New ANWR Bill in the Senate - Page 4 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Bunz · #46 (**permalink**) 04-30-2008

President Bush today called for Congress to open ANWR for drilling. This bill was introduced a few weeks ago. Whereas if the worldwide price of fuel tops $125 for 5 days, ANWR would be open to development in the coastal plain area.

Bush tells Congress to open ANWR for oil: Oil | adn.com
This coincides in some very interesting timing. Firstly, it is an election year of epic proportion. Secondly Exxon is in the process of being stripped of its Point Thompson leases which is the yet to be developed field adjacent to ANWR. Meanwhile BP and Conoco Phillips are moving forward in building a natural gasline with a lower 48 link.

Does this have a shot in hell at passing either house?

AkDiesel · #47 (**permalink**) 04-30-2008

Now we get to see if the Dems are up for a change.

They would like to see the OPC countries up the per day out put,,, while here at home we keep closed areas that could increase what we do for our selfs.

Americano · #48 (**permalink**) 04-30-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunz

President Bush today called for Congress to open ANWR for drilling. This bill was introduced a few weeks ago. Whereas if the worldwide price of fuel tops $125 for 5 days, ANWR would be open to development in the coastal plain area.

Bush tells Congress to open ANWR for oil: Oil | adn.com
This coincides in some very interesting timing. Firstly, it is an election year of epic proportion. Secondly Exxon is in the process of being stripped of its Point Thompson leases which is the yet to be developed field adjacent to ANWR. Meanwhile BP and Conoco Phillips are moving forward in building a natural gasline with a lower 48 link.

Does this have a shot in hell at passing either house?

I think most issues with even a hint of controversy are going to be tabled until after the general election. Those politicians up for reelection/election are fully occupied with preening their appearances and formulating the lies/deceptions they'll run on.

If ANWR had the potential volume to affect supply/pricing it would be a hot political item. As it is, only oil companies and Alaskans stand to benefit from developing ANWR.

When thinking about what the Saud King said, no more new wells, leave some for our children, and the certainty of peak oil now or in the near future, that's not a bad thought.

Traveler · #49 (**permalink**) 04-30-2008

It was probably brought up either to be used as a wedge issue in the next elections to show the Democrats refusal to support drilling and any attempt to lower gas prices or because of the price of oil as high as it is now maybe this might be one of the last chances to get it through (with possible changes in parties in the WH/bigger Dem majority in Congress.)

Will it get through?

Well at first i expect the dems to block it at all costs, but if the public gets angry then maybe they'll allow it to be tied in with some other bill or something...if we couldn't get it through the Senate with 55 members then we won't do it being in the minority! In the House it went along party lines so even if votes were scheduled i'm not sure it'd pass.

timj219 · #50 (**permalink**) 04-30-2008

I believe w's energy department has stated ANWR oil will not lower the cost of gas and will have no serious impact on oil supplies. This is about profits - not helping US consumers.
Even if every drop of US oil is pumped it will be a drop in the bucket.

Traveler · #51 (**permalink**) 04-30-2008

So what's your problem with our energy policies then?

Bunz · #52 (**permalink**) 04-30-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Americano

I think most issues with even a hint of controversy are going to be tabled until after the general election. Those politicians up for reelection/election are fully occupied with preening their appearances and formulating the lies/deceptions they'll run on.

If ANWR had the potential volume to affect supply/pricing it would be a hot political item. As it is, only oil companies and Alaskans stand to benefit from developing ANWR.

When thinking about what the Saud King said, no more new wells, leave some for our children, and the certainty of peak oil now or in the near future, that's not a bad thought.

I think you are probably right, that it wont get much place real quick this year unfortunately. As for the politicians up for re-election, 2 of 3 of our congressional delegation is up for re-election this year. Both are under heavy fire and are not only facing the toughest political opponents so far in thier careers, It is a real potential they could receive indictments.

As for it benefiting only Alaskans, that is bogus. There would be billions in royalties and taxes paid to the feds due to that. But also, it is more than just ANWR. The adjacent field outside of ANWR is called Point Thompson. It is going to be resold soon probably and coincide with an Alaska Natural Gasline"denali line" is what its being called. There is also 36TCF of natural gas there. Enough natural gas to heat the midwest for a generation apparently.

So the US can add more money to the treasuries of sketchy allies in the mid east. Or it can develop the energy infastructure that will make some difference at the same time as improving our domestic output and wealth. I wonder how many people who say no to ANWR also get thier panties in a wad over all that extra federal dollars that go to AK.

Bunz · #53 (**permalink**) 04-30-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by timj219

I believe w's energy department has stated ANWR oil will not lower the cost of gas and will have no serious impact on oil supplies. This is about profits - not helping US consumers.
Even if every drop of US oil is pumped it will be a drop in the bucket.

ANWR in itself might not, but as I said before, this will spur development of the pt Thompson field that is more or less not operating right now. This is because of a few things. One up until 10 years ago there wasnt the capacity in the existing pipe and prices were to low to justify the infastrucure expenses. So basically what you allow is the need to only build one set of pipes with some additional capacity to account for ANWR. Right now, if they said open ANWR today, working full speed ahead, ANWR would be pumping oil in less than 4 years. Point Thompson could be in less than 3. If they said start work tomorrow on the gasline, it might be 10 years. But the amount of gas up there is massive and will probably drive that cost down. Plus the gas is actually known reserve. Because much of it has been reinjected back into the ground due to not having the gasline. 35trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Americano · #54 (**permalink**) 04-30-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunz

I think you are probably right, that it wont get much place real quick this year unfortunately. As for the politicians up for re-election, 2 of 3 of our congressional delegation is up for re-election this year. Both are under heavy fire and are not only facing the toughest political opponents so far in thier careers, It is a real potential they could receive indictments.

As for it benefiting only Alaskans, that is bogus. There would be billions in royalties and taxes paid to the feds due to that. But also, it is more than just ANWR. The adjacent field outside of ANWR is called Point Thompson. It is going to be resold soon probably and coincide with an Alaska Natural Gasline"denali line" is what its being called. There is also 36TCF of natural gas there. Enough natural gas to heat the midwest for a generation apparently.

Oil's still the primary US energy problem. As to the potential fed tax revenue, the high production costs will provide cushion on that if still calculated on net revenue. Chump change. I personally don't see it benefiting, as I stated, anyone other than Alaskans and the oil industry, which is already benefiting from public subsidization.

Quote:

So the US can add more money to the treasuries of sketchy allies in the mid east. Or it can develop the energy infastructure that will make some difference at the same time as improving our domestic output and wealth. I wonder how many people who say no to ANWR also get thier panties in a wad over all that extra federal dollars that go to AK.

The numbers just aren't there to benefit the entire US public, unless you intend on nationalizing US natural resources, including oil, to isolate domestic production consumption from global market pricing pressures. Unless the experts are wrong, we have or are reaching peak oil. If the US had some volume potential, I say yes, get more. But it doesn't and all pumping every last barrel of pool oil is going to do is prolong the inevitable for what, a year, two years at current world consumption projections?

If I was an Alaskan resident semi-dependent on the royalty money (I know its not a fortune), a young person in a state with a single major tax revenue source and above normal cost of living or a native Alaskan concerned with here and now, I might feel differently. But I'm not. Alaska's needs don't really affect me, nor can its utilization of natural resources benefit me or a majority of the US public in any tangible manner.

I'm not trying to be abrasive, merely describe my sentiment and the reality of US oil production efforts. We need to bite the energy bullet now.

Bunz · #55 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Americano

Oil's still the primary US energy problem. As to the potential fed tax revenue, the high production costs will provide cushion on that if still calculated on net revenue. Chump change. I personally don't see it benefiting, as I stated, anyone other than Alaskans and the oil industry, which is already benefiting from public subsidization.

I think you might be thinking a bit short sighted. Id like to know what your objection to drilling there? What would you be saying if the same resources were in another area? Understand a few things, Alaska takes lots of flak over the federal money that comes here. But the feds hold up Alaska from doing lots of reasonable development because way outside interests influence congress who have little idea of the whole situation.
As for oil being the energy problem. There are a few things you are forgetting or not understanding. On a personal level, I am set to be paying $7 a gallon for gas and 6.50 for diesel when the fuel barge comes in here, on mothers day. Plus I can bring you to a glacier that when I was young, I got my picture taken next to the face of it. That was 25 years ago. That glacier has since receded to 2 full miles since then. It hadnt moved 200 yards in the previous 100 years.
So I know full well the perils of using oil. But here is the bottom line. In my every day life, I need a full size pickup. I have to regularly pull a 22foot skiff, I need 4wd. But there isnt a hybrid on the market that can do what I need it to. PLUS, I dont have the probably $45,000 price tage that comes with it.
We dont have the infastrucure in place for any sort of transition to another fuel source for at best 15 years. Realisitically, oil and gas will be around for another 50 years. Unless there is a major breakthrough in technology. This is not even considering the energy sources people use to heat thier homes.

Quote:

The numbers just aren't there to benefit the entire US public, unless you intend on nationalizing US natural resources, including oil, to isolate domestic production consumption from global market pricing pressures. Unless the experts are wrong, we have or are reaching peak oil. If the US had some volume potential, I say yes, get more. But it doesn't and all pumping every last barrel of pool oil is going to do is prolong the inevitable for what, a year, two years at current world consumption projections?

Ah but the numbers arent full known. Again, ANWR is the key part of opening the point thompson field. ANWR has not been fully explored yet. The numbers you see are on the guaranteed reserves. The potential reserves are much higher. Again, the natual gas is unthinkably large. I hope this graphic will work

Quote:

If I was an Alaskan resident semi-dependent on the royalty money (I know its not a fortune), a young person in a state with a single major tax revenue source and above normal cost of living or a native Alaskan concerned with here and now, I might feel differently. But I'm not. Alaska's needs don't really affect me, nor can its utilization of natural resources benefit me or a majority of the US public in any tangible manner.

Semi-dependant? You dont have a very good grasp on the situation here obviously, but no worries. Native Alaskans have nothing more to do with this than other Alaskans or Americans, we are all equal. You would be surprised how much of a conservationsist stance Alaska natives take. For instance with the proposed Pebble Mine
Pebble Mine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And if you think for a minute, that Alaska's needs dont have any effect on you, well you are wrong. Americas needs have much more of an effect on Alaska than vice versa. Imagine what happens if Alaska shut down its fishing industry, its oil industry, its mineral and logging industry went away. Seattle would become a city 2/3 its size.
So tell me, when you create 5,000 jobs directly and indirectly, billions of dollars in tax revenue to local stat and federal levels, and we develop our own resources rather than meddle ourselves into middle eastern politics one more bit than necessary.

Americano · #56 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunz

I think you might be thinking a bit short sighted. Id like to know what your objection to drilling there? What would you be saying if the same resources were in another area? Understand a few things, Alaska takes lots of flak over the federal money that comes here. But the feds hold up Alaska from doing lots of reasonable development because way outside interests influence congress who have little idea of the whole situation.
As for oil being the energy problem. There are a few things you are forgetting or not understanding. On a personal level, I am set to be paying $7 a gallon for gas and 6.50 for diesel when the fuel barge comes in here, on mothers day. Plus I can bring you to a glacier that when I was young, I got my picture taken next to the face of it. That was 25 years ago. That glacier has since receded to 2 full miles since then. It hadnt moved 200 yards in the previous 100 years.
So I know full well the perils of using oil. But here is the bottom line. In my every day life, I need a full size pickup. I have to regularly pull a 22foot skiff, I need 4wd. But there isnt a hybrid on the market that can do what I need it to. PLUS, I dont have the probably $45,000 price tage that comes with it.
We dont have the infastrucure in place for any sort of transition to another fuel source for at best 15 years. Realisitically, oil and gas will be around for another 50 years. Unless there is a major breakthrough in technology. This is not even considering the energy sources people use to heat thier homes.

Ah but the numbers arent full known. Again, ANWR is the key part of opening the point thompson field. ANWR has not been fully explored yet. The numbers you see are on the guaranteed reserves. The potential reserves are much higher. Again, the natual gas is unthinkably large. I hope this graphic will work

Semi-dependant? You dont have a very good grasp on the situation here obviously, but no worries. Native Alaskans have nothing more to do with this than other Alaskans or Americans, we are all equal. You would be surprised how much of a conservationsist stance Alaska natives take. For instance with the proposed Pebble Mine
Pebble Mine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And if you think for a minute, that Alaska's needs dont have any effect on you, well you are wrong. Americas needs have much more of an effect on Alaska than vice versa. Imagine what happens if Alaska shut down its fishing industry, its oil industry, its mineral and logging industry went away. Seattle would become a city 2/3 its size.
So tell me, when you create 5,000 jobs directly and indirectly, billions of dollars in tax revenue to local stat and federal levels, and we develop our own resources rather than meddle ourselves into middle eastern politics one more bit than necessary.

Again, other than the ANWR political controversy, Alaska has no direct impact on me or a majority of Americans.

Seattle is destined to become 2/3rds of its current size when Alaska depletes its cheap natural resources? I've watched that happen in many US states and in Europe. What will happen to Alaska when it no longer has cheap natural resources, or more likely with technology, no demand for same? Everyone takes up cross-country skiing?

danielpalos · #57 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008

There is no reason why the US can't develop better drilling technologies that can reach oil reserves, from outside of nature preserves. Not only could this type of targeted advancement of technologies help improve our standard of living with future applications, but it would also help preserve a state of Nature as it was intended to be preserved.

We could also help conserve energy if the chief magistrates of the several states, and of the Union, were to require their departments to acquire a certain percentage of alternative fuel capable vehicles when acquiring new vehicles for their departments. This could also be considered a form of targeting new technologies for development and using a market friendly method to accomplish it.

Americano · #58 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

There is no reason why the US can't develop better drilling technologies that can reach oil reserves, from outside of nature preserves. Not only could this type of targeted advancement of technologies help improve our standard of living with future applications, but it would also help preserve a state of Nature as it was intended to be preserved.

We could also help conserve energy if the chief magistrates of the several states, and of the Union, were to require their departments to acquire a certain percentage of alternative fuel capable vehicles when acquiring new vehicles for their departments. This could also be considered a form of targeting new technologies for development and using a market friendly method to accomplish it.

The political aspect being is there a suitable US marque for public officials to utilize? None I can think of.

Bunz · #59 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Americano

Again, other than the ANWR political controversy, Alaska has no direct impact on me or a majority of Americans.

Your right, and people wonder why there is a separatist movement in Alaska

See, this is the problem with the lower 48, we are not seen as a state but a playground for everyone else, who is handcuffed from developing out resources to produce for the rest of the country. But you dont think Alaska has no direct impact? Well, if we shut off the oil taps, you will wake up. Not only is there near certainty you have Alaskan oil in your car right now, there is probably Alaskan lumber in your house, Alaskan copper in your walls and electronics, Alaskan Zinc on everything you own that is chromed, parkerized,
or any form of steel really. Battery prices would soar.
This is not to mention the fish resources we provide to the US. So when you think Alaska doesnt have a direct impact on your life, it is quite short sighted.

Quote:

Seattle is destined to become 2/3rds of its current size when Alaska depletes its cheap natural resources? I've watched that happen in many US states and in Europe. What will happen to Alaska when it no longer has cheap natural resources, or more likely with technology, no demand for same? Everyone takes up cross-country skiing?

At the rate we are going right now, we will need to take up cross country skiing, because we have folks in the lower 48 who dont understand AK at all, think you know what is best for it, and then complain when federal money gets spent here. You cant have it both ways.
Seattle is heavily reliant on Alaska. Almost all goods coming and going from here are transported through Seattle and the surrounding areas. It was estimated 2 years ago that 1 in every 3 dollars in Washington came from Alaska in one way or another. This stemmed from the state of Washington wanting to up its container van tariff. The state of Washington backed down quickly when they had all the facts.

Bunz · #60 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

There is no reason why the US can't develop better drilling technologies that can reach oil reserves, from outside of nature preserves. Not only could this type of targeted advancement of technologies help improve our standard of living with future applications, but it would also help preserve a state of Nature as it was intended to be preserved.

Daniel, we have been through this before. You can talk and talk and talk about new drilling tecniques about drilling in the reserve. But you are failing to understand several facts, despite being told over and over again.
The underground mineral and resource rights belong to the federal government. Even if they had the technology to drill horizontally for 70+miles before getting into the reserve, It still is off limits. But the fact of the matter is this. They can do some horizontal or directional drilling today. But nowhere near the 70miles you seem to think they can.
As for the state of nature. You have no idea the scale and scope of what we are talking here. But either way, this should talk about maintaining a state of wilderness for you. Despite the fact that you will probably never go to ANWR, and if you did, youd want to hell out of there so fast a teleportation machine wouldnt be quick enough.

Bookmarks
Digg	del.icio.us	StumbleUpon	Google

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode