in ANWR without drilling. Right now we import about 60% of our oil at a price of around 50 billion plus. We must reduce that dependance. Now, DOI estimated that "in-place resources" range from 4.8 billion to 29.4 billion barrels of oil. 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). That amount of daily oil would do much for our dependance on foreign oil.

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. (anwr.org) See the issue isn't a static dependance on foreign oil, but that we are sliding further and further into dependence. We must reverse that trend.

More data on ANWR:
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.(anwr.org)

So the issue is dynamic in its problems and its soutions. ANWR is a big step in turning that trend around. No one wants to use wildlife land, but we must do what is necessary to sustain our economy and the lifes of our citizens. ANWR may very well not contain enough oil to make much change, but we wont know that until exploratory drilling is done. If it doesn't contain enough to make a big dent we move on and return the small bit of land we used to wildlife. Its a decision we must make, not one we like, but one we must be responsible about. Conservation is great, but it is not the final answer.

7sm

 

[7starmantis]

Is it OK to do this with tobacco, or alcohol?

Now thats an entirely different thread. Short answer...no.

7sm

 

[Makalakumu]

The truth is there is no way to tell the true amount of oil or natural gas in ANWR without drilling.

That is false. Oil and natural gas leave a particular magnetic signature on the surface of the earth. Satalites can read this signature and estimate the EXACT volume of the oil in the ground.

Recovering that oil is a different story. In any oil field, it is impossible to get all of the oil out because of the granular cappilary action of the trapping medium. Different minerals and grains can speed up or slow down the process and can hold on to varying amounts of oil.

The USGS has taken drill core samples of ANWR and from this, coupled with satalite data, we know to a degree of 95% accuracy, how much recoverable oil is in ANWR.

Exploratory drilling is a thing of the past. Our geopetroleum models are way more efficient.

Right now we import about 60% of our oil at a price of around 50 billion plus. We must reduce that dependance. Now, DOI estimated that "in-place resources" range from 4.8 billion to 29.4 billion barrels of oil. 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). That amount of daily oil would do much for our dependance on foreign oil.

No it wouldn't. We use 7,305,000,000 barrels per year. All of ANWR's recoverable oil would give us .068% of that figure. Drilling ANWR would do almost nothing to reduce our dependence of foriegn oil.

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. (anwr.org) See the issue isn't a static dependance on foreign oil, but that we are sliding further and further into dependence. We must reverse that trend.

That is absolutely impossible. See the work of M. King Hubbert. The US peaked as an oil producing nation in 1971. Our production has declined ever since. This is due to the nature of oil fields and the granular cappilary action above. We will never EVER reach a point where our production could even possibly meet demand no matter how much we drill or how good our technology becomes. Our country is perhaps the most closely scrutinized country in the world when it comes to oil exploration. We know exactly where it all is...and it ain't ever going to be enough.

So the issue is dynamic in its problems and its soutions. ANWR is a big step in turning that trend around.

Not according to the actual numbers.

No one wants to use wildlife land, but we must do what is necessary to sustain our economy and the lifes of our citizens.

We don't need to use the refuge at all. This point has been made three times already. One mph saves 25 times the amount of oil than exists in all of ANWR.

ANWR may very well not contain enough oil to make much change, but we wont know that until exploratory drilling is done.

See above.

If it doesn't contain enough to make a big dent we move on and return the small bit of land we used to wildlife. Its a decision we must make, not one we like, but one we must be responsible about.

If we decide to drill, the operation will be there for more then 40 years. That is how long the field will produce...0.068% of our countries yearly demand. Its not worth breaking into a wildlife refuge.

Conservation is great, but it is not the final answer.

I think that it should be apparent by now that conservation is the only real answer that will make a difference in the short term and in the long term. The numbers are staggeringly in favor of it. The only real way to cut our dependence of foreign oil is to cut our demand of all oil.

 

[7starmantis]

That is false. Oil and natural gas leave a particular magnetic signature on the surface of the earth. Satalites can read this signature and estimate the EXACT volume of the oil in the ground.

Recovering that oil is a different story. In any oil field, it is impossible to get all of the oil out because of the granular cappilary action of the trapping medium. Different minerals and grains can speed up or slow down the process and can hold on to varying amounts of oil.

The USGS has taken drill core samples of ANWR and from this, coupled with satalite data, we know to a degree of 95% accuracy, how much recoverable oil is in ANWR.

So is it 95% or EXACT? IS it determined by geopetroleum models, and satellites or drill core samples? That’s my point, the data is scetchy at best with many contradictions. We can use many different available methods to find oil deposits but it is not possible to exactly measure the amount of oil or gas present without drilling. I’m not saying we can’t measure an estimated amount, but exact is simply not possible. There may be anywhere from over 4 billion to almost 30 billion recoverable barrels in this one area of ANWR with many other possible locations identified….plenty of reason to open these areas for exploration and drilling.

No it wouldn't. We use 7,305,000,000 barrels per year. All of ANWR's recoverable oil would give us .068% of that figure. Drilling ANWR would do almost nothing to reduce our dependence of foriegn oil.

Your stats are off. Your number is saying we recover less than 500 million barrels, that is lower than anyone’s lowest estimate of what is there. In fact it could be as high as 10 billion, way more than your posted percentages. If we add in other possible locations in the area that number could increase exponentially. The real statistic is what will it yield on a daily basis and for how long. That is what will cut dependence on foreign oil. Its not a static one time cache of oil. If it could yield just the amount that Prudhoe Bay did, that would be 25% of our daily production! That’s a huge step away from dependence on foreign oil. HUGE.

That is absolutely impossible. See the work of M. King Hubbert. The US peaked as an oil producing nation in 1971. Our production has declined ever since. This is due to the nature of oil fields and the granular cappilary action above. We will never EVER reach a point where our production could even possibly meet demand no matter how much we drill or how good our technology becomes. Our country is perhaps the most closely scrutinized country in the world when it comes to oil exploration. We know exactly where it all is...and it ain't ever going to be enough.

I’m not sure your point here. I said our production is declining. All I said was that drilling in ANWR would help lower our dependence on foreign oil while we address other possible solutions. You can’t simply plug your ears and ignore the positive affects of ANWR’s oil reserve. Its there, it will help, and we need it. Will it solve the problem, no of course not, I’ve said that this whole thread. However ,no one solution will solve this problem completely, not even trying to convince all of America to drive 1 mph slower every time they drive. You have to look at the implications and effects of proposed solutions. Look at what lowering the speed limit would do to other areas besides conservation of oil. Then look and see if its feasible. It’s a small piece of what other things done together could do.

We don't need to use the refuge at all. This point has been made three times already. One mph saves 25 times the amount of oil than exists in all of ANWR.

That’s yet to be proven especially with true numbers from ANWR. Sources on the amount of oil conserved with how many people would cut 1 mph off their driving would be amazing to see…yet impossible.

I think that it should be apparent by now that conservation is the only real answer that will make a difference in the short term and in the long term. The numbers are staggeringly in favor of it. The only real way to cut our dependence of foreign oil is to cut our demand of all oil.

I think it should be apparent by now that you are proposing impossible solutions to simply take the heat off of drilling in ANWR. Its simply not plausible to police making everyone drive 1 mph slower….we don’t even allow tickets to be written from that amount of speed because of the error level. At least we have been looking at many alternatives and are willing to accept many with drilling at ANWR. You seem so against drilling because of moral reasons that you ignore negative affects of your proposed solutions.

7sm

 

[michaeledward]

Its simply not plausible to police making everyone drive 1 mph slower….we don’t even allow tickets to be written from that amount of speed because of the error level.

I am wondering if any of the Law Enforcement Officials on this board would care to address this "don't even allow" comment?

 

[mrhnau]

I am wondering if any of the Law Enforcement Officials on this board would care to address this "don't even allow" comment?

Whens the last time you got a ticket for going 56 in a 55?

MrH

 

[michaeledward]

Rules which are bypartisen and beneficial to all, not rules that squelch freedom and target certain groups of people. Thats not American or constitutional. Wether its been done or not in the past is a moot point, it shouldn't be done. Raising tax on gas to $3 per gallon in order to make hummers and traffic jams go away and make everyone act in accordance with your wishes is simply not what tax or gevernment is for.

7sm

Why is this answer something other than rantings "I want, I want, I want"?

Please explain how a tax squelches freedom?

Please explain how a fuel tax targets certain groups of people?

The Constitution says that Congress has the authority to levy taxes, how are taxes unconstitutional?