We Need To Drill For More Oil

Discussion in 'CF Archive Bin' started by alaskaguy, Nov 2, 2007.

  1. alaskaguy

    alaskaguy Well-Known Member

    Apr 11, 2006
    10,204
    217
    63
    Gasoline and heating oil are $3.99 per gallon here. When we get our next fuel barge I'm afraid that prices will jump by at least another $1.00 per gallon.

    People can say that we need alternative energy but a transformation is not going to happen overnight. There is no short term viable solution other than oil to power our vehicles.

    ANWR needs to be developed. Adding another one million barrels of oil per day is exactly what this country needs.

    This is one issue where I can provide an Alaskan perspective.
     
  2. Cyclonepride

    Cyclonepride Thought Police
    Staff Member

    I agree 100%. I'm not sure what the hold up is, but I would suggest a bill that allows drilling in ANWR while guaranteeing money for research into alternative energy. I get the feeling that most people who want it barred are worried that doing so will push back alternative energy research.
     
  3. alaskaguy

    alaskaguy Well-Known Member

    Apr 11, 2006
    10,204
    217
    63

    The holdup from day one has been the Democratic Party.

    You won't find any part of government in this state that opposes ANWR.
     
  4. Cyclonepride

    Cyclonepride Thought Police
    Staff Member

    True. I think this issue is too important to not find a way to compromise. Alternate energy research would be one way, I am sure there are others.
     
  5. alaskaguy

    alaskaguy Well-Known Member

    Apr 11, 2006
    10,204
    217
    63
    Historically, most of the people that have opposed ANWR have done so for "environmental" reasons. However, the majority of these people have never toured the North Slope, don't understand the area's geography, and no little about the technology of oil drilling.

    If there is one political issue that nearly every Alaskan is united on, it is that oil exploration should be allowed in ANWR.
     
  6. alaskaguy

    alaskaguy Well-Known Member

    Apr 11, 2006
    10,204
    217
    63
    TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN ANWR

    1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.
    2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates on bonus bids for ANWR by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Interior for the first 5 years after Congressional approval are 4.2 billion dollars.

    3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.
    4. Economic Impact Between 1977 and 2004, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union.
    5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
    6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 16% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 943,000 barrels a day.
    7. Imported Oil Too Costly In 2004 the US imported an average of 58% of its oil and during certain months up to 64%. That equates to over $150 billion in oil imports and over $170 billion including refined petroleum products. That¹s $19.9 million dollars an hour! Including defence costs the number would be nearly a trillion dollars.
    8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas.
    9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.
    10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.

    Link:
    anwr.org - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
     
  7. herbiedoobie

    herbiedoobie Active Member

    Jan 3, 2007
    1,384
    0
    36
    Military Training Scenario Writer
    Germany
    Here is something we can agree 100% on. To not drill ANWR is just stupid.
     
  8. alaskaguy

    alaskaguy Well-Known Member

    Apr 11, 2006
    10,204
    217
    63
    It frustrates me to no end that the Democrats have been able to block the opening of ANWR to oil exploration in the name of environmental protection. They claim that they are taking the high road and that they have society's interests at heart. Now who doesn't believe that environmental protection is a good thing? But what Democrats don't understand is that wealth creation is good for society too. Nor do the Democrats understand that wealth enables us to expend so much concern over our environmental issues.

    The Arctic Coastal Plain Domestic Energy Security Act of 2005 made the connection to environmental issues. Furthermore, it would have provided funding for the nations national parks and refuges.

    Nevertheless, the Democrats are united in their cause not to open ANWR to oil exploration.

    Talking points are provided by the following link:
    http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/101995Arctic.pdf
     
  9. TykeClone

    TykeClone Burgermeister!

    Oct 18, 2006
    24,771
    519
    113
    Had they opened up ANWR when they first started arguing about it, we'd be getting oil from it by now.
     
  10. Cyclonepride

    Cyclonepride Thought Police
    Staff Member

    Exactly, the really sad part is that they have this incorporated into their argument: "we wouldn't see the first barrel until". I'm pretty sure they think we are stupid.
     
  11. theshadow

    theshadow Well-Known Member

    Apr 19, 2006
    7,532
    393
    83
    For no reason whatsoever...

    Tower of Power: "Only So Much Oil in The Ground", Live at the M-Shop, 1985

    [ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=uRNqleXEoFw"]YouTube - Tower Of Power - Only So Much Oil[/ame]
     
  12. Stormin

    Stormin Well-Known Member

    Apr 11, 2006
    34,829
    312
    83
    In an era of ever increasing prices for oil, wouldn't it make more sense to sit on our resources of oil in ANWR. We can develop even better technology and maybe tap into it 10-20 years or so down the road. If we drill into it now and OPEC restricts production it would offset any lowering of the price of oil. Once the supply of ANWR oil is gone we will be even more vulnerable as we will have even fewer reserves.

    The smart thing to do is to sit on the supply. I have also heard that logistically that most of the oil would go to Japan and the Far East because of transportation costs. Don't know if that is completely true, but it would sure be stupid to drill ANWR to sell to the Japanese and Chinese.
     
  13. alaskaguy

    alaskaguy Well-Known Member

    Apr 11, 2006
    10,204
    217
    63
    The Department of Interior recomended that ANWR be opened up for oil exploration in 1987. Alaska's Congressional delegation, our Governors and State Legislature has been arguing for it to be opened up ever since 1987.

    From a practical standpoint the votes are not there for ANWR. Legislation has been proposed in the past that would transfer the profits to Katrina victims, alternative energy, and enviromental clean-up. None of these measure have been successful.
     
  14. alaskaguy

    alaskaguy Well-Known Member

    Apr 11, 2006
    10,204
    217
    63
    #14 alaskaguy, Nov 5, 2007
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2007
    Currently all of the north slope oil is transported through the Alaska pipeline. The pipeline ends in Valdez, Alaska. Then 96% of the of the oil is shipped by tanker to the West Coast where it is refined. The ANWR oil would be transported through the same pipeline. Therefore, we should expect a similar percentage of the production to go to the United States.

    But assuming the oil was sold to Japan or China or whereever, why should that matter? We would still reap the profits regardless of who the oil was sold to.
     
  15. alaskaguy

    alaskaguy Well-Known Member

    Apr 11, 2006
    10,204
    217
    63
    In other words you are recommending that we speculate on the long term price of oil rather than invest in an energy source that is currently in short supply?
     
  16. Stormin

    Stormin Well-Known Member

    Apr 11, 2006
    34,829
    312
    83
    I am recommending that we sit on our supply instead of using it up. Once it is gone, then we are really vulnerable. I think it is shortsighted to want to drill and use it all up. I can see why **** Cheney wants to drill. He is old and has a bad ticker. If we wait too long, he won't be able to get his hands on that oil money. But strategically, it would be better to have that supply of oil in reserve. And let the technology get even better so that when it is drilled, the area will be less vulnerable to environmental concerns.
     
  17. alaskaguy

    alaskaguy Well-Known Member

    Apr 11, 2006
    10,204
    217
    63
    I think that is a large gamble to take. What happens if some form of alternative energy is developed that makes oil obsolete? I say take the profits as quickly as possible. The oil production from the North Slope is declining and the pipeline will have to be shutdown if production falls much further. The pipeline to Valdez is already built, lets use it to its fullest capacity.

    Drilling technology has already evolved to where the environmental footprint is minimal (my opinion).
     
  18. Stormin

    Stormin Well-Known Member

    Apr 11, 2006
    34,829
    312
    83
    If some form of alternative energy is developed then we won't be dependent on foreign oil and the production from ANWR won't be a concern. A bigger concern would be if we Don't develop an alternative energy solution and already have used up the supply from ANWR. That would make us even more vulnerable. Most studies say that even with ANWR production we won't drop the price of oil by much if any. A far greater impact would be to increase fuel efficiency in vehicles. Short sighted thinking has given us the astronomical debt that our country is now facing. We need to think a little more long term.
     
  19. alaskaguy

    alaskaguy Well-Known Member

    Apr 11, 2006
    10,204
    217
    63
    Stormin if somebody told you that you won a lottery with a guaranteed $20 million payout, or you could wait 20 years and receive a payout that could range between $0 and $1,000,000 million which option would you opt for?

    Because we don't know the future price of oil, interest rates, inflation, value of the dollar, etc. we should take the money now and not gamble on what might be in the future.
     
  20. alaskaguy

    alaskaguy Well-Known Member

    Apr 11, 2006
    10,204
    217
    63
    The studies that I have seen show that ANWR will have some impact on the pricing of oil, although not huge. Nevertheless even if they had no impact, there is the potential for significant profits with very little risk. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.

    What do you think will cause alternative energy to be developed? Having government bureaucrats selecting the next energy sources that should be developed and then having the government subsidize those sources?
     

Share This Page