Bush Looks to Alaska again for Oil

[NightTrain]

Here's a pic in ANWR without all the 'puddles', kind of a rare area.

 

[NightTrain]

Here's a pic with some caribou. The ice is the Arctic Ocean.

Keep in mind that these pics are definitely not wintertime pics... I'll try to find a couple of that season.

 

[NightTrain]

One last one out of the windshield of a Cessna. This is 1002, where the drilling would take place.

 

[NightTrain]

Here's a pic taken in November. It's an Inupiat Eskimo cemetary, who happen to own land in ANWR and incidently are in favor of drilling.

Note the vast forests, majestic unexplored mountains, lush mountain streams and the teeming multitudes of wildlife living in perfect natural harmony. [/sarcasm]

 

[Fmr jarhead]

There has never been a record of more than 1500 people visiting the area in a year.....

If you divide this pristine natural area equally amongst all the visitor, they would each have 12,666.6666 acres to enjoy all by themselves. (1/60th the size of the state of Rhode Island)

DRILL!!!!!!!!

CHEAP OIL BY THE END OF THE DECADE!!!!!!

(and maybe take some cash out of the pockets of the radical islamic terrorists!!!!)

 

[Huckleburry]

Fmr Jarhead,
First, I too want to keep money from terrorist hands. Drilling in the ANWR however is not the best way to do this, from what I understand (and I am by no means an expert) there is actually a relatively small amount of oil up there. The number I heard was about enough to supply the country for three months. The problem is not in a lack of supply but rather in an excess of demand. As a country we have become so oil dependent that is impossible for us not to consume oil from nations that may have interests contrary to our own. If we are to reduce our dependency on such nations than shouldn't we reduce our dependency on the commodity which they produce? To this end I would argue that it is in our interest to pursue policies that allow us to consume less oil. For instance rather than subsidize consumption of SUV's (some companies receive a tax deduction if they purchase American made SUV's, a policy aimed at increasing consumption of American made vehicles) we should subsidize, and encourage the consumption of hybrid vehicles. Again in reducing our consumption of oil we reduce our dependence on those supplying nations with national interests contrary to our own. Drilling in the ANWR would provide short term relief to a long term problem. If we really want to keep money out of terrorist hands than we should focus on reducing on need for oil as this would provide a long term solution.
Lastly, I think the libs are less concerned about the ANWR than they are with the precedent it would set. If we begin extracting resources from one protected area than what is to prevent us from extracting resources from another? I agree that very little damage would be done from drilling in the ANWR; I am however wary of the precedent it could set. I think that having protected areas is a very valuable thing. We are one of the few nations in the world where it is still possible to enjoy an old growth forest, or an unmined canyon. Thus, I am for drilling for oil in the middle of a barren wasteland, I am not for logging in a national forest, or mining in the grand canyon. I am not saying that one would necessarily lead to the other, but I hope you can see where such a concern could come from.

 

[eric]

While I am in agreement with much of what you wrote Huck, we all know that reducing demand is not something that will be readily accepted by the American population, me included. As far as alternative energy, I am all for it, but it will take time to develop and implement, so we will still be in need of conventional fuels, and therefore must find ways of breaking our dependency on foreign sources. I too am no expert, and therefore can not say with any certainty, how productive ANWR would be. My only contention is that anything that HELPS should be explored.

 

[CSM]

Depending on who you believe and what your perspective is, some sources say that ANWR could produce up to 1.5 million barrels a day for some time to come. There are other sources that deny that (much as Huckleberry cited in his post). Those sources are generally divided along government/oil company vs. ecological advocate lines.

I would point out that much the same arguments flew before agreements were reached allowing drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

[Huckleburry]

Indeed developing alternative sources will take time. However, much can be done immediately to reduce our demand. I know I harp on this a bit but hybrid technology is very attractive. It is a proven technology and has the potential to double the fuel efficiency of every vehicle on the road. One of the primary barriers to entry however is that they are quite a bit more than normal cars (over the long-term the additional cost is recouped through fuel savings) if the government is willing to subsidize our fuel consumption (and they are) it would in our national interest for the government to subsidized the purchase of these new vehicles. If the cost of hybrids were reduced to normal market rates than I think far more people would drive them, the net result would be an America far less dependent on Arab oil.

 

[Merlin1047]

In addition to ANWR, there are huge areas which contain likely oil deposits off the coasts of California and Florida. Yet these states have and continue to block oil drilling in their waters. I have a problem with so-called "states rights" when these alleged rights fly in the face of the national interest.

Seems to me that the fed government should annex these waters and allow drilling. Now, more than ever it is not only in our economic interest to become energy independent, it is also a security issue. A substantial portion of every energy dollar spent in this country goes to middle eastern nations. In my opinion every dollar that goes to the middle east presents a continuing hazard to our national security.

With that in mind, it is past due that we tell the folks in California and Florida to suck it up and get used to seeing oil rigs in the sunset.

 

[NightTrain]

Welcome to the board, Huck.

I don't think anyone would dispute that there needs to be more effort put in to alternative fuels and hybrid vehicles. There's many different approaches to personal transportation, one that sticks out in my mind is a car that was propelled by nothing but compressed air. The range was about 150 miles, and the cost of the electricity used by the onboard compressor to recharge the air tank was like $1.50 total.

However, all the different technologies that are being explored still doesn't solve our immediate appetite for oil. Drilling in ANWR will create jobs and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. We're still going to use oil, no matter how fast fuel cell technology comes of age. We have a known, under explored, untapped domestic reserve, what sense does it make to buy it from other countries when we're sitting on a huge amount?

As far as the estimates of the amount of oil in ANWR, they're just that - estimates. They vary greatly, depending on which side is reporting it. A nice little spin the democrats love to trot out is that there's only a 3-to-6 month supply of oil - but that would be if ANWR were tapped to supply the entire USA, and that is a helluva lot of oil. Naturally, they use the most conservative estimates to advance their case.

I worked for Conoco Phillips in Anchorage a couple of years ago, who is the largest Oil and Gas producer in Alaska. I worked with some of the exploration guys quite often. They're a pretty secretive group and have 2 entire floors that are very restricted. The word was that there is a huge reserve in ANWR, suspected to be much larger than the official estimates that are very conservative. How are we going to find out just how much oil is there? Drill!

 

[Huckleburry]

Night Train.
Ok suppose we drill in the ANWR, how do we then prevent a ripple effect from reverberating throughout the country? As I said, my concern is not for the ANWR but rather for the precedent that drilling in a protected area would set. In allowing drilling we make the value of protected areas subjective. The ANWR is clearly barren tundra, and drilling there would likely have minimal ecological impact, that is not true for the great majority of protected areas. Most of them are exceedingly sensitive, irreplaceable, and contain valuable resources, namely timber and minerals. The problem is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, where I see magnificent old growth forest, and unmined country side others see only trees, and rocks ripe with valuable commodities. What is to prevent the latter group from making the same argument that succeeded in drilling the ANWR?

 

[NightTrain]

I believe that each proposed oil extraction project should be considered and debated on a case-by-case basis. Not shelved simply because Hillary, Ted Kennedy and Greenpeace say so.

 

[eric]

I know I harp on this a bit but hybrid technology is very attractive. It is a proven technology and has the potential to double the fuel efficiency of every vehicle on the road.

It's not that you are harping on it, rather misjudging the general population. Cost is not what is holding back hybrid vehicles but rather their size and power. Take a look around, more and more people are driving SUVs in place of cars, and they are buying larger and larger ones all the time. If people really cared about conservation then why not buy smaller more fuel efficient vehicles right now ?

In theory hybrid cars are a great way to start, but theory must be balanced with experience, which at this point would seem to indicate that the American population is just not ready to give up luxury, convenience, and perceived safety for the sake of conservation. Then throw in the "how much difference can I make" factor and it just doesn't seem this will be a short term solution with any major impact.

 

[eric]

I believe that each proposed oil extraction project should be considered and debated on a case-by-case basis. Not shelved simply because Hillary, Ted Kennedy and Greenpeace say so.

Very true NT !

 

[Huckleburry]

Take a look around, more and more people are driving SUVs in place of cars, and they are buying larger and larger ones all the time. If people really cared about conservation then why not buy smaller more fuel efficient vehicles right now ?.

People are buying bigger vehicles because at present the government is willing to subsidize their consumption choice. Examples of government sponsorship are numerous. The price we pay at the pump is but one small example. Most of the world pays considerably more per gallon than we do, as a result very view giant SUVs are seen on the road. Moreover foreign government have been far less willing to build road systems as extensive and well maintained as our own. Granted, relatively cheap gas, and extensive well maintained roads are integral to our economy, now. However, this is not always been the case, nor does it need to continue to be the case. Careful urban planning, well aimed government policy, and a continuous development of a proven technology would surely decrease our dependence on foreign oil.