Drilling in Protected Lands

[MattSuwak]

Bush, Democrats bicker over soaring energy prices - Yahoo! News

Thoughts? Opinions?

I for one am entirely, 100% against damaging what wilderness we have left. I understand that our economy has a huge demand for oil and that drilling in these places will give us a much needed shot in the arm. It's also clear that biofuels and other alternatives are worth exploring, because of long-term impact and the eventual depletion of crude oil.

It's a rough decision because biofuels mean starving people (I forget the numbers, but the amount of corn ethanol needs to be produced could feed hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions). I also feel that while we may be harming the planet, it's incredibly arrogant to think that as a race we can destroy the planet. Make it inhabitable for us, yes, but destroying it? Look at plants- their waste product is oxygen. What did the earth do when these little green things started constantly polluting the atmosphere? It adapted.

It's funny too to see Bush yelling about this (again). Getting our oil hostilely from the Middle East didn't work, so we have to try appealing to our countries sensibilities ("that's one dollar they can't feed their children with!"- then stop feeding your kids so much! we're not THAT obese!).

Back to the point- should we drill for oil in protected areas, such as in Alaska or off-shore coral reefs? What's more important- maintaining the wild places our country has left, or keeping our oil-based society we have now for a few more years?

[tobyhede]

There is just not that much oil to make a big difference.
The only thing that can help is to change the dependence on oil.

[SomeRandomGuy]

I can't justify the possible destruction of what unspoiled wilderness we have left just to solve the problem of us as a society not using our natural resources responsibly. Rising gas prices is not a new phenomena, but only recently have most people began to really make any significant changes to address the issue. If we had been working on curbing our consumption, pushing harder for alternate energy sources and demanding car manufacturers produce more fuel efficient cars rather than gas guzzling SUVs and trucks then we would be in a much different position today. More destruction of our planet is not the answer, and we need leadership who recognizes this and is willing to fight for our planet.

[Gabo]

Originally Posted by tobyhede

There is just not that much oil to make a big difference.
The only thing that can help is to change the dependence on oil.

I have heard that the Alaskan reserve is the largest oil reserve in North America, and possibly in the world.

If we can utilize that large reserve, it will make a big difference on gas prices.


As to our "dependence" on oil, I think that word is misleading.
Nearly all uses of oil can be accomplished using other means.
What we have is a reliance and preference for oil,
since it has been relatively cheap in the past and so versatile in use.

[tobyhede]

The fact is, there is not enough oil there to make a substantive difference at $150+ a barrel.

It's the largest reserve because their are no other sizeable reserves

Check it out:
Estimates for oil reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge offer a relatively small contribution to the world market. "The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices."[30] In May 2008 the Energy Information Administration stated the following:

"The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively." [31]),

The Energy Information Administration does not feel ANWR will affect the global price of oil when past behaviors of the oil market are considered. "The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case." [32] "Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount."[33]

Arctic Refuge drilling controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Not the best reference, but a start)

And I think you just described dependence back to me.
If there is an alternative to oil for cheap mass transport, we haven't found it yet. And bio-fuels don't count - they make no sense at all.

[Gabo]

And I think you just described dependence back to me.
If there is an alternative to oil for cheap mass transport, we haven't found it yet. And bio-fuels don't count - they make no sense at all.

We do not need oil to survive. Cars can be powered by other means, as can other oil-consuming devices.

Just because oil is a convenient fuel doesn't mean we are dependent upon it.
Would you say that an obese person is dependent upon fast food, even though they can make the choice to eat something else?

[escapee]

God, I think we have to be more realistic about our dependency on oil

As Toyota and GM will not be able to manufacture millions of hybrid cars overnight and a single nuke plant takew more than 10 years to build. Oil will still be an important energy source for military, truck transportation, aircraft and 143,781,202 (IN US ) of oil powered automobiles for years to come.

There are 143,781,202 cars in the USA more or less obviously

I think we have to do everything to minimize the risk of severe energy crisis ( think of oil rationing, economic collapse because no goods can be transported with conventional automobiles, sick people are dying because they're running out of fuel to go to the hospital & etc ), we need to start drilling, we need start converting a portion of energy with alternatives, we need to start driving fuel efficient car, we need to build more nuke plants, the car industries need to ramp up the production of hybrids, we need to use solar, we need to use wind, and we need to phase out oil powered automobiles gradually. The change will not happen overnight. It's going to take many years or decades.

[SomeRandomGuy]

Originally Posted by escapee

God, I think we have to be more realistic about our dependency on oil

As Toyota and GM will not be able to manufacture millions of hybrid cars overnight and a single nuke plant takew more than 10 years to build. Oil will still be an important energy source for military, truck transportation, aircraft and 143,781,202 (IN US ) of oil powered automobiles for years to come.




I think we have to do everything to minimize the risk of severe energy crisis ( think of oil rationing, economic collapse because no goods can be transported with conventional automobiles, sick people are dying because they're running out of fuel to go to the hospital & etc ), we need to start drilling, we need start converting a portion of energy with alternatives, we need to start driving fuel efficient car, we need to build more nuke plants, the car industries need to ramp up the production of hybrids, we need to use solar, we need to use wind, and we need to phase out oil powered automobiles gradually. The change will not happen overnight. It's going to take many years or decades.

You are right, these changes will not happen overnight. The issue, however, is that we have been moving towards high gas prices for years. Not enough has been done over the past 10-15 years to have prevented this. That is not because it was not possible, but because the market was not motivated to do so. The auto manufacturers were being very short-sighted, and so were consumers. Its time we take responsibility for our failure to act and deal with the consequences. As far as I am concerned, destroying a section of mostly unspoiled wilderness for a tiny bit of relief is not acting responsibly.

And if the estimates are wrong, and the ANWR drilling does offer more relief? My fear is that with the motivation of high gas prices gone the efforts to find suitable alternatives will start to decline. Look how quickly we forgot about the oil shortage of the 70s. We should have been doing everything possible to reduce our reliance on oil during these past 30 years. Instead, we (as a society) have moved towards a preference of gas guzzling SUVs and trucks. That is proof to me that if gas prices go back down, we are not likely to see the changes that we need to prevent another gas crises in the future. The longer we wait to ditch our reliance on oil, the greater the impacts will be of another shortage. Given the high rate of increase in demand, just think what an oil shortage will do to the economy 30 years from now if we are still as reliant as we are today. The concerns that you listed are real, but they will be exponentially worse in 30 years. I do not have confidence that lower prices will not lead to a false feeling of safety like we saw following the shortage of the 70s. I may be wrong about that, but I am would prefer to not take that gamble. I would much rather deal with the consequences now, than take the risk of the greater consequences to come if we don't make serious changes.

[escapee]

My main concern is the worsening peak oil crisis ( in addition to the financial, housing turmoil and paper currency crisis ) may trigger a full blown economic collapse that could make 1929 a boy scout camp. The consequence of this is virtually all of the investment, construction and business activities (esp related to alternative energy) would be mostly halted for some x years before any meaningful progress can be made.

If US does everything ( including more drilling ), she may at least delay the increase of oil price and thus lessen the risk of a total financial collapse while allowing other alternative fields to play the catch up game.

The world runs on oil .
The oil tanker that ships food & goods all over the world runs on oil.
The heavy truck that carries food, commodities and goods all over the world runs on oil.
The aircraft that carries goods all over the world runs on oil.

With oil hitting 300, 500, 1000 buck per barrel, there would be little or no such activities taking place ( this would be DISASTROUS ), and trust me we won't be having a solar powered or hydrogen aircraft/ship tanker any time soon.

[coollikeme]

Bush lifted the ban, now its up to Congress.

[SomeRandomGuy]

Originally Posted by escapee

With oil hitting 300, 500, 1000 buck per barrel, there would be little or no such activities taking place ( this would be DISASTROUS ), and trust me we won't be having a solar powered or hydrogen aircraft/ship tanker any time soon.

I agree. It does not seem likely that aircraft and ships will be converted to an alternate form of energy anytime soon. Even with the technology available, replacing or retrofitting an entire fleet of expensive equipment would be too cost prohibitive.

There is no reason, however, that individual consumers (and the trucking industry, etc) can't make changes now to prevent oil from increasing to $300, $500 or $1000 per barrel. I have seen estimates state that the US uses 25% of the world's oil supply. Of the oil used in the US, 70% is used by vehicles. Based on those numbers, 17.5% of the world's oil is used up by drivers in the US. If US drivers could cut back on the amount of gas used by 25% (by increased Fuel Efficiency, decreased driving, etc.) that would mean a worldwide decrease of oil usage by 4.38%.

I truly believe that if consumers would really get serious about solving this issue (instead of hoping the government will solve it for us) that we could make enough changes to keep gas prices near the current price (or somewhat lower) until the necessary advances in alternate fuel technology can be made. Also, if oil prices are to hit $1000 per barrel, I don't see where drilling in ANWR is going to prevent that. Consumers can make as much or more of an impact to overall demand as the ANWR drilling would have on overall supply.

[schola]

"I Drink Your Milkshake!"

[escapee]

I have seen estimates state that the US uses 25% of the world's oil supply. Of the oil used in the US, 70% is used by vehicles. Based on those numbers, 17.5% of the world's oil is used up by drivers in the US. If US drivers could cut back on the amount of gas used by 25% (by increased Fuel Efficiency, decreased driving, etc.) that would mean a worldwide decrease of oil usage by 4.38%.

The problem is the enormous growth of China and India could easily pick up the oil slack ( 4.38% ) of US.

Drill ANWR for independence

The biggest argument for not drilling ANWR concerns the amount of oil there. Those from the Left will tell you that there is so little oil in ANWR that it would have an insignificant effect on oil prices and dependency. However, according to the U.S. Department of the Interior, there are approximately 10.4 billion barrels of oil in ANWR, 1.4 million barrels of which could be produced daily. This would be more daily oil production than that of any other state in the United States.

Let us do some math to see how long the ANWR oil reserve would last if the oil were used as the only source of oil for the United States (which is actually not possible because of production restrictions). Armed with the knowledge that we consume about 20 million barrels of oil per day we can derive that the ANWR reserves would last approximately 520 days. Yet only 1.4 million barrels can be produced per day; thus, the oil would last 20 years, which provides more than enough time to perfect alternate forms of energy.

[tobyhede]

The math is so out.

>> Yet only 1.4 million barrels can be produced per day; thus, the oil would last 20 years, which provides more than enough time to perfect alternate forms of energy. <<

That's 5% of the US' current (and *growing*) oil consumption.
It will not solve any of the current problems - and certainly not grant "independence".

Not to mention that it will take up to 10 years to build up production to that point in the first place.

If you guys want to destroy one of the last natural wildernesses for the sake of a year's worth of oil, go ahead. It is naive to think that it will have ANY material effect on the current situation.

The only thing that is actually going to work is to change the dependence on oil. This means increasing public transport infrastructure, finding alternative energy sources and etc and etc.

[escapee]

When all of the key US oil exporters ( south A, Canada, Mideast & etc ) begin to consume all of the oil they produce and stop selling oil to US, at least there would be extra millions of barrels each day to reduce the pain of sudden oil cut off. A few million barrels extra a day is a significant amount especially in the period of shortage and rationing. You want that amount to go to the sectors that bring food, medicine, tools and construction materials which bring you the alternate forms in time of real crisis.

The math is right
Drill ANWR for independence

Doing some more algebra, seven percent of these 20 million barrels consumed by the U.S. per day could be supplemented by drilling ANWR. This would certainly decrease our dependence on foreign oil,

Are we more dependent on oil than most people think ?

"What about alternative energy systems like solar panels and wind turbines? Are they also manufactured using petroleum and petroleum derived resources?"

Yes.
When considering the role of oil in the production of modern technology, remember that most alternative systems of energy — including solar panels/solar-nanotechnology, windmills, hydrogen fuel cells, biodiesel production facilities, nuclear power plants, etc. all rely on sophisticated technology and energy-intensive forms of metallurgy.

In fact, all electrical devices make use of silver, copper, aluminum and platinum, each of which is discovered, extracted, and fashioned using oil or natural gas powered machinery. For instance, in his book, The Lean Years: Politics of Scarcity, author Richard J. Barnet writes:

To produce a ton of copper requires 112 million BTU's or the equal of 17.8
barrels of oil. The energy cost component of aluminum is 20 times higher.

Author Joel Garreau, in the same chapter of his book "The Nine Nations of North America" that was cited above, explains how energy-intensive the manufacture of aluminum is:

The manufacturing of aluminum requires inexpensive energy as its most
important raw material. It takes twelve times as much power to create a
pound of aluminum as it does to make a pound of iron. A good sized
aluminum plant uses as much power as a city of 175,000 people. Source

Nuclear energy requires uranium, which is also discovered, extracted, and transported using oil powered machinery.


Most of the feedstock (soybeans, corn) for biofuels such as biodiesel and ethanol are grown using the high-tech, oil-powered industrial methods of agriculture described above.

In short, the so called "alternatives" to oil are actually "derivatives" of oil. Analyst John Michael Greer offers the following rather lucid explanation of this often over-looked relationship:

Without an affordable supply of oil coupled with healthy and robust financial markets to capitalize the transition, a non-chaotic adaptation phase is unlikely as the raw materials and investment capital necessary to fuel such a large-scale transition will have evaporated.

[coollikeme]

maybe then we might want to start drilling? When is this so-called alternative energy going to come. The Dems keep saying no drilling, lets get off oil. with no solutions. It seems to me what ever alternative energy we have, is not good enough. So we do nothing, 70 to 65 percent of Americans want to drill, and the Government is just ignoring us. Some heads will roll if it stays status Que!!!!