Senate Approves Oil Drilling in ANWR

[mrhnau]

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

huh? isn't that kind of what both sides are doing?

Please explain how a tax squelches freedom?

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

both can be answered together. fuel targets many groups. you pay more for gas, so people who have to drive to work must pay more. you start targeting country people and favor city dwellers. you target people who buy products that must be delivered, since things cost more to deliver. if you have a job that involves road travel, you pay more. same with flight. You guys seem in favor of public transportation, which is another limit of freedom (at least in my opinion). You are confined to when the government thinks you should work. If work is running late, what do you do? if you are 2 minutes late for your bus, what do you do? you are constrained more than a car would provide.

does it directly squelch freedom? no, but indirectly by trying to push the public through certain pathways it favors (city living, not driving, public transportation, ect).

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

before ww2 I understand we had no standing federal tax except during times of war. We can do alot more with alot less if the government were efficient and we were allowed to keep more of our earning.

I think the silliest tax is social security. when it was installed, perhaps it was needed, but today? Taxes like this are almost impossible to get rid of though...

MrH

 

[Makalakumu]

I would like to point out before I start that I have a degree in geology.

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.

There are no contradictions and you have absolutely no idea what kind of data anyone is looking at. 95% accuracy refers to the amount of recoverable oil. This is always dicey because alot more can go wrong then can go right. Usually, the amount of recoverable oil is much less because of Murphy's Law.

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.

This is absolutely positively false. Our petroleum exploration models are very hi tech and are extremely accurate. We've got the world mapped by satalite. Exploration is looking for recoverable oil.

I’m not saying we can’t measure an estimated amount, but exact is simply not possible.

Oil deposits are detectable from space because they change certain geomagnetic signatures. If the signals are strong, they indicate oil deposits of a certain depth. The volume of a deposit can be calculated exactly by taking many readings.

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.

It was estimated with 95% accuracy that 10.6 billion barrels of oil could be recovered from ANWR. This is a good bet. The thing that you don't understand is that this oil will not all come out in one year. It will come out very slowly. Perhaps a million barrels per day. Maybe 500 million barrels per year. We use 7,305,000,000 billion barrels per year. You need to understand the time scale involved.

Your stats are off.

Your understanding of my stats is off. You have to understand the time scales involved. In physics we call this messing up our units.

The real statistic is what will it yield on a daily basis and for how long.

This is absolutely correct and my statistics take this time scale into account. Pay attention to the units of time.

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.

There is a reason ANWR was designated as a wilderness area and Prudhoe Bay wasn't. We already knew that there was more oil in the Prudhoe Bay fields. We know how much oil is in ANWR down to the barrel, we don't know exactly how much we can get out, but 95% is a darn good guess. I'd take that bet any day.

I’m not sure your point here. I said our production is declining.

And then you said that we could halt that by drilling...which is false.

All I said was that drilling in ANWR would help lower our dependence on foreign oil while we address other possible solutions.

It will take years to get ANWR up and running and by that time our demand could rise making the amount of oil that ANWR could produce even more insignificant. The .068% of our yearly need is only going to get less and less. We need to cut our demand, bottom line.

You can’t simply plug your ears and ignore the positive affects of ANWR’s oil reserve.

I'm not plugging my ears, I'm looking at the numbers and looking at this realistically. Drilling in ANWR won't even put a dent in our yearly need. We will see no reduction in gasoline prices and the world market for oil will totally absorb every drop without so much as a burp.

Its there, it will help, and we need it.

This is the only factually true statement you've said in the last few posts. A little oil is there. It will help...a little. And we do need oil. The question is whether or not drilling in a wildlife refuge is worth it. According to the numbers, its not.

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.

We already know this works. The national speed limit used to be 55. We changed this in response to the oil shocks of the 70s.

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.

If one lowered the speed limit by five mph, statistically, enough drivers would slow down that hitting the one mph goal is entirely possible.

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.

What possible negative effects could there be if we lowered the nationals speed limit by 5 mph. Oh yeah, we'd put some EMTs out of work because they'd have to respond to fewer crashes...

 

[Makalakumu]

This is the USGS's own table on the matter. Check it out, its very informative. Pay close attention to the rise in cost as ANWR is produced. Pay close attention where points on the y axis correspond to points on the x.

F - 95 is an estimate with 95% accuracy.

F - 05 is an estimate with 05% accuracy.

This graphs beautifully illustrates M. King Hubbert's principle of Peak Oil, btw.

 

[7starmantis]

I would like to point out before I start that I have a degree in geology.

Um...congradulations, I think?

There are no contradictions and you have absolutely no idea what kind of data anyone is looking at. 95% accuracy refers to the amount of recoverable oil. This is always dicey because alot more can go wrong then can go right. Usually, the amount of recoverable oil is much less because of Murphy's Law.

First of all, lets lay the attitude down and discuss rationally. Attacking my understanding of data is ad hominem and irrelevent to the discussion. 95% is still not an exact number, sorry its the simple truth. Also, please post the sources for your numbenrs of 95% accuracy at 10.6 billion barrels. Thats exactly what we are talking about, recoverable oil and gas. We agree here, there is no exact measure of recoverable oil in ANWR.

This is absolutely positively false. Our petroleum exploration models are very hi tech and are extremely accurate. We've got the world mapped by satalite. Exploration is looking for recoverable oil.

Your trying to pass off "very hi tech and extremely accurate" as "exact measurments". Those are not the same thing, no one has made verifiable claims of exactly the amount of oil or gas in ANWR or the amount we can recover, at best everything so far is educated estimates. Are they precise, yes, but exact...sorry, no. Regardless, the exactness of satelites ot measure oil is not the issue or topic here, drilling in ANWR is, and through your best efforts we all still agree that there is a large amount of oil in ANWR and it would help to drill it.

It was estimated with 95% accuracy that 10.6 billion barrels of oil could be recovered from ANWR. This is a good bet. The thing that you don't understand is that this oil will not all come out in one year. It will come out very slowly. Perhaps a million barrels per day. Maybe 500 million barrels per year. We use 7,305,000,000 billion barrels per year. You need to understand the time scale involved.

That was exactly my point. If it yielded just 1.5 million barrels a day, that would be approximately 25% of our domestic production. Your saying that wouldn't help if kept all domestic? Thats absurd...you have allready said it would help so what the point in this arguement now? Is it based on not wanting to break our commitment to our children? If so, say so, dont try to convolute fuzzy math to try and downplay the benefit of drilling ANWR. Remember, every little bit of domsestic production kept domestic will help. This is the exact reason I've been saying over and over and over that we must address many different options at the same time! You have offered one solution...not responsible to put all our "eggs in one basket".

It will take years to get ANWR up and running and by that time our demand could rise making the amount of oil that ANWR could produce even more insignificant. The .068% of our yearly need is only going to get less and less. We need to cut our demand, bottom line.

Again, the reason for my saying (many times) we must use several approaches to this problem.

What possible negative effects could there be if we lowered the nationals speed limit by 5 mph. Oh yeah, we'd put some EMTs out of work because they'd have to respond to fewer crashes...

Well, lets look at the possibility of the positive effects you claim...

Report No. FHWA-RD-92-084 October 1992

U.S. Department of Transportation Research, Development, and Technology
Federal Highway Administration Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center
6300 Georgetown Pike

The objectives of this research was to determine the effects of raising and lowering posted speed limits on driver behavior and accidents for non-limited access rural and urban highways. Speed and accident data were collected in 22 States at 100 sites before and after speed limits were altered. Before and after data were also collected simultaneously at comparison sites where speed limits were not changed to control for the time trends. Repeated measurements were made at 14 sites to examine short - and long-term effects of speed limit changes.
The results of the study indicated that lowering posted speed limits by as much as 20 mi/h (32 km/h), or raising speed limits by as much as 15 mi/h (24 km/h) had little effect on motorist' speed. The majority of motorist did not drive 5 mi/h (8 km/h) above the posted speed limits when speed limits were raised, nor did they reduce their speed by 5 or 10 mi/h (8 or 16 km/h) when speed limits are lowered. Data collected at the study sites indicated that the majority of speed limits are posed below the average speed of traffic. Lowering speed limits below the 50th percentile does not reduce accidents, but does significantly increase driver violations of the speed limit. Conversely, raising the posted speed limits did not increase speeds or accidents.

McLean, Virginia 22101-2296

Not a valid option....lets try again, eh?

7sm

 

[Marginal]

Well now that we've established posting any speed limit is futile because everyone drives whatever speed they feel like anyway...

 

[Makalakumu]

My sources for my numbers is the 1998 USGS report on ANWR. Please check that graph. Also, please note what happens to the price of that oil once it begins to be extracted. I will still say, based on the numbers, that the amount of oil in ANWR is absolutely insignificant based on our yearly need. Fuzzy math...nope, its just division.

Sounds like the speed limit issue is an enforcement problem. Are you going to argue aren't doing their jobs? Are you going to argue against hiring more cops? Go for it...

All we need to do is lower the speed limit enough so that statistically, we drop the overall speed 1 mph and we save 25 times the amount. Hell, if we drop the limit and we lower it by .5 mph we save 12.5 times. If we statistically drop it .2 mph we save 5 times. This goal, IMO, is not out of reach.

My comittment to wilderness, in the case of ANWR, costs me .017 cents. My god, what a sacrifice. Can you imagine if everyone were so lax with their comittments as to break them for the slightest...and I really do mean and have shown it is the slightest!...inconvenience. What kind of people have American's become when we are so greedy that we would break any comittment for .017 cent change in our gas prices. Much less one to wilderness and our children.

Because that is all the effect that either you or I will ever "see" from ANWR. There never was enough oil in that region to make a difference. That is why we set the land aside in the first place.

 

[mrhnau]

I love seeing innovations such as this. With solutions like this in place, the oil we have will last longer! As 7SM has pointed out, its a multi-prong approach. We need to attack the problem from many angles. This is one possible way I just read about This would help ANWR oil last much longer.

MrH

 

[Makalakumu]

I love seeing innovations such as this. With solutions like this in place, the oil we have will last longer! As 7SM has pointed out, its a multi-prong approach. We need to attack the problem from many angles. This is one possible way I just read about This would help ANWR oil last much longer.

MrH

Couldn't innovations like this be used to preserve wilderness areas? Just because there is a little oil there, doesn't mean we need to drill. Also, why couldn't we invest in these kinds of technology so that we can minimize our need for carbon based energy? Like I said, earlier, oil is used for lots of different things. Plastics, for one. Why not wait wait 25 or 30 years to debate this...saving it for a day when we not going to burn up everything we pump. At least if we do that, we can recycle what we make of it.

 

[mrhnau]

Couldn't innovations like this be used to preserve wilderness areas? Just because there is a little oil there, doesn't mean we need to drill. Also, why couldn't we invest in these kinds of technology so that we can minimize our need for carbon based energy? Like I said, earlier, oil is used for lots of different things. Plastics, for one. Why not wait wait 25 or 30 years to debate this...saving it for a day when we not going to burn up everything we pump. At least if we do that, we can recycle what we make of it.

I'm all for alt-energies, I'd love to see them employed as soon as possible. What me and 7sm have been discussing is that ANWR represents a resource. We are not going to run out of our need for oil. Until we can get a fleet out with hydrogen/fuel cells, we will still need oil. Until we can minimize our demands, we still need a secure supply. ANWR is such a secure supply. its one part of the energy equation. There are many parts, and all parts should be considered. I'd not be a fan of being dependant of Venezuala, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran if we can at least offset part of their input by exploring ANWR.

It would be nice to wait 25 years, but in 25 years, you will still bring up the same arguements, still wanting that frozen waste land preserved. Sure, we can wait, but in the mean time we have dependancies on countries I'd prefer to not be dependant on... God forbid we scale a major world war, or Saudi gets upset and stops the flow. God forbid some of the middle eastern reserves dry up and we are 4 years out from pumping our own resources.

MrH

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm all for alt-energies, I'd love to see them employed as soon as possible. What me and 7sm have been discussing is that ANWR represents a resource. We are not going to run out of our need for oil. Until we can get a fleet out with hydrogen/fuel cells, we will still need oil. Until we can minimize our demands, we still need a secure supply. ANWR is such a secure supply. its one part of the energy equation. There are many parts, and all parts should be considered. I'd not be a fan of being dependant of Venezuala, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran if we can at least offset part of their input by exploring ANWR.

It will take years to get the operation up and running. During that time, we could take conservation measures that save exponentially more oil. Heck, if the president got on the TV and told American's once a week to conserve, in one year, we'd save more oil then we would get from ANWR.

ANWR's oil will have a negligable impact on the global market. It won't reduce our dependence on foriegn oil by even a tenth of a percent. The global market will gulp it down without even a burp and we'll see absolutely no change in the market value.

The only real reason to drill there is becauses its there...and that same argument could be made in regards to a great many other areas that were set aside as wilderness preserves. And THAT is the agenda behind this push to drill in ANWR. All the other reasons, if you look at the numbers, are nothing but a smokescreen.

It would be nice to wait 25 years, but in 25 years, you will still bring up the same arguements, still wanting that frozen waste land preserved.

Possibly. Times change though. Maybe new technology would be invented that would make oil based products obsolete. If not, then very low impact drilling may be an option. Right now, the need isn't there and the benefits of doing this are hardly even measurable.

Sure, we can wait, but in the mean time we have dependancies on countries I'd prefer to not be dependant on... God forbid we scale a major world war, or Saudi gets upset and stops the flow. God forbid some of the middle eastern reserves dry up and we are 4 years out from pumping our own resources.

Drilling in ANWR will not prevent a war over oil. The oil in ANWR isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to the reserves in Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Iran. If a war occurs, it will be because we did not take the steps that were needed to conserve and to convert to other sources of energy fast enough.

Check a the book "Resource Wars" by Michael Klaar. In the next forty years, someone will fight over the worlds remaining oil.

 

[mrhnau]

Check a the book "Resource Wars" by Michael Klaar. In the next forty years, someone will fight over the worlds remaining oil.

Yeah, I saw that. Its called Mad Max hehehe

seriously though, it might be less than 40 years.

 

[7starmantis]

It will take years to get the operation up and running. During that time, we could take conservation measures that save exponentially more oil. Heck, if the president got on the TV and told American's once a week to conserve, in one year, we'd save more oil then we would get from ANWR.

Ok, first I'm all for conservation measures even during the time we are drilling in ANWR. This will act to even increase the affect ANWR's oil would have on our dependence. Your looking at dynamic data in a static way, things do change, and conserving is a major role as is drilling more domestic oil.

You seriously going to tell me now that after the amount of "bush hating" we have seen on this single thread alone (not to mention the many others) you seriously think the President telling everyone to conserve once a week is going to have any impact on individuals actions at all? C'mon, we can't have both sides of the coin here.

Possibly. Times change though. Maybe new technology would be invented that would make oil based products obsolete. If not, then very low impact drilling may be an option. Right now, the need isn't there and the benefits of doing this are hardly even measurable.

I'm not comfortable resting the future of our so beloved children on hopes and maybes. We cannot put off till tomorow what we need today. Lets bite the bullet, get this domestic oil production up (ANWR alone could increase it by 25%), apply conservation methods and address alternate fuel sources. That course of action would have much more affect on our future than hoping for better technology, hoping for something to make oil obsolete, or trying to make everyone in America drive 1 mph slower everywhere they drive. If we do what needs to be done today, tomorrow will be much easier to handle.

7sm

 

[Makalakumu]

Yeah, I saw that. Its called Mad Max hehehe

seriously though, it might be less than 40 years.

Yeah, like right now.

 

[Makalakumu]

(ANWR alone could increase it by 25%)

This is probably not going to happen. Look at the graph I posted above.

 

[michaeledward]

You seriously going to tell me now that after the amount of "bush hating" we have seen on this single thread alone

Man, you sure love this argument.

When ever someone suggests 'conserving' something, you argue: 'You Hate Bush - You Hate Bush'.

upnorthkyoso is arguing GEOLOGY.

I have been arguing taxation to modify behavior.

'You Hate Bush - You Hate Bush'.

Anyone who suggests a policy in conflict with what the president wants, there goes the 7starmantis rallying cry

'You Hate Bush - You Hate Bush'.

Doesn't matter that it was a Republican Congressman that removed ANWR drilling from a budget bill? (Why the hell was it attached to a budget bill anyhow?).

'You Hate Bush - You Hate Bush'.

Doesn't matter that it is the most popular Republican Senator decrying United States santioned Torture.

'You Hate Bush - You Hate Bush'.


Sycophant!

 

[7starmantis]

This is probably not going to happen. Look at the graph I posted above.

"Probably" isn't enough in my opinion.

Man, you sure love this argument.

When ever someone suggests 'conserving' something, you argue: 'You Hate Bush - You Hate Bush'.

Come back to reality, I didn't say Upnorth hated bush, I said with the amount of "Bush hating" what he proposed was unlikely. You really should read posts more carefully before running off on a tangent that makes you look foolish.
Second, I'm not the one using that arguement at all in any of these threads I'm involved in...again, read posts a litle more carefully before jumping to conclusions.

7sm

 

[Makalakumu]

"Probably" isn't enough in my opinion.

Well, 95% probably is good enough for most people...including the senators and congressmen who took the provision out of the budget bill authorizing the drilling.

Here is another aspect of geology that argues against drilling. Production of oil out of a field follows a bell curve.

Stage One. The first half of the oil removed is relatively easy. Oil is less dense the the surrounding rock and there is some pressure that will drive the oil out of the well for a while. This is what we call a gusher. After a short while, cappilary pressure equalizes the density difference and no oil comes out. About 10 % of the oil comes out like this. Then it must be pumped.

Stage Two. Pumping is a bad word to describe what is done. Pushing is a better term, because water is forced down into the oil field. Immiscability of the oil and the gradual filling of the granular spaces with water forces a little more oil out of the ground. Up to 50% may be removed with this method.

Stage Three. High explosives are lowered into old shafts and detonated in order to stir the remaining oil. Huge amounts of water are pumped into the trap in order to force out the oil. Up to 10 to 15% of the oil can be removed this way.

Stage one represents the first part of the bell curve. Production rises smoothly for a time. Stage two represents a gradual slowing down of production until it rises to a peak in production that represents the 50% percentile. After the 50% percentile has been reached, oil becomes increasingly hard to get out of the ground and the expense of the operation rises exponentially. It is absolutely impossible to get all of the oil out of the trap and any mistake made in stage two or three will ensure that even less oil is recoverable from the trap. Mistakes in stage two are easy to make because drill cores don't reveal the entire sediment structure of the trap. If too much water is pumped into the trap, this can compress the medium and actually trap the oil. In stage three, if too much explosives are used, the same thing can occur. Petroleum geologists call this overproduction.

What does all of this mean in regards to the amount of oil we'll get out of ANWR?

Simple. We will get one year of maximum production that may make a tiny dent in the amount of oil we produce domestically. In the years leading up to the peak and the years after the peak, there will be exponentially less oil coming out of the traps...in other words not enough to make a difference. Of course, none of this really will make a difference anyway because the total amount of oil our country uses is so incredibly huge.

In 1971, the entire US peaked as an oil producing state. Production across our country will continue to fall until it becomes too expensive to produce oil domestically (yet our demand continues to rise exponentially). Because of the geology above, we will never ever be able to drill ourselves out of this debt. There are no deposits of oil in the US that will make any difference in the short term or the long term. If we invest in it, it is lost money....which explains why oil companies are so loath to spend any new money at all in the US (there hasn't been a new refinery in 30 years) and why they want the government to front the money for ANWR. Therefore, our only real option when it comes to reducing our dependence on foriegn oil is to cut demand.

 

[Flatlander]

MOD NOTE:

Please refrain from personal comments.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Senior Mod-

 

[7starmantis]

The facts are here, we just have to look at them.

This thread is really just becoming a "Yes it is" vs "No its not" argument. Its been shown in this thread that:

1) We are way too dependent on foreign oil
2) There is oil in ANWR that will make a difference (could be 25% of domestic production)
3) We need to produce more oil domestically for now
4) We need to address conservation methods
5) We need to address alternative fuels
6) Opening of ANWR for oil and gas exploration would help our dependance issue
7) No one solution is going to fix the problem, we must hit it from many angles.

7sm

 

[mrhnau]

The facts are here, we just have to look at them.

This thread is really just becoming a "Yes it is" vs "No its not" argument. Its been shown in this thread that:

1) We are way too dependent on foreign oil
2) There is oil in ANWR that will make a difference (could be 25% of domestic production)
3) We need to produce more oil domestically for now
4) We need to address conservation methods
5) We need to address alternative fuels
6) Opening of ANWR for oil and gas exploration would help our dependance issue
7) No one solution is going to fix the problem, we must hit it from many angles.

7sm

Well stated. Concise and to the point.