Dude, I dont know how many times you need to be told, but I will once again. Even if it were economical to drill horizontally for 70-100 miles to access the oil in ANWR from outside of ANWR, the underground resource rights are still under ANWR and therefore off limits.


Then maybe we should use them to dig to China, or dig a hole and just tap middle eastern oil from under the US capital building. We are talking about economics here. It is not economical to do so. Do you know how long it took to dig the chunnel? About 20 years to go 30miles. Through a material that is easier to drill through. We are talking about going 3x as far. You obviously dont know much about how oil in Alaska is produced.

Also this notion that much of the infastructure can be underground is a joke. There is 1000 feet of permafrost between the surface and the oil. There is a reason most of the trans alaska pipeline is above ground. Because it is technologically impossible to have that infastructure underground.

__________________
Abstinence Education at its finest:

All I am saying is that, if any resources extraction is done, at all; it should be outside of the nature preserve.

With advances in those technologies, we could eventually build a UN class underground mass transit system based on frictionless surfaces and vacuum environments. The applications resulting from those advances could be enormous. And, they could result in many more domestic jobs that cannot be exported.

One poses less risk to the refuge by bringing the critical but small amount of infastructure closer to the wells. The current practices on the north slope are amazingly clean and with virtually no impact on the wildlife in the region as the pictures show so dramatically.
Great, we need oil now though. If we would have opened ANWR 10 years ago before Clinton vetoed it, that oil and its infastructure would be in place and flowing. Instead, our transportation industry is going bankrupt, the Chinese own even more of America and there is no end in sight.

__________________
Abstinence Education at its finest:

I say let's drill immediately and end our dependence on foreign oil. We not have this huge reserve in Alaska, but in Minnesota as well and other parts of the country.

I live in Texas where nearly every part of the state has been drilled and where oil has been a key ingredient in to the states economy for years, and guess what? No devastating environmental problems and most of this drilling was done before advances in technology that have made it a much safer venture than before.

Texas has never had any environmental assets to destroy.

Extended reach drilling could have even less impact on a nature preserve and could be done outside of a preserve. The technology advances would be helpful in future resource recovery and could enable resource recovery from reservoirs of stored energy that are not currently being considered. An example of the potential from such technologies could be that of extracting energy and other resources from active volcanoes that have been providing those resources for millennia.

We would need less oil, and could be helping the environment, if we were to transition to alternative fuel vehicles sooner rather than later. There is nothing preventing any of the governors of the fifty states or the Union from replacing obsolete vehicles with alternative fuel capable vehicles. The public sector could provide more of an impetus for the private sector to produce better products at lower cost to the individual consumer.

Your scenario does nothing to address any of those concerns, and could have negative environmental impact in a nature preserve.

Sigh, Daniel OK lets go through this a few more times, only maybe this one will be fun.
Somewhat true, but what you have failed to let sink into your mind despite being told numerous times is that the oil under the refuge is still in the refuge. It would need to be opened before this is allowed.
Yeah nothing like counting on technology that does not exist today or in the short-medium term future. But you probably missed the part about how the lions share of the billions in royalties set to be made would be invested in R&D of alternative energies. Why bother ourselves with facts right?
Except that there isnt enough of them to go around right now as it is. If the smallest state in the union swtiched over to say a hybrid, it would take years before those vehicles could be delivered. But you also fail to take into account the capability of alt fuel vehicles. It will be at least a decade before they are comparable.
The enviromental protections already provided for on the north slope with existing oil wells are the most stringent in the world. I bet your back yard is less clean that the area around the oil infastructure.

__________________
Abstinence Education at its finest:

I think you are still being disingenuous. Resource extraction from outside the preserve would not require that the actual preserve be opened to anything. Extended reach drilling could be accomplished from without the preserve.

I don't agree with your assessment. Investing in R&D by the public sector could reduce costs to the private sector and decrease time to market for product innovation. I only think it is unfortunate that Bill's administration did not have that type of legislation implemented ten years ago when he vetoed drilling in a nature preserve.

Not all alternative fuel vehicles are unfeasible currently. In any event, any impetus could provide for a decrease in current fossil fuel consumption. In the example of ANWR, a ten percent decrease in fossil fuel consumption could render drilling in a nature preserve a far less ideal option since there would be no environmental benefit.

I understand that there is still residue to be found on some beaches from the last oil spill.

The federal government owns the subsurface rights due to the fact they own the surface rights. So yes, the refuge does need to be opened to go in that direction.
At this point, no it cannot be done, at least not to make it economical.
A ten percent reduction in consumption and having %10 of our oil supply coming from ANWR/Pt Thompson would result in %20 less mid east oil. Even with the best case scenario, it will be 20 years before there is a signifigant amount of alt fuel vehicles.
Talking about two very different things. ANWR is 1000miles from where the spill occurred. The spill came from an idiotic drunken tanker captain who left a less experienced but equally idiotic 3rd mate at the helm while he slept off his drunk. A horrible tragic situation. There is still some residual oil under the surface on a few beaches yes.

__________________
Abstinence Education at its finest:

I suppose we are merely quibbling about what constitutes the Nature Preserve. I didn't know that there we any forms of Nature that needed to be preserved that are underground and susceptible to a drilling bore hole. However, I agree that the government owns subsurface resources, but feel you are being disingenuous about what constitutes the actual part of Nature that was legislated to be Preserved for native wildlife.

I disagree with your assessment. From what I have read of the current state of technology, it is possible, and would not need to economical if the public sector does it. It would, however, still provide for advances in technologies that could make future resource extraction more feasible in the future. Tax incentives could render that type of venture more feasible for the private sector and still accomplish most of the stated objectives.

I think your argument is somewhat specious concerning alternative fuel vehicles. However, even if what you say is true, ANWR would probably be depleted within twenty years anyway, without any significant impetus for advances under your scenario.

All you are saying is that human error was responsible for the previous environmental hazard. Humans will be part of any resource extraction venture. Why not provide an impetus for advances in resource extraction that could render it more feasible and reduce the impact of an environmental hazard in a nature preserve?

so we are going to threaten others with arms embargoes because we blew up our currency and have not done a thing to increase our own production and refining capacity?? To say nothing of the hypocrisy noted as well....My word...


Guns for Oil
May 7, 2008
Speaking of energy (see here), we can't help but give more attention to a recent press release from some of the Senate's leading liberals. Charles Schumer, Byron Dorgan, Bernie Sanders, Bob Casey and Mary Landrieu are demanding that President Bush tell OPEC nations to increase their oil supplies or risk losing arms deals with the United States. The Senators say U.S. consumers need the price relief that only increased oil production can bring.

Yes, that Senator Schumer and that Senator Dorgan, both of whom voted against increasing U.S. oil production because they couldn't abide drilling across 1% of Alaska's wilderness. Yes, that Senator Casey, who has called for mandatory reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide. At least Senator Landrieu of Louisiana has fought to allow more offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

All of these Senate Democrats are willing to accept greater carbon emissions, as long as we can also outsource jobs in the petroleum industry to Middle Eastern dictatorships. The Senators do aver that "some of us have concerns in general about arming this region to the teeth," but apparently cheap fossil fuel buys a lot of peace of mind.

A special word of concern about Mr. Sanders: He is the only avowed socialist in Congress, but the Vermonter appears to be losing his religion over $122-a-barrel oil. By signing this letter, not only is he officially recognizing the law of supply and demand; he's also proposing a more crassly commercial trade of guns for oil than anything we've ever heard from the most candid realpolitician.

To top it off, the Senator whose Web site proudly proclaims that the first bill he introduced was to combat global warming now wants more fossil fuels ready for burning. We hope his friends are closely watching Mr. Sanders, in case he blows a gasket over all of this cognitive ideological dissonance.

Guns for Oil - WSJ.com

A few paragraphs. You really don't have to quote the whole article every time.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

US reserves not in production are a drop in the bucket of our consumption, more production by ME monarchies won't drop the price at the pump while our foreign policy plus our devaluing currency are major influences on stimulating market pricing increases of futures speculation and hedging USD. That our politicians would attempt feeble trade blackmail with one of our top three oil suppliers means reality still hasn't soaked into their ignorance or arrogance.

That's almost as sad as Bush visiting the Sauds on a state visit and publicly announcing his request that they increase production. The Sauds then made the statement, after Bush's politically required, staged begging/demand appearance, that they had no intent of opening new production fields, preferring to save it for their children.

So what's next, invading Iran, the Sauds and maybe even Norway if they don't meet our addiction demands with their finite resources? Aren't there also other small, relatively defenseless nations where our strangling military costs can be utilized and experience yet more failure before we admit we're going in the wrong direction in our desperation? The rest of the developed world, with 2-3 times our our pump cost of fuel, has to be laughing at us as we blindly plunge forward with meaningless proposed solutions to our problems while they develop and utilize alternative energy.

All this interest in ANWR, yet you hardly ever hear about all the oil just off the coast of Florida.
I guess preserving the natural beauty means a lot more, when it's a swing state.

__________________
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi (R)
on McCain

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
Senator Pete Domenici, New Mexico (R)
on McCain

“My anger did not help my campaign ... People don’t like angry candidates very much.”

McCain on McCain

Well considering ownership of Alaska's resources is that of its residents. And there is 600,000 residents of Alaska which currently is producing 900,000barrels per day, it means my share is 1.5barrels per day. Meanting my annual share of oil is roughly 500 barrels. At $100 a barrel, that means $50k per person. Id be willing to trade in a few of those barrels to upgrade my gun collection. But that is just me.

__________________
Abstinence Education at its finest: