No, the reason new reserves arent tapped is because they opposed at every turn by bleating liberals, such as yourself. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Printable View
No, the reason new reserves arent tapped is because they opposed at every turn by bleating liberals, such as yourself. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
While I'm not a liberal, I would rather be called a bleating liberal than for instance a selfish, short-sighted, mathematically challenged, neanderthal conservative. Speaking theoretically of course...I wouldn't want to be called that. ~;) The liberal label wouldn't be an approptriate one for the opposing side of the discussion anyway. Something like "greenie" would hav been more on topic for blocking drilling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Now back to the topic:
ANWR (which could supply about 2 years of our domestic oil usage if you believe the USGS estimates) has been about the only major U.S. discovery in decades. Where are all these major new domestic reserves? They are going to have to be growing at an increasing rate to keep up with demand. Yet they aren't. Why should one field, with only a couple of years domestic supply be so important? ~:confused: If it had never been discovered, what would that tell us?
The answer is simple: that's the last big field we've got. As such it should be protected as the strategic asset it is. Think of it as a military program...only one that will eventually pay back more than it costs us. ~D
What is really happening? It looks like the problem is that the sustained oil price level required to develop the next major sources is an order of magnitude above where oil prices were 2-3 years ago. That's what the previous years of demand driven run up are suggesting to me.
There are a number of sources of domestic oil, the problem is.... well, refer to my previous statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
linkQuote:
There is no reason for America to be so energy-dependent on just one part of the country. The impacted areas off the shores of east Texas and Louisiana are not, as many assume, the only ones with rich oil and natural gas deposits. To the contrary, there is offshore oil and natural gas in Alaska, the Pacific, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and the Atlantic. In addition, there is considerable untapped onshore potential, including the estimated 10 billion barrels of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Cumulatively, this potential energy is greater than that in the Katrina and Rita-ravaged areas. As well, refineries could be built (and existing ones expanded) in a number of areas far from the hurricane-prone Gulf.
Laws will have to be changed to make this extra energy and energy infrastructure available. Federal restrictions on exploration and drilling put most offshore and many onshore areas off-limits, and a host of costly regulations have made it difficult to increase refining capacity.
It's simply false to say that we have no untapped reserves besides ANWR. The trouble is, our government has put most of it off-limits or buried it behind so much beaurocratic red tape that it can't be gotten cost effectively.
Regardless, you still have no convincing argument for why the oil in ANWR should be saved. Your oil doomsday theories dont square with you argument. Even if you were right (and you're not) that it was our last untapped reserve, there is no point in leaving it undeveloped. You argue that we need to transition from oil now, because it will take too long to to change over when we wake up one day and have no oil (more fantasy), yet you're saying that we'll have the 10 years needed to develop ANWR?
Developing all of the oil in ANWR won't have a significant impact on the price or availability of oil in the US.
But we're in denial so we'll keep acting like addicts.
ichi:bow:
Duck............. The sky is falling~;p
You guys should be glad we are running out of this filthy source of energy. You are all totally ignoring capitalism and the market. In order to make something cheap you have to make a lot of it. When theres a big enough demand to replace it something will.
Its like shouting into the wind isnt it? ~D
That's almost right, it would be more accurate to say folks like Xiahou and Gawain are in denial. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by ichi
LOL, a Heritage Foundation article. Where are all these new untapped reserves? I didn't see any figures or fields named. It's all conveniently nebulous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Big fields like ANWR have not been found from what I've been able to locate. Of course, that is part of the problem. The lack of information is appalling. What is said by the oil interests doesn't jibe with what happens in the market.
Your ANWR argument isn't credible. You want to pump it today, not get it ready to pump on short notice. I wouldn't mind prep work, but nobody will want to pay for it. That's not my problem. Nope, still worth more undeveloped than to be pumped out for a bogus economic basis.
You have no convincing argument for wasting this resource. ~:handball:
Wasting it? No, but then I havent been arguing for wasting it. However, the reasons for using it are manifold. First and foremost, the state and people of Alaska want to drill for it and their are companies that are more than willing to do so... that's more than enough reason for any sensible person. Further, under full production, using mainly pre-existing pipeline, the coastal plains could up to 10% of our current daily oil usage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Besides, your own arguments would be some of the best in favor of it. You claim we're fast approaching the decline of world oil production. Considering that it will take 7-12 years to being producing oil from the area it should time perfectly with when you claim we'll be needing it most. I could care less about all of that- the simplest argument is that there is no good reason not to.
Pump it today? You must be dreaming. Prep work is exactly what would be going on for 7-12 years- and you call me short sighted? I'm not the one calling basic supply and demand economics bogus. :rolleyes:Quote:
Your ANWR argument isn't credible. You want to pump it today, not get it ready to pump on short notice. I wouldn't mind prep work, but nobody will want to pay for it. That's not my problem. Nope, still worth more undeveloped than to be pumped out for a bogus economic basis.
Wasting it IS the perfect description. Using it inefficiently is wasting it, and that is precisely what you propose to do. Ignore conservation, that has been the "answer" all along. The estimated ANWR annual productions are less than the projected *growth* in usage. Wasting it is precisely what this is about.
Leave it to you to call strong economic expansion a waste. ~:eek:
You're literally talking yourself into circles on this. You say we shouldnt be pumping oil from ANWR now, but no one is saying we should be- it's not even a possibility. (strawman anyone?) Then you claim we should be saving it for later- in total ignorance of the fact that if we authorized exploration today, it'd likely be 2025 before we saw any large scale output. Further, you claim its important for "security" that we save it, then you turn around and argue that it's not enough oil to make any difference. Your head must be spinning. :dizzy:
Leave it to you to call a soft economy "strong economic expansion." ~:rolleyes: :cheerleader: :elephant: :cheerleader: It's an economy based on deficit spending and massive trade deficits. It isn't producing much for external consumption, instead it is based on internal consumption with external supply. In short, it is no more sustainable like this than our energy policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
It is possible to favor conservation type measures and *still* have economic expansion. Of course, that goes hand in hand with seeing into the future and planning for your destination rather than reacting after the fact.
Oh nonsense. Now you've moved it back to 20 years! What next, 50??? Your nose is getting longer Xiahou. First of all, we know how to develop fields like this, and in a crisis we could do so rapidly. This isn't new tech...you know, like what we are really going to need to fill the massive gap between what we consume and what we can produce.Quote:
You're literally talking yourself into circles on this. You say we shouldnt be pumping oil from ANWR now, but no one is saying we should be- it's not even a possibility. (strawman anyone?) Then you claim we should be saving it for later- in total ignorance of the fact that if we authorized exploration today, it'd likely be 2025 before we saw any large scale output. Further, you claim its important for "security" that we save it, then you turn around and argue that it's not enough oil to make any difference. Your head must be spinning. :dizzy:
You are the one talking yourself in circles. There is about 2 years worth of oil for us in ANWR. It's small potatos in the scheme of things, but would be very useful in a crisis, precisely because we do know how to get at it. The amount needed in a crisis is far less, because we would be in severe rationing mode with prices so high as to reduce consumption to the minimum.
Your short term thinking continues to betray you. You think of oil spikes. The type of crisis that is sizing up is longer and the slide will only get worse once underway. ANWR should be there to help support things in an emergency.
I would be all for getting it ready to produce...except I know that wouldn't happen. Instead, the gluttonous hogs would go back to the trough and ignore the long term consequences, pump it empty and be less prepared than before--just like they've done with the budget.
The really funny part is that your whole thesis about how oil isn't short is nuked by this reliance on a year or two's worth of oil in ANWR. :smash: It doesn't compute. If reserves aren't short, then you can continue without it, making it a red herring. If they are short, then we have a far bigger problem. The safest assumption is that reserves are not as advertised and it is better to sit on that oil, and focus on efficiency improvements. Efficiency is a huge ripe target in the U.S.--it is the bigger hammer with which to strike at the problem.
I cant believe you'd really be this clueless.~:rolleyes: What have I moved back 20 years? The DOE estimates 7-12 years for any oil to even begin to come out of ANWR- let me do the math for you, thats 2012-2017. That is just the beginning of production- DOE estimates peg reaching the 1 million bpd mark around 2025. Nowhere have I moved anything 20 years. Either you just plain dont have your facts straight, or you're being dishonest- I'll let the readers decide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Again, you have to know better than this- you can't just turn on a spigot and have full production levels flowing out of ANWR. Maybe you're thinking of the SPR- untapped oil doesnt work that way.Quote:
You are the one talking yourself in circles. There is about 2 years worth of oil for us in ANWR. It's small potatos in the scheme of things, but would be very useful in a crisis, precisely because we do know how to get at it. The amount needed in a crisis is far less, because we would be in severe rationing mode with prices so high as to reduce consumption to the minimum.
More nonsense. ~:handball:Quote:
Your short term thinking continues to betray you. You think of oil spikes. The type of crisis that is sizing up is longer and the slide will only get worse once underway. ANWR should be there to help support things in an emergency.
Hmm, maybe your problem is in distinguishing between private enterprise and the government. Let me try to help, private business pumps oil- the government is running a deficit and the two are not related. The balance sheets of the oil companies are looking quite nice indeed.Quote:
I would be all for getting it ready to produce...except I know that wouldn't happen. Instead, the gluttonous hogs would go back to the trough and ignore the long term consequences, pump it empty and be less prepared than before--just like they've done with the budget.
Ok, so here you are again saying there is an oil shortage? Make up your mindQuote:
The really funny part is that your whole thesis about how oil isn't short is nuked by this reliance on a year or two's worth of oil in ANWR. :smash:
Reserves might not be short, or maybe they are- it's irrelevant if you're not going to allow any of it to be used. My argument here has been that we should drill in ANWR because people want to and there is no good reason against it.Quote:
It doesn't compute. If reserves aren't short, then you can continue without it, making it a red herring. If they are short, then we have a far bigger problem. The safest assumption is that reserves are not as advertised and it is better to sit on that oil, and focus on efficiency improvements. Efficiency is a huge ripe target in the U.S.--it is the bigger hammer with which to strike at the problem.
You further mischaracterize the debate with your "2 years worth of oil" statements. Everyone knows that the oil on the coastal plain will be extracted slowly in the 1-2 million barrel range over decades. That could make up nearly 10% of our current daily usage- every barrel we extract from politically stable areas (particularly domestic sources) is one less that we need to depend on the middle east and other unstable areas for. I suppose the possible stabilizing influence on prices that has is lost on you.
No, it's not going to solve our energy problems- no one has said it will. But it could help blunt price spikes that occur with our increasing world reliance on middle-eastern oil. Prices are still going to trend upwards longterm, that's unavoidable... but once again, back to Econ101- as prices of one resource increase, the demand for alternatives will grow as well. You can't artificially mandate alternative energy. :bow:
It's a waste of time discussing this with you. You believe in pump it all now, blind faith in market forces, and no safety net. So rather than have the govt. actually work to position the country for the foreseeable future, you want to continue non-sustainable activities to abandon.
What is worse is that you fundamentally misunderstand how the economic forces and logistics are going to end up driving this. I get that deja vu feeling...I remember the conservative reactions to my oil price comments a few years back. They were doing long term planning with the same sort of mistaken approach you are taking, I looked at the oil price projections and said, "these are bogus." They just didn't get it. I might as well have saved my breath.
What really makes me laugh is when they now say, "nobody saw this coming!" I told them what the economic drivers would be (recovering world economy, and rapid growth in China and India) and what the long term trend would be as a result. They still think they the U.S. is in the driver's seat...missing the world view, and the fundamental shift occurring.
No, I have ZERO faith in our private enterprise getting this right. They will react a year or two after the fact. Followers, not leaders.
I too, have little faith in ye old "invisible hand". The market IS NOT clairvoyant and economic efficiency (at least, that's what its called when an entire civilization of people try to cheat each other out of money) is not socially equitable or even far-sighted. People need incentive to change and these incentives should be (for a prudent nation) more than the threat of complete shortage hanging over one's head. If the government attempted to create different kinds of incentives to stress oil conservation and alternative fuel development, we wouldn't have to trust blindly in the market's ability to straighten itself out.
For you Lehesu, the markets in action...
Cleaner, Abundant Fuels Attracting Record Investment - Report
Quote:
''Renewable energy has become big business,'' said Eric Martinot, lead author of the study, "Renewables 2005: Global Status Report."
Martinot, a senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based think tank Worldwatch Institute and a lecturer at Tsinghua University in Beijing, said renewable energy has attracted some of the world's largest companies, including General Electric, Siemens, Sharp, and Royal Dutch Shell.
If it's irrelevant to our needs today how can it be our safety net of the future? Even with conservation our energy needs of tomorrow will be greater. A source you deem unworthy to exploit today, sense it won't matter, would then be worthless.
Let the Alaskans, especially those that live in the area and exploit the animal resources decide. THEY live there, THEY will have to live with the effects (adverse or otherwise).
It is not relevant to our needs today. Rather than putting false hopes into ANWR (and that is what this is all about, a smokescreen to avoid facing the truth) focus efforts on conservation. You can save the projected annual ANWR pumping rate in just a few years of conservation effort--the time now being projected. And unlike ANWR which is dry at the end, conservation keeps on paying dividends.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Black Ship
ANWR has always been presented as a solution. It is not. Instead it is just another way to divert attention from the root problem.