New ANWR Bill in the Senate - Page 5 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Americano · #61 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunz

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.

Could we stay with ANWR oil? I also follow timber, a different topic, but not the minerals.

Quote:

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.

Again, could we stay with determining the value to the US public of pumping out Alaska's known oil reserves in ANWR. I understand your loyalty to Alaska but the resources are national treasure and you haven't given your position on US public value, only how disposing of those assets would benefit Alaska and special interests. I've described IMO where the financial benefits will ultimately rest, oil interests and Alaska residents, yet after my providing a reasonable explanation of commodity market oil pricing, including US public subsidization for domestically produced oil, you've provided no agreement or disagreement. Please, That's enough Alaska PR.

AkDiesel · #62 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008

What resources are the national treasure? Land Oil timber?
Just what are we to put a lock on?

PopulistAmerica · #63 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

If you want to become less dependent on foreign oil, what you need to think in terms of is increasing energy efficiency and switching to alternative energy sources -- getting us off oil altogether for energy purposes. (Oil has so many other uses that burning it is really a waste anyway.)

The best argument against drilling in ANWR isn't even environmental, it's that it can instill false hope and complacency, and keep us from doing what really needs doing.

And even that argument is weak. How will increasing domestic oil production slow research into alternative energy?

TSGracchus · #64 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by PopulistAmerica

How will increasing domestic oil production slow research into alternative energy?

By diverting and deluding us into thinking that increasing domestic oil production is a solution to the problem, and so lulling us into a false complacency.

PopulistAmerica · #65 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

By diverting and deluding us into thinking that increasing domestic oil production is a solution to the problem, and so lulling us into a false complacency.

I think the Global Warming and environmental political machine has enough funds and support that research into alternative energy will be forced into the debate, regardless of how much domestic oil we pump. Not that that's a bad thing.

AkDiesel · #66 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

By diverting and deluding us into thinking that increasing domestic oil production is a solution to the problem, and so lulling us into a false complacency.

Much like the Global made by man is real.

There is Global warming going on but man is a small player in the game. But the people that would make large amounts of money on the backs of the not so smart.

By making a run at oil at home we have the chance to move away from some one elses oil.

Now we could use the nations oil both still in the ground and in tanks could be used with terms,,,, ie making a move to some thing other than oil.

The use of corn is for the people that are in the futures market that where losing money and needed a bail out.

Bunz · #67 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Americano

Could we stay with ANWR oil? I also follow timber, a different topic, but not the minerals.

My writing that was based on you saying that Alaska has little bearing in your everyday life. My rebuttal was that Alaska provides the resources that are often used in every day life but the source of it is generally not known.

Quote:

Again, could we stay with determining the value to the US public of pumping out Alaska's known oil reserves in ANWR. I understand your loyalty to Alaska but the resources are national treasure and you haven't given your position on US public value, only how disposing of those assets would benefit Alaska and special interests. I've described IMO where the financial benefits will ultimately rest, oil interests and Alaska residents, yet after my providing a reasonable explanation of commodity market oil pricing, including US public subsidization for domestically produced oil, you've provided no agreement or disagreement. Please, That's enough Alaska PR.

OK, a few things to think about. Allowing any state to develop the resources that are within its boundries does several things. It even if in a small way lessens the amount of that resource to be imported. It gives Americans good paying jobs. Which then pay income tax, property tax and purchase goods.
We are talking about a minimum of 2,000 permanent full time jobs in the neighborhood of at least $75k annually. It will provide billions in tax revenue to the federal government through royalties and taxes etc. On the local state and federal level.
It will allow less federal money spent in Alaska. Which everyone already bitches about anyways.

Bunz · #68 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

By diverting and deluding us into thinking that increasing domestic oil production is a solution to the problem, and so lulling us into a false complacency.

We will need oil for the next 50 years minimum. You of course also realise the bill would put %50 of the federal revenue from ANWR towards exploring and developing alternative energy.
So, a million barrels of fuel annually, from ANWR alone on the low end of estimates. Put along with Pt. Thompson, and you might get another million barrels. But we are also talking a massive amount of natural gas. 35trillion cubic feet.

Bunz · #69 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008

Being a democrat, ANWR and gun control are the things I dont agree with thier platform. Either way, if Clinton hadnt vetoed ANWR drilling 10 years ago, guess what?
ANWR would be online right now. Pumping oil, to the tune of %10 of domestic use with Pt Thompson. Instead the American consumer gets stuck with the bill of this oil.

Americano · #70 (**permalink**) 05-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunz

We will need oil for the next 50 years minimum. You of course also realise the bill would put %50 of the federal revenue from ANWR towards exploring and developing alternative energy.
So, a million barrels of fuel annually, from ANWR alone on the low end of estimates. Put along with Pt. Thompson, and you might get another million barrels. But we are also talking a massive amount of natural gas. 35trillion cubic feet.

Two million or 20 million barrels a year in a country that currently consumes 20-million barrels a day is not much of an argument to convince anyone outside of Alaska to authorize drilling and production in a wildlife habitat. The natural gas would be about an 18-month US supply, again not a significant number.

Americano · #71 (**permalink**) 05-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunz

Being a democrat, ANWR and gun control are the things I dont agree with thier platform. Either way, if Clinton hadnt vetoed ANWR drilling 10 years ago, guess what?
ANWR would be online right now. Pumping oil, to the tune of %10 of domestic use with Pt Thompson. Instead the American consumer gets stuck with the bill of this oil.

That's deceptive. Due to global pricing the price to the mainland consumer is the same, no matter where oil is produced.

Imperator · #72 (**permalink**) 05-03-2008

well as always it easy to make hay after the event......

mudwhistle · #73 (**permalink**) 05-03-2008

It's like a car full of lawyers going over a cliff...........it's a good start.

danielpalos · #74 (**permalink**) 05-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunz

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.

I think there is a big difference between a footprint within a nature preserve and a footprint outside of a nature preserve. Drilling to reach underground resources from outside a preserve would leave no footprint that would disturb that particular state of Nature.

Quote:

Virtually all relevant trade journals have carried articles over the past 5 years expressing considerable optimism as to the business growth prospects of horizontal drilling. So far, these predictions appear to be valid. A close student of the subject, David Yard, estimated in January 1990 that horizontal completions would escalate by 230 percent annually, and that more than 2,000 successful completions could be expected in 1992. He also expected lifting costs to fall into the $4- to $6-per-barrel range. (55)

Source: A Review of Horizontal Well Technology and Its Domestic Application

TBMs can bore tunnels any distance required on this planet. With sufficient scale, most of the infrastructure can be underground as well.

Quote:

A Tunnel boring machine (TBM) is a machine used to excavate tunnels with a circular cross section through a variety of rock strata. They can be used to bore through hard rock or sand and almost anything in between. Tunnel diameters can range from a metre (done with micro-TBMs) to 19 metres. Tunnels of less than a metre or so in diameter are more typically done by horizontal directional drilling rather than by TBMs.

Source: Tunnel boring machine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Advances in these types of technologies could eventually reduce costs and create jobs that cannot be exported.

Bunz · #75 (**permalink**) 05-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Americano

Two million or 20 million barrels a year in a country that currently consumes 20-million barrels a day is not much of an argument to convince anyone outside of Alaska to authorize drilling and production in a wildlife habitat. The natural gas would be about an 18-month US supply, again not a significant number.

That was a typo. Alaska crude production if ANWR was allowed would be close to 2million bpd. Right now it is 750k or so. So again, we are talking somewhere in the neighborhood of %10 of annual domestic use.

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