Printable View
Goody. Instead of tackling the problem of our insatiable need for oil head-on and try, really try, to develop alternate forms of energy, we opt to drill in an area that might have a lot of oil. Even if the wildest expectation are met, the amount of oil we are talking about here is but a drop in the vast bucket of oil that Americans consume over the years.
What bugs me about ANWR is not that it would damage the environment. From what I've seen, the impact would be relatively minimal, so drill away; we can always use the extra capacity. The problem I have is that the Bush administration keeps touting it as some grand solution to our oil shortage problem. It will take years to come online and even then it will barely make an impact on consumption.
Go ahead and drill it, but please don't tell us it's going to make much of a difference.
The State of Alaska recently rescinded oil leases for parcels immediately adjacent to ANWR because the compaines had not developed plans to extract the oil. The companies said it currently wasnt economic to remove the oil, which is in essentially the same condition as the oil in ANWR.
This isnt about the need for more oil, this is about beating environmentalism. Hard core developmental extremists know that if they can drill for oil in ANWR they can get away with anything. ANWR is purely symbolic.
ichi:bow:
Yep, the big oil companies have been lobbying nonstop on this for at least 2 decades. I can still remember them showing their propaganda videos every chance they had at university campus functions nearly 20 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lehesu
This is in the category of "wishful thinking quick fixes." Too many folks don't want to confront reality, and the GOP has really been playing to this. Politics in general will pander to the lowest common denominator. It takes a real leader to rise above that and get people to understand that the quick fix is not going to work. Sadly, real leaders haven't been emerging.
I say keep that oil in the ground as a strategic reserve. It's value to the nation is rising much faster than inflation. Pump Venezuela's oil, pump the Saudi's, etc. but keep ours in reserve, because we will need it.
I was talking with someone who's worked on Alaska's North Slope (near ANWR), and he said that caribou populations have benefited from the oil pipelines, since birthing mothers can huddle close to the warm pipelines.
Not to mention that in summer the whole place is a huge swamp with great swarms of misquitos.
So drilling would not cause any detrimental environmental impact, and having more oil couldn't hurt.
Crazed rabbit
Can't hurt - in the short run.
It might drive down oil prices, making the long run worse.
I'm going to have to agree with TinCow on this.
Problem is, it does have environmental reprecussions. Does anyone believe, for even a second, that big oil is just going to tip-toe through the area, gently caress the oil out of the ground and than leave with nary a trace? This is a free-market with little govt regulation on such activities and so the bottom line determines the process. Anybody who has compared the before-after of Alaskan oil zones will agree that there is a difference. And, in addition, the oil up there has to be refined even further beyond normal practices. Not only is the oil amount insufficient to put a dent in our usage, but the oil itself is more expensive to make available to the market.
Also, we say we want to drill in order to lower oil prices. What companies in Alaska have done in the past is actually take the oil and sell it abroad, to nations like Japan, to get top dollar. Unless there is some kind of regulation, I doubt America will be seeing 100% of the ANWR oil.
Need refineries. Its the lack of refineries that's making gas prices go up. Drilling there isn't going to hurt anything, but we nned to focus on making more refineries than drilling.
I dont buy that- simple economics would suggest that if it's not cost effective to extract, companies wouldnt go to the trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lehesu
That's the way oil markets work. Oil, no matter where its produced, is going to go to the highest bidder. Regardless, more oil in the market will have a positive effect on prices.Quote:
Also, we say we want to drill in order to lower oil prices. What companies in Alaska have done in the past is actually take the oil and sell it abroad, to nations like Japan, to get top dollar. Unless there is some kind of regulation, I doubt America will be seeing 100% of the ANWR oil.
No, drilling in ANWR isnt a panacea and it will yield no near term results. However, pointing out that it won't help in the short term is a pathetic argument against drilling- If we had been drilling for all the years people were moaning about how it would take 10yrs to benefit.... Guess what? We'd be benefitting by now.
I'm sorry, but what proof do you have that the environment has been tainted in the 30 years that the North slope has been being drilled? Is Prudoe Bay a hell hole? Why are the Native tribes inclined to support opening up ANWAR? Do they like living in this hell hole? The gloom and doom predicted for 4 decades has been non forthcoming...so now we should believe that moving down the coast will FINALLY fulfill the enviromentalist nightmare? Maybe, but history at this point in time is against them, not big-oil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lehesu
Not developing this resource only hurts us.
The best argument against it is the long term impact and long term economics. Better to start transitioning the country now. Every barrel you conserve today is a barrel you have available later. If Dubya had understood that in 2000/2001, we could already be benefitting. Instead we got the infamous, "conservation is not the answer" comment. ~:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
When it comes to the economy, it makes a lot more sense to stay on the leading edge of long term trends, than on the trailing edge. Trailing edge is what 3rd world nations do. Leading edge is what we used to do.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. We shouldnt produce more oil because we're still going to run out.... eventually. ~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Well we can just can all of the hot air generated by politicians - and the world will have an unlimited new source of power. ~:eek: ~:joker:
Do you know, technically, Vegitable Oil can be used to create fuel? It's more expensive then regular oil, but it's none of this far-flung pathetic hybrid crap. Our debate team coach taught me that.
Made sense unless ones view is terminally shortsighted. ~:rolleyes: It's the idea of saving for a rainy day...one that you know is coming. And in the meantime doing what NEEDS TO BE DONE ANYWAY to be competitive and stay competitive. It's not like energy efficiency would destroy our economy, quite the opposite. And saving our own reserves while pumping someone else's makes very good sense strategically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
If you can't understand the idea of conservation, I guess you are of the mentality of emptying the old bank account rather than trying to live within your means.
"Oh my God! I'm going broke because I'm spending too much each month!"
"Only one answer I guess, it is time for another credit card." ~:rolleyes:
What is the underlying issue over oil? We, as a nation, are over-dependent on a resource that is becoming increasingly rare; over a resource that is controlled by a cartel that can exert undue influence upon our nation. What is the solution to solving this problem? Is it to continue paying top dollar and scrabble to grab every last resource on the homefront? Or is it to actually try, really try, to develop an alternate source of energy and to establish a gradual switchover plan?
Also, if the goal of opening ANWR is to relieve the fuel pinch on everyday Americans (not always a safe assumption, given how the wheels of capitalism turn), would it not make sense to heavily regulate such a venture to ensure that the oil does, in fact, make it to the American people?
Even ignoring the environmental side of the issue (which does exist, I assure you), the economic considerations point towards a bill that will help line Big Oil's pockets more than it helps the American people. As it has been said, drilling does not speed up the refining process, and the government sure as hell isn't forcing refineries to be built.
The solution has been found ~;)
Cars may now run on coconut oil
Quote:
It might sound nuts, but two engineering students in New Zealand claim that coconut oil can be used as an alternative to diesel, providing a possible answer to rising fuel cost woes.
Samoan Dominic Schwalger and Penaia Rogoiumari from Fiji, both students at Auckland University in northern New Zealand, demonstrated on Friday how a diesel engine can run on a blend of diesel and coconut oil, or on pure coconut oil alone.
"What we have shown is that without any modification to either the pure oil or the engine you can use it as an alternative fuel,'' they said in a statement released by the university. The budding engineers said they have analysed engine performance and exhaust emissions as part of their research.
Their findings could help reduce fuel prices, especially in southern Asia and the Pacific Islands where coconuts are cheaply grown and plentiful.
Schwalger said producing coconut oil for use in standard diesel engines is a simple process, unlike some bio-diesels, which require complex equipment and chemical reactions.
"The combination of a ready supply of coconuts, rising fuel prices and ease of manufacture makes this a real option for villagers who need to run equipment like generators or boat engines,'' Rogoiumari said.
No, it makes no sense- period. Maybe it's not shortsighted vision, but none at all that is the problem? You're saying that instead of drilling, we should save the oil for a "rainy day" and meanwhile make a painful, forced switch to alternative fuels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Ah-duh, then why do we need to save the oil? We won't be using it anymore. ~;p
I understand what you are saying, Xiahou, but what I think RedHarvest is saying (and I am sure he will correct me if I butcher it) is that the entire idea of just drilling for more oil because oil is becoming scarce is just foolish in the long-term. This approach would be okay if we somehow decided to reduce our consumption of oil or set a clear timetable on oil's role in our developing future.
What is frustrating, however, is that we have made no effort to reduce consumption of a resource that we know, for a fact, will become increasingly scarce (and expensive). Like a terrified ostrich, we just stick our heads (or drills) in the ground and carry on "as-is". The entire approach is just not conducive towards a long-term fix and is a response more typical to a third-world nation that has no other economic means to change, nor enough foresight to even care. America, on the other hand, surely has the resources and capabilities to solve the oil problem, but we continue to balk.
And when it becomes not cost effective anymore we will switch to something else and not until then. You all seem to think that one day soon we will run out of oil and the world will come to a stop. Its not gonna happen.Quote:
What is frustrating, however, is that we have made no effort to reduce consumption of a resource that we know, for a fact, will become increasingly scarce (and expensive). Like a terrified ostrich, we just stick our heads (or drills) in the ground and carry on "as-is".
One of the few times I agree with you my friend.:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
It is a national security strategic imperative.
I said nothing about alternative fuels. That's your own spin hitting you in the tail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
This shows how polar opposite we are in thinking. I think long term, you appear to be thinking short with little consideration of the consequences. I cut to the chase of where we need to be long term and try to figure out how to get there. You focus on today's consumption.
Let's try a quick calc and see if you can see my point:
We will start with the growing consumption case and look at five years. Start with a base of 100 add 2 a year (close to the energy consumption inflation rate for the U.S. over the past several decades.) The conservation case will start with 100 then, conserve 1 additional per year for 5 years.
Case 1:
Year 0 = 100
Year 1 = 102
Year 2 = 104
Year 3 = 106
Year 4 = 108
Year 5 = 110
5 Year Total = 530
Case 2:
Year 1 = 99
Year 2 = 98
Year 3 = 97
Year 4 = 96
Year 5 = 95
5 Year Total = 485
Difference = 45 over the time span.
Annual difference in year 5 = 15 units
If you have say 1000 units total available of a resource...who is going to get in a bind first? Who is going to end up paying more for energy sooner?
Trying to drill at an increasing rate on a declining resource, while using more every year is stuck on stupid. It sets us up for a major crisis, with no net. That is playing right into the "peak oil" melt down scenario.
P.S.
And another question...if there is so much undiscovered oil out there just waiting to be had...why have we been focused on that single patch for decades? :uhoh:
Using this logic we were wrong to start drilling in the first place.~D We should have stuck with horses. But then of course polution would be much worse. I see little reason to worry we will ever run out of oil. I bet people in the 1700s couldnt imagine living without horses. Oil will run its course one day and be replaced by something else. But not until the market calls for it. They will be talking about the old days when people used petroleum products.Quote:
Trying to drill at an increasing rate on a declining resource, while using more every year is stuck on stupid. It sets us up for a major crisis, with no net. That is playing right into the "peak oil" melt down scenario.
Speaking as some one who works now in the oil industry, theres no major benefit or loss from doing this. In the short term it won't really do anything, in the long term the gasoline and petrochemical production capacity we have from our global stored resources is massive - coal, biological sources (what we also call plants ~;) ) and previously non-viable forms of oil or sources will take up the load as conventionally sourced oil runs out. High oil prices are not a harbinger of doom - the higher the price you pay, the more viable oil in the world and the more will be extracted in the short term; and if it stays high long enough (come on China, burn the gas!) then coal and biological sources will come into play as things like the SASOL technique get employed.
The "peak oil" theory is bollocks because its peak current source fuel not peak total global hydrocarbon reserves - we may peak in current oil sources but we can still maintain global supply - its just a matter of utilising different sources (and thats starting to come around, although slower than I'd like).
Lets use the North Sea as an example of the current oil industry (off the North east british coast): reserves that previously were unviable and not considered are now being exploited, and the extent to which we recover oil is now massively more than when the fields were opened. As a result the reserves available in the north sea are still sufficient for years more extraction (albeit at a reduced rate compared to a few years ago when it peaked). Oil from remote fields, greater recovery from exploited fields, and even new platforms being planned - all due to higher oil prices. And this is in one of the most intensively worked regions in the global oil industry today.
I'm not saying its a good thing for us to be burning fuel without thought btw- I like the environment, I save energy consistently, and I've no respect for those who waste it needlessly. But unfortunately it looks as though that behaviour is still sustainable (As ugly as it is) for several decades to come. In which time we might finally have a realistic alternative...
A final point: to date virtually all currently exploited oil reserves are in particular types of rock structure, which were assumed to be the only ones with any in as it was thought that oil was formed from plants degrading millions of years ago. I recently read a report of an alternative theory in the IChemE's member magazine that suggested a much larger microbial element was involved in making oil, and so that other rock structures might contain massive reserves previously unsuspected. The first test of this was successful and found oil where conventional theory says there should be none...
That´s great!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Global warming will soon allow us to grow coconuts everywhere!~:cheers:
ichi, this isnt entirely true, the fact that the oil companies wouldnt extract had nothing to do with the quality of the oil, but rather the quantity there was not enough oil beneath us to cost justify extraction.. the big fields unfortunately lye within anwr.. they were to far away from us to get their with directional drilling, we kept ending up beneath the big fields that we believe are their..Quote:
The State of Alaska recently rescinded oil leases for parcels immediately adjacent to ANWR because the compaines had not developed plans to extract the oil. The companies said it currently wasnt economic to remove the oil, which is in essentially the same condition as the oil in ANWR.
now i will state i am strongly in favor of opening anwr for two main reasons,
first is it would be an economic boom for my state, i live and work in alaska, mor precisely i live in anchorage, and i work in prudhoe bay... it would create thousands of high paying jobs for my fellow alaskans, which in turn would create thousands more jobs based of their income they spend in their home towns...
secondly dont think of anwr as a new source of oil, think of it as a replacement for prudhoe bay, for the last twenty years prudhoe has supplied 20 to 25 percent of this nations domestic oil needs, that isnt oil sold overseas thats oil which is supplied directly to the us, which btw is like a 90/10 ratio, 90% of the oil we produce goes to domestic use, the only countries really interested in alaskan crude are japan, korea, and china. only because it is cheaper in the long run, despite the extra refining it needs because of transportation costs, we are closer to them than the middle east..
back on subject, prudhoe bay is running out of oil, the pipeline is only running at about 75% of maximum capacity, they are pumping everything they pull out of the ground right now, straight down to valdez, within in ten years pumping of crude out of prudhoe will cease barring any new technologies which will help us with more efficient extraction. that said any oil finds in anwr will take us approx 5 - 7 years to get it to maximum production capacity.
Couple of problems with this reasoning. There was supposed to be all sorts of oil available by the time we hit $50/bbl. Yet we crossed that and kept on going. This wonderful reserve at higher prices isn't really there, not in a reasonable price range. When prices went higher, the sticks moved...suddenly the $50/bbl reserves needed $75/bbl *sustained* to be viable. This exposes everyone to wild price spikes from localized events.Quote:
Originally Posted by 71-hour Ahmed
The lighter crudes are running out. They've already hit their peak and have been in decline. And guess what? The heavier stocks have not been keeping up all that well. There are growing concerns about how to keep growing production in the Saudi fields.
And yet "peak oil" is not called "peak total global hydrocarbon reserves." You've just used an erroneous basis for rejecting it.Quote:
The "peak oil" theory is bollocks because its peak current source fuel not peak total global hydrocarbon reserves - we may peak in current oil sources but we can still maintain global supply - its just a matter of utilising different sources (and thats starting to come around, although slower than I'd like).
As for SASOL, they definitely aren't the only game in town. What I've seen of coal gasification first hand tells me industry is going to be godawful slow to make any switch. They lack any vision of where they need to be in 10 years. The technical hurdles for complete conversion are large since the whole product suite differs. This means you have to line up users for all the streams.
R&D was completely gutted early on in the drive for "greater productivity" since the industries were seen as mature commodities (which was accurate.) The folks left in the industry are "guardian" style managers, trying to police a stagnant system. Create and innovate are not part of their mindset nor abilities. Nor do they have the technical resources to do it even if they were of that bent--the labs, pilot plants and technical folks with decades of experience are gone. In most cases, the work has to begin from scratch with novices. In summary, the fundamental changes in the downstream industries have positioned them poorly for just the sort of long term challenge they now face.
The real problem is the massive change (investment, infrastructure, and time) from the source all the way to the consumer to make this transition. Everyone seems to be sitting around, resting on their laurels, assuming this is going to be no big deal. Yet the very organizations who used to make such things happen are no longer there. I've been in the R&D HQ's of several of the majors and worked on projects with them. They have been gutted from an R&D standpoint. They can't do what they did 30 years ago or 20 or even 10.
Blind faith in the intangible market. The market isn't going to call for it. The depleted resource will call for it, regardless of what the "market" wants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
The basis has gigantic flaws:
1. Horses didn't become secondary and decline because we ran out or were able to produce fewer and fewer at skyrocketing cost each year. It wasn't "scarcity."
2. Horses were replaced over a long time frame, close to 100 years if you consider how many horses were still being used in WWII for transport. This began with coal, then went to gasoline.
3. Horses were replaced with a more efficient, more economical resource...oil does not have readily available replacements that fit the same billing.
4. Part of what we are talking about now is reversion *back* to more coal...a 19th century transportation mainstay.
Exactly they were replaced because we found something better. Maybe I shoild have used Whales as an example. We have better things than gasoline now but at this point their more expensive. When that is no longer the case we will switch.Quote:
1. Horses didn't become secondary and decline because we ran out or were able to produce fewer and fewer at skyrocketing cost each year. It wasn't "scarcity."
And the same will happen with petrol. Its already been how long now weve been developing alternatives?Quote:
Horses were replaced over a long time frame, close to 100 years if you consider how many horses were still being used in WWII for transport. This began with coal, then went to gasoline.
You keep proving my point. When the overall cost of oil exceeds that of alternatives we will switch and not until then.Quote:
Horses were replaced with a more efficient, more economical resource...oil does not have readily available replacements that fit the same billing.
Nice spin, but wrong. You tried to create your case on advancing naturally. But this one with oil isn't. Something better/more economical has not really been found. Instead it is getting harder and harder to get to enough of it to keep up with growing demand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
And nothing of substance has been implemented. There has been no clear progression to a newer better source that meets the needs. That's the rub. We are looking at going *backward.* Doing a thermodynamically less favorable route from coal--and with far more CO2 emissions. Using biomass--horribly inefficient. Using "hydrogen"...again ulitimately from coal fired generation. Natural gas/propane--same limited resource, different package, problematic distribution.Quote:
And the same will happen with petrol. Its already been how long now weve been developing alternatives?
It is very difficult to replace a high heat of combustion liquid fuel. On top of that, it is a great feedstock as a chemical building block. The feedstock part is a bummer for me, because it has always seemed a waste to burn great stuff like that.
This is where non-technical types get lost pretty quickly. Too many folks don't understand what all the consequences are of the alternatives, or why we became so dependent on petrol. I get the same chuckle as when greenies want to completely remove chlorine from all chemical processes. ~:rolleyes:
Wind and solar are some of the easier alternatives, but they don't replace oil or gasoline directly. They would be more effective as coal/natural gas replacements. They are capital intensive. The ironic part is that the nation could have been well on its way in regards to this...but there was no planning/incentive for it from above. It was "green" states that had incentives.
And don't get me started on all these batteries we are going to have to deal with...lots of environmental and logistical problems there.
No, I proved that your point had a basis of clay. Scarcity was not the past driver, technology was. Now scarcity is in the drivers seat, and technology isn't even in the vehicle...Quote:
You keep proving my point. When the overall cost of oil exceeds that of alternatives we will switch and not until then.
Your point is blind faith in a market, without any planning or preparation for the future. Markets aren't some magical prescient and smooth running machines. They herk and jerk and produce massive disruptions, revolutions, and economic upheavals when building problems are ignored. It is dangerously foolish for a nation to put blind faith in a market with no planning or effort to meet future needs of a shifting market dynamic. Looking in form the outside, one could make the case that a nation doing that deserves whatever suffering it gets as a result of its lack of planning. This is a fundamentally unsafe and unsound way to approach the future--the irony of conservatives pushing the least "conservative" approaches.