Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

okie wrote:

I am not arguing that the government does not have or should not have the power to draw the line, such as which lands to lease for oil drilling. What I am arguing is that the line they have drawn is in the wrong place, for the wrong reasons, and is detrimental to the people they represent and should have acting in behalf of.

Why is not opening up ANWR for drilling "detrimental to the people"?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I still find it amazing, to look at a container of 1 gallon of gasoline, and realize that mankind has figured out a way to propel 2 tons of material a distance of 20 miles or more with it. That is almost a miracle, and it will be even more miraculous as we discover how to do it on even less or on different things, such as the sun, etc.

Agreed. But keep in mind this requires a frame of reference that makes it seem impressive. Mostly lilkely it is far from the optimum. I'd encourage you to save your marvel for the power of the sun like you say.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

okie wrote:
I do not subscribe to the idea that a business can succeed by buying out all of their competiton. It may work for a while, usually a very short while, but ultimately it fails. The only real path to success as a company is providing a superior product or service at a competitive price.

Oh the Irony.

This is exactly why the oil companies are stupid. Short term gains for individuals, with no regaurd for the future. I sometimes even wonder of they care about the future of their own companies or if they figure they can take the system and retire before the ship sinks. I think they just don't want it to go down while on their watch, nothing more. If the oil companies were smart they would have recognized about 30 years ago, the shelf life on oil and would have made a more direct effort to diversify their interests.

BP is currently advertising themselves as an energy company (as opposed to an oil company). I'm not sure about the UK but here they even switched from "British Petroleum" to "Beyond Petroleum." While I'm not sure if this is a sincere effort or simply a reimaging campaign, I think that they certainly describing what an energy company should do. Part of me really wants this to be sincere, the other part is still to skeptical to let me buy in. I have not taken the time yet to investigate what kind of research/investment/etc they do outside of petroleum products.

T
K
O

Diest, that has been going on a long time. Oil companies began to do this back in the 60's and 70's, and they have diversified into lots of things, such as coal, uranium, geothermal, solar, etc. But just because they have gotten into these things does not mean these things are suddenly more efficient than oil. Oil companies are not magicians, they are instead businessmen, to sell a product that best competes in the marketplace. The consumer is still in the drivers seat whether you want them to be or not. Neither the government, nor the energy companies, can or should issue an eddict that declares one energy source or another is now going to take over from oil. Any time and every time that happens, we will see the law of unintended consequences every single time. Price, availability, and efficiency will determine that at the right time.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
I am not arguing that the government does not have or should not have the power to draw the line, such as which lands to lease for oil drilling. What I am arguing is that the line they have drawn is in the wrong place, for the wrong reasons, and is detrimental to the people they represent and should have acting in behalf of.

Why is not opening up ANWR for drilling "detrimental to the people"?

The answer seems pretty reasonable to me, that producing ANWR would at the margins reduce oil price what it otherwise would be, and lessen our dependence on foreign oil and all its political consequences, and it would help our balance of payments in regard to imports / exports, and it would help our domestic economic situation. And it would lessen the shock of our need to move into viable alternatives, which still requires much development to be as efficient and viable as we need.

And producing ANWR would not cause much environmental impact at all, because two reasons, one being it does not affect a significant portion of the refuge, less than 5% as I recall, maybe even less than 1 or 2 % I would need to look it up, and even where drilling occurs, the environment will not suffer greatly. We have learned how to produce several wells from one drilling pad or location.

0 Replies

Why not drill for oil in ANWR?

ANWR=19,100,000 ACRES OF PRISTINELY DESOLATE ARCTIC LAND
DRILLING 0.1% OF ANWR = 19,100 ACRES
Drilling 0.037% of ANWR = 7,067 acres
DRILLING 0.01% OF ANWR = 1,910 ACRES

0 Replies

Who exactly are you relying upon for the assertions that it would not 'harm the wildlife?' The oil companies?

They cannot be trusted to make such assessments. BP said the exact same thing, and then failed to maintain their pipelines, spilling quite a bit of oil all over some very nice Alaskan countryside... how do we know the same won't happen again?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Thanks for the answer. Let me go through it point by point.

okie wrote:

The answer seems pretty reasonable to me, that producing ANWR would at the margins reduce oil price what it otherwise would be,

You probably know about the recent ANWR study by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). Here's what they are projecting in regard to oil prices:

Quote:

The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.

The best case scenario would be a decrease in oil prices by $1.44 per barrel in 2027.

okie wrote:

and lessen our dependence on foreign oil

The projection is that ANWR oil production would amount to 0.4 percent to 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030.

This basically doesn't affect American dependence on foreign oil at all.

EIA noted that the percentage is so miniscule that any projected drop in oil prices could easily be neutralized if OPEC decided to decrease production in order to match the additional production from ANWR.

okie wrote:

and all its political consequences,

It seems that, as bringing ANWR online would hardly affect dependence on foreign oil at all, the same can be said for political consequences.

okie wrote:

and it would help our balance of payments in regard to imports / exports,

See above. A slight decrease in production by OPEC would offset the whole effort.

okie wrote:

and it would help our domestic economic situation.

Now, this I doubt very much. If you're arguing about the effect on oil prices, it's negligible.

If you have something else in mind, I'd be interested in what you think the benefits to the domestic economic situation would be.

okie wrote:

And it would lessen the shock of our need to move into viable alternatives, which still requires much development to be as efficient and viable as we need.

It would "lessen the shock" in ten years. I think this point is really mute, though. If American companies refuse to invest into new technologies now, a miniscule decrease in oil prices of some cents per barrel, ten years from now, will do nothing.

Really, I fail to see the benefits that people who support drilling in ANWR always claim are there.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Who exactly are you relying upon for the assertions that it would not 'harm the wildlife?' The oil companies?

They cannot be trusted to make such assessments. BP said the exact same thing, and then failed to maintain their pipelines, spilling quite a bit of oil all over some very nice Alaskan countryside... how do we know the same won't happen again?

Cycloptichorn

Common sense, because I have personally worked around drill rigs, cyclops. I used to sit drill rigs as a geologist. To expand on this, I grew up on a farm, worked the fields, worked and traveled ever since in sparsely populated regions, and have done alot of time in the outdoors, observing wildlife and spending time in nature all my life. I am an outdoorsman. I was a bird watcher as a kid. It is my firm belief it is cities and people that are the worst places to be, and that industries like timbering, mining, and oil drilling is of little concern to the environment. Now if you build casinos in ANWR and then invite millions of people to live there in condos, then that would be a problem.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Thanks for the answer. Let me go through it point by point.

okie wrote:
The answer seems pretty reasonable to me, that producing ANWR would at the margins reduce oil price what it otherwise would be,

You probably know about the recent ANWR study by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). Here's what they are projecting in regard to oil prices:

Quote:
The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.

The best case scenario would be a decrease in oil prices by $1.44 per barrel in 2027.

okie wrote:
and lessen our dependence on foreign oil

The projection is that ANWR oil production would amount to 0.4 percent to 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030.

This basically doesn't affect American dependence on foreign oil at all.

EIA noted that the percentage is so miniscule that any projected drop in oil prices could easily be neutralized if OPEC decided to decrease production in order to match the additional production from ANWR.

okie wrote:
and all its political consequences,

It seems that, as bringing ANWR online would hardly affect dependence on foreign oil at all, the same can be said for political consequences.

okie wrote:
and it would help our balance of payments in regard to imports / exports,

See above. A slight decrease in production by OPEC would offset the whole effort.

okie wrote:
and it would help our domestic economic situation.

Now, this I doubt very much. If you're arguing about the effect on oil prices, it's negligible.

If you have something else in mind, I'd be interested in what you think the benefits to the domestic economic situation would be.

okie wrote:
And it would lessen the shock of our need to move into viable alternatives, which still requires much development to be as efficient and viable as we need.

It would "lessen the shock" in ten years. I think this point is really mute, though. If American companies refuse to invest into new technologies now, a miniscule decrease in oil prices of some cents per barrel, ten years from now, will do nothing.

Really, I fail to see the benefits that people who support drilling in ANWR always claim are there.

It is obvious from your answers that you don't know much about the oil business, and that you have bought into the liberal talking points, about impact of oil price, etc. Frankly, I don't believe the figures, and if the Democrats believed all of this, they would not have advocated producing the strategic petroleum reserve, which is only a fraction of what ANWR would produce. Secondly, if one of the largest petroleum reserve areas in the world is not significant enough to produce, then none are, by your logic. Thirdly, it isn't just ANWR, I advocate doing everything reasonable to enhance our own situation as a package deal, to include offshore, which would amount to 10s of billions of barrels, and production greater than not only what we import from Saudi Arabia but other countries as well.

All of your points are liberal talking points, and they are all bogus. If I am complaining about apple prices, then it makes no sense to cut down my own apple trees or not pick the apples that my own tree has, even if they aren't enough to supply me.

I am growing tired of debating what should be abundantly obvious to the most casual observer, and growing more obvious by the day. The sooner McCain sees the light and jumps completely on the band wagon of common sense, the better his chances will become in November. Actually it hurts to have to convince our own candidate of these obvious issue, and we would be better off today if we had a candidate that understood this from Day 1 and could have hit the ground running.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Who exactly are you relying upon for the assertions that it would not 'harm the wildlife?' The oil companies?

They cannot be trusted to make such assessments. BP said the exact same thing, and then failed to maintain their pipelines, spilling quite a bit of oil all over some very nice Alaskan countryside... how do we know the same won't happen again?

Cycloptichorn

You, Cyclo, cannot be trusted to evaluate the dangers to ANWR wildlife as a consequence of drilling for oil in less than one-thousandth of the acreage in ANWR.

ANWR is not "very nice Alaskan countryside." You're claiming so is nothing more than your fantasy or your fraud.

We know that the population of Caribou and Polar Bears in the Arctic has for years been increasing in the areas where we have been drilling and lifting oil. Rational reasoning makes it obvious that drilling and lifting oil in less than one-thousandth of the total acreage in ANWR is far more likely to lead to increased caribou and polar bear population in ANWR.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

All of your points are liberal talking points, and they are all bogus.

Actually, all of my points were made by the US Energy Information Administration, in a report responding to a request from Senator Ted Stevens.

You can have a look at it here.

Maybe it would also help to understand that older numbers on ANWR drilling were based on the EIA's last report from 2000, when oil was still $22.04 a barrel.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
All of your points are liberal talking points, and they are all bogus.

Actually, all of my points were made by the US Energy Information Administration, in a report responding to a request from Senator Ted Stevens.

You can have a look at it here.

Maybe it would also help to understand that older numbers on ANWR drilling were based on the EIA's last report from 2000, when oil was still $22.04 a barrel.

Quote:

here.

Summary

The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively.

Crude oil imports are projected to decline by about one barrel for every barrel of ANWR oil production. Opening ANWR results in the lowest oil import dependency levels during the 2022 through 2026 time frame, when oil import dependency falls to the minimum values of 46 and 49 percent for the high and low oil resource cases, respectively. During that timeframe, the mean resource case and AEO2008 reference case project an average oil import dependency of 48 and 51 percent, respectively. Because ANWR oil production is declining after 2028, U.S. oil dependency rises to 51 percent in 2030 in the mean resource case, compared to 54 percent in the AEO2008 reference case. The high and low resource cases project a 2030 oil import dependency of 48 percent and 52 percent, respectively.

Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR improves the U.S. balance of trade. Cumulative expenditures on foreign crude oil and liquid fuels between 2018 and 2030 are reduced by $202 billion dollars (2006 dollars) in the mean oil resource case and reduced by $135 and $327 billion dollars in the low and high oil resource cases, respectively.

Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Frankly, I don't believe the figures...

I bet you expect your figures to be accepted independent of their source.

okie wrote:

If I am complaining about apple prices, then it makes no sense to cut down my own apple trees or not pick the apples that my own tree has, even if they aren't enough to supply me.

It makes less sense to insist that apples are the only fruit worth picking.

There is no short term solution, so we are gonig to have to be looking big picture. In ten years energy will still be coming out of fossil fuels, we have to ask ourselves where else we need our energy to be coming from in 10, 20 years etc.

My vision would be to limit the use of gas burners. Regulate the required MPG or better provide financial insentives to automobile companies to produce electric vehicles. Long range transportation of goods would still be by diesel truck, but the curved demand for fuel would help lower the cost. That needless to say effects the costs of goods and the economy in general. Next, augment the power grid architecture with more solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear power sources. I'd add that climate control efficiency standards for large buildings be revisited as well. This is certainly not the final solution, but I think that an intermediate structure (such as this, but perhaps not specifically) would help us ween off our dependancy and encourage the development of new technologies via large federal grants. It would additionally reduce enviromental contributors.

Also Okie, I totally agree with what you say about a casino's effect on area, more specifically the way we can damage with simpler offences such as litter. For me personally, I find that with climate change, the issue of deforrestation, water contamination and urban sprawl to be equally important to address.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest, we need both short term and long term solutions. There is no silver bullet - one solution to fix the scenario. We need all of the above, including all of our own oil that we can reasonably produce. Anything less is self defeatism. Just because I advocate ANWR and offshore drilling does not indicate all other options are put on hold, as they won't be, because ANWR and offshore will not make us energy independent or independent longterm or reduce the price substantially, but what it will do will ease the pain somewhat with little or no negative effects, while we continue to develop other parts of the energy puzzle.

Your vision includes artificial manipulation by the government, which generally produces negative effects and actually delays real progress in the most efficient direction. History has shown that to be true, in my opinion.

0 Replies

I don't think you are advocating putting alternatives on hold. I just think that given a finite amount of money that can be put into an energy solution, we should not be bailing out oil companies when we could be investing it elsewhere.

T
K
O

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
All of your points are liberal talking points, and they are all bogus.

Actually, all of my points were made by the US Energy Information Administration, in a report responding to a request from Senator Ted Stevens.

You can have a look at it here.

Maybe it would also help to understand that older numbers on ANWR drilling were based on the EIA's last report from 2000, when oil was still $22.04 a barrel.

Yes, and I think this merely points out how unpredictable oil prices are, and the higher the price, the more radical the swings can be in terms of dollars. I think ANWR and offshore would have more effect on the price than your report shows.

Also, one thing always out there is the value of the dollar, and we need to quit spending like there is no tomorrow, so that the value of the dollar would improve, thus oil prices would be reduced. Improving our economy, oil import / export situation, and other factors that ANWR also indirectly affects would also improve that picture. The puzzle is many faceted, and there are more than single reasons to drill in ANWR, offshore, etc.

Another point, ANWR recoverable reserves are probably higher under current price than they would have previously been.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

I don't think you are advocating putting alternatives on hold. I just think that given a finite amount of money that can be put into an energy solution, we should not be bailing out oil companies when we could be investing it elsewhere.

T
K
O

Nobody is bailing out oil companies. They are doing fine, thank you, and we should all be congratulating them and buying stock. After all, not all American companies are making profits. Be thankful they are so we don't have to bail them out.

0 Replies

Guy Caruso, head of the federal Energy Information Administration , predicts that fossil fuel use will continue to increase at a good rate .
while the price for oil and gasoline IN U.S. DOLLARS seems to spiral out of control , the price increases have been much more moderate in other currencies , such as the euro .
the oil producing nations - particularly in the middle-east - have stated repeatedly that the oil price will come down as soon as the U.S. dollar regains its former strength . with the large U.S. debt it will be rather difficult tor the U.S. dollar to start appreciating anytime soon , i assume .

Quote:

The projections said that without mandatory actions to address global warming, the amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide flowing into the atmosphere each year from energy use will be 51 per cent greater in 2030 than it was three years ago.

"Fossil fuels ... are expected to continue supplying much of the energy used worldwide," the report predicts, in spite of the growth of renewable energy sources, especial wind and biofuels.

"Global energy demand grows despite the sustained high world oil prices that are projected to persist over the long term," said the report. Oil could cost as little as $113 (U.S.) a barrel or as much as $186 a barrel in 2030, the analysis assumed in making the demand forecast.

Adjusted for inflation, the $113 price would be about $70 in 2006 dollars, the report said.

source :
FOSSIL FUEL USAGE TO SURGE

0 Replies

okie wrote:

old europe wrote:
okie wrote:
All of your points are liberal talking points, and they are all bogus.

Actually, all of my points were made by the US Energy Information Administration, in a report responding to a request from Senator Ted Stevens.

You can have a look at it here.

Maybe it would also help to understand that older numbers on ANWR drilling were based on the EIA's last report from 2000, when oil was still $22.04 a barrel.

Yes, and I think this merely points out how unpredictable oil prices are, and the higher the price, the more radical the swings can be in terms of dollars. I think ANWR and offshore would have more effect on the price than your report shows.

Well, apart from the projection of oil prices, the report also said that recoverable oil resources amounted to, at the very maximum, just 1.2 percent percent of total world oil consumption.

The claims that opening ANWR would reduce dependence from foreign oil seem to be mildly overstated.

okie wrote:

Also, one thing always out there is the value of the dollar, and we need to quit spending like there is no tomorrow, so that the value of the dollar would improve, thus oil prices would be reduced.

That seems to make sense. It has nothing to do with ANWR, but sure. During the last couple of years, the Republicans have been spending as if there was no tomorrow. That should indeed be changed pronto.

okie wrote:

Improving our economy, oil import / export situation, and other factors that ANWR also indirectly affects would also improve that picture.

This is rather vague, okie. The economy - sure. Oil emports/exports - would barely be affected by drilling ANWR.
So what "other factors that ANWR also indirectly affects" are you talking about? I'm curious.

okie wrote:

The puzzle is many faceted, and there are more than single reasons to drill in ANWR, offshore, etc.

It's puzzling indeed. If there are "more than single reasons", couldn't you try to come up with at least one good one?

okie wrote:

Another point, ANWR recoverable reserves are probably higher under current price than they would have previously been.

Your point is well taken, but the same is obviously true for investing in new technology, in electric cars, in alternative fuels or in drilling the the Barnett Shale.

Show me why drilling ANWR is such a compelling case, m'kay?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

...

Show me why drilling ANWR is such a compelling case, m'kay?

Quote:

here.

Summary

...

Crude oil imports are projected to decline by about one barrel for every barrel of ANWR oil production. Opening ANWR results in the lowest oil import dependency levels during the 2022 through 2026 time frame, when oil import dependency falls to the minimum values of 46 and 49 percent for the high and low oil resource cases, respectively. During that timeframe, the mean resource case and AEO2008 reference case project an average oil import dependency of 48 and 51 percent, respectively. Because ANWR oil production is declining after 2028, U.S. oil dependency rises to 51 percent in 2030 in the mean resource case, compared to 54 percent in the AEO2008 reference case. The high and low resource cases project a 2030 oil import dependency of 48 percent and 52 percent, respectively.

Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR improves the U.S. balance of trade. Cumulative expenditures on foreign crude oil and liquid fuels between 2018 and 2030 are reduced by $202 billion dollars (2006 dollars) in the mean oil resource case and reduced by $135 and $327 billion dollars in the low and high oil resource cases, respectively.

...

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know