ANWAR ....... Drill it ?

[Spider]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

Wyoming posted over $6 Billion in royalty revenue from coal bed methane production.

It is about to get much larger .......
http://www.casperstartribune.net/art...b9006a3361.txt

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

Care to cite any or just make assertions? The USGS numbers also don't reflect new reserves found using new seismic imaging technologies, increased ability to recover oil from non conventional areas and only represents liquid petroleum, this does not include natural gas which has more to do with day to day petroleum usage that you're talking about. Most studies that reflect your sentiments use only the recoverable barrels of crude oil numbers and compare that with total energy usage (oil and natural gas). Also these are only the reserves in a 2000 acre area, excluding state and tribal lands. When you add those in the number goes up. Furthermore, the royalties received by state, tribal, and federal government goes to fund such erroneous programs as watershed conservation, Fish Wildlife and Parks, National Park Service, BLM, Schools, hospitals, and many other programs. Wyoming posted over $6 Billion in royalty revenue from coal bed methane production.

Read the post above...............

David L. Bernhardt, deputy chief of staff to the secretary of the interior, cited a 1998 study by the United States Geological Survey estimating that the refuge might hold 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil. (The estimate for offshore oil is 76 billion barrels.)

But that study has significant weaknesses, which Mr. Bernhardt acknowledged. Its estimates are of "petroleum resources" - potential oil deposits - instead of "petroleum reserves," which refers to oil that has been discovered.

Ken Bird, a geological survey official who worked on the study, said the federal geologists did not have access to test data from the only exploratory well drilled on the refuge, by Chevron Texaco and BP in the 1980's. An official with one of the companies, speaking anonymously because of the confidentiality of the test, said that if the results had been encouraging the company would be more engaged in the political effort to open the refuge.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Senate just passed drilling ANWR (51-49). Oil analysts said we could be pumping 1 mil a day by 2025 reducing our dependency on foreign oil from 68% to 66%.
What would be the point?

[Rascal]

2%

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Senate just passed drilling ANWR (51-49). Oil analysts said we could be pumping 1 mil a day by 2025 reducing our dependency on foreign oil from 68% to 66%.
What would be the point?

Actually, the Senate defeated an amendment to take the language to open ANWR for drilling off of the budget resolution. The drilling of ANWR has not passed, it can still be defeated by voting down the budget resolution, but Dems can't filibuster. HA HA HA.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

Actually, the Senate defeated an amendment to take the language to open ANWR for drilling off of the budget resolution. The drilling of ANWR has not passed, it can still be defeated by voting down the budget resolution, but Dems can't filibuster. HA HA HA.

Equals an end around for something that won't benefit anyone but the oil companies. I guess if you are for corporate rule and destroying Wildlife Refugees this was a good thing.

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Equals an end around for something that won't benefit anyone but the oil companies. I guess if you are for corporate rule and destroying Wildlife Refugees this was a good thing.

You mean the royalty revenue created for the state and federal government doesn't benefit your social programs? Please. The new jobs created for engineers, pipe fitters, construction workers aren't a benefit? You mean the taxes paid by said workers doesn't benefit people?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

You mean the royalty revenue created for the state and federal government doesn't benefit your social programs? Please. The new jobs created for engineers, pipe fitters, construction workers aren't a benefit? You mean the taxes paid by said workers doesn't benefit people?

This was meant as an overall scope of our priorities. You don't agree on pouring our energy into R&D for renewable and alternate energies so there isn't much else I can say about how much of a waste and time and money I believe this is.

EDIT: By the way, I have almost 10,000 hours as a Pipefitter along with 25,000 hrs. as a Boilermaker and 5000 hrs as a Millwright. There are huge amounts of more work hours available for the industrial trades in retrofitting our power plants with the required anti-pollution equipment that congress mandated in '96 (that Bush has suspended) than anything in ANWR would bring.

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

This was meant as an overall scope of our priorities. You don't agree on pouring our energy into R&D for renewable and alternate energies so there isn't much else I can say about how much of a waste and time and money I believe this is.

EDIT: By the way, I have almost 10,000 hours as a Pipefitter along with 25,000 hrs. as a Boilermaker and 5000 hrs as a Millwright. There are huge amounts of more work hours available for the industrial trades in retrofitting our power plants with the required anti-pollution equipment that congress mandated in '96 (that Bush has suspended) than anything in ANWR would bring.

And that anti-pollution equipment came from oil and gas R&D. We are working to develop a diverse energy portfolio, our coutry has fallen way behind. Our energy infrastructure is old and outdated, our supply side is too dependent, and our supplimental renewables are ineffective. We need to
1. Cite, rebuild, and upgrade existing transmission and generation.
2. Increase domestic production of natural gas and oil
3. Work with R&D to develop clean coal, coal gasification, nuclear, gas hydrates, and other sources of energy
4. Develop reasonable and efficient renewable technologies. The hippies fight each other over wind power for crying out loud. Biomass is ineffective on large scale, we need to develop programs designed for single family dwellings to suppliment. Part of transmission upgrade needs to be the ability to put excess energy back onto the grid. Further R&D needs to be done on geothermal construction of homes and offices. Sustainable energy should be part of a responsible, forward looking energy plan.

Now that I've said all of that, it is at least 100 years away. We can't cite and rebuild and upgrade existing generation and transmission. Every time we turn around hippies are crying about "more into renewables" There is a ton of money going into it, but you don't stop one and start another overnight, it's progressively phased out. Nobody will let you build or cite the proper infrastructure for that either.

[Cito Pelon]

US oil consumption is 21 million bbl/day.

10 billion bbl of oil from ANWR is a 476 day supply.

76 billion bbl offshore of ANWR is 7.6 times 476 days=10 yrs of US oil needs. Off-shore oil rigs in the Arctic Circle? What comic-book technology is gonna make that work.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Cito Pelon

What comic-book technology is gonna make that work.

None.

It isn't really about the oil - it's about Dim Son and the rethugs sticking a shiv in another one of their enemies, i.e., the environmentalists.

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

None.

It isn't really about the oil - it's about Dim Son and the rethugs sticking a shiv in another one of their enemies, i.e., the environmentalists.

I don't suppose you could tell me just how many ounces of oil was spilled during hurricane Ivan? There are plenty of offshore platforms operating in the gulf right now, how much was spilled when they were being pummeled with 140 mph winds and 80 ft waves? The technology exists, and if it doesn't right now it will be developed to explore the area. There's no reason to invest in Arctic ocean technology if you're never going to explore the Arctic for oil.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

The technology exists, and if it doesn't right now it will be developed to explore the area. There's no reason to invest in Arctic ocean technology if you're never going to explore the Arctic for oil.

Is that why the oil cartels have been backing away from the idea of drilling there?

[Cito Pelon]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

I don't suppose you could tell me just how many ounces of oil was spilled during hurricane Ivan? There are plenty of offshore platforms operating in the gulf right now, how much was spilled when they were being pummeled with 140 mph winds and 80 ft waves? The technology exists, and if it doesn't right now it will be developed to explore the area. There's no reason to invest in Arctic ocean technology if you're never going to explore the Arctic for oil.

It's the ice that stops Arctic offshore platforms. The platforms will be crushed. If you have an engineering plan to counteract the ice, you'll make miilions. Provided it's economically-feasible.

And that's the show-stopper. Economically-feasible in the Arctic doesn't stand up and say "Howdy, here I am! Look at me! Come on, guys I'm ripe for the picking!"

Solar, Wind, conservation, they're all more economically-feasible.

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by Cito Pelon

It's the ice that stops Arctic offshore platforms. The platforms will be crushed. If you have an engineering plan to counteract the ice, you'll make miilions. Provided it's economically-feasible.

And that's the show-stopper. Economically-feasible in the Arctic doesn't stand up and say "Howdy, here I am! Look at me! Come on, guys I'm ripe for the picking!"

Solar, Wind, conservation, they're all more economically-feasible.

I can understand how I might have missed all of this economically feasable solar and wind energy production with the mad rush going on to put these into practice. A nice big windfarm in the middle of the wilderness, or a stripped out mountain peak for solar panels is just what the dr. ordered. Those are much more economically feasable and much better to look at.

And if there is millions to be made by designing the platform, some one will do it.

[watermock]

David L. Bernhardt, deputy chief of staff to the secretary of the interior, cited a 1998 study by the United States Geological Survey estimating that the refuge might hold 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil. (The estimate for offshore oil is 76 billion barrels.)

Well well well. I was going to say that the estimate was off, but someone did the work for me. I was going to say the estimate was off by a hole magnitude, but our little friend did the work for me. So we have an estimate of 76 Billion Barrels now. That is approaching Texas.

Now, you go further. Prudoe Bay came in a full magnitude also. You people have no clue how much oil is up there. Seismic testing only does so much.

Fact of the matter is there is likely to be oil all along the arctic circle, from the North sea, all the way east to Alaska and along the Canadian Arctic Circle.

Does this mean we need to neglect alternative sources of energy? The libs would say so. What you don't understand is each time oil goes up, the available reserves also increase. I.E., it's economically feasible to recover those reserves. For now, the 1.50 dollar per barrel oil of the Middle East are what the oil companies want to pump. Can you blame them for discounting the amount of oil out there?

It's in their best interests to declare short supply, get a clue. You people are nothing but lemmings. We could eliminate the need for fossil fuels by going nuclear withing 10 years with safe nuclear pellet plants. 10 years for a redone electrical grid, and we need electrical workers to do it.

[Cito Pelon]

Originally Posted by watermock

Well well well. I was going to say that the estimate was off, but someone did the work for me. I was going to say the estimate was off by a hole magnitude, but our little friend did the work for me. So we have an estimate of 76 Billion Barrels now. That is approaching Texas.

Now, you go further. Prudoe Bay came in a full magnitude also. You people have no clue how much oil is up there. Seismic testing only does so much.

Fact of the matter is there is likely to be oil all along the arctic circle, from the North sea, all the way east to Alaska and along the Canadian Arctic Circle.

Does this mean we need to neglect alternative sources of energy? The libs would say so. What you don't understand is each time oil goes up, the available reserves also increase. I.E., it's economically feasible to recover those reserves. For now, the 1.50 dollar per barrel oil of the Middle East are what the oil companies want to pump. Can you blame them for discounting the amount of oil out there?

It's in their best interests to declare short supply, get a clue. You people are nothing but lemmings. We could eliminate the need for fossil fuels by going nuclear withing 10 years with safe nuclear pellet plants. 10 years for a redone electrical grid, and we need electrical workers to do it.

Nuclear would be great, but it would have to be run as a military operation - meaning it would have to be as tightly controlled with the super-duper training the Navy has with its nuclear operation. You have a civilian operation going, you know they'll F it up at some point and it will snowball. . .

This energy problem we have has to come to a solid conclusion. We can't keep going on as we are right now, a worldwide battle for oil resources. All the powerful nations are positioning themselves primarily for oil access for themselves, and limiting the other's access, and this is not a good situation.

I like competition, but I don't like it when the price of something makes people lose all reason, and we're at that point with oil.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Senate just passed drilling ANWR (51-49). Oil analysts said we could be pumping 1 mil a day by 2025 reducing our dependency on foreign oil from 68% to 66%.
What would be the point?

The point would be the Smirking Sociopath and the GOP sticking a shiv in another political enemy, i.e., the environmentalists.

When you find yourself struggling to understand Bush and the GOP's motives for almost anything, look no further than politics.

BTW, given the number of independent variables, I wonder how these "oil analysts" are able to accurately predict things like sizes of availible (non-ANWAR) reserves, prices, etc., for the year 2025, and to assess whether the infrastructure to extract that ANWAR oil will even be economically feasible?

Most geologic evidence points to the likelihood that it will take more than the amount of energy in a barrel of oil to extract a barrel of oil long before 2025.

That, BTW, is all that is necessary to bring our present industrial societies to their knees.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]