71
   

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

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jun, 2008 02:54 pm
old europe wrote:

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

But not wildly overstated? Seems you are slowly coming around to admitting validity to the argument I present?

I have shortened the quotes to simplify, I hope you don't mind, and answer what I think is most pertinent.

I have never claimed ANWR was the answer to the entire problem, not anything close, but neither is any oil field, or any country, such as Saudi Arabia. We could likely produce as much from ANWR as we get from Saudi Arabia, and is anyone out there proposing we scrap the Saudi production? And does it mean we should shut down other oil fields because they don't make a big difference in the grand scheme? Does a farmer go plow up 10 acres in his field for no reason? It is getting to the point that ANWR production could constitute a significant percentage of domestic production if we could get going on it, as domestic production drops. I could see the argument if there was anything close to environmental destruction expected for ANWR, and there simply is not, not anything remotely possible. How could there be if we operate in less than 1% of the refuge? You ask me for a compelling case to drill there, well, I see no compelling case not to drill there, nothing remotely resembling a good argument.

I think we are on the same page in terms of the dollar and government spending, but probably not in regard to how to reduce it.

To summarize, domestic economic activity is all important, not only to produce our own energy, but to provide jobs, enhance the domestic economy, increase tax revenues, reduce our dependence on people that don't like us, show that we are not so arrogant as to not drill on our own land but we would rather destroy somebody's else's land, the list is a long one - all in favor of drilling. ANWR is only one piece of the puzzle, with no certain piece being sufficient to complete the picture, but we need them all, and ANWR is an important one. And we can do it with no damage to the environment, or if there is it is so insignificant as to be not worth considering. We have far more environmental concerns to deal with wherein we can make more impacts than with this issue.
.[/quote]
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jun, 2008 02:56 pm
Yes, ican. Oil imports are projected to decline by about one barrel for every barrel of ANWR oil production.

How is that a compelling case? I'm sure you've read this bit here, too:

Quote:
With respect to the world oil price impact, projected ANWR oil production constitutes between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030, based on the low and high resource cases, respectively. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices. Relative to the AEO2008 reference case, ANWR oil production is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light (LSL) crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 in the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 in the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 in the high oil resource case. Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount.


ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices. ANWR oil production is projected to bring down oil prices by no more than $1.44 per barrel in 2027 in the best case scenario. And OPEC could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production.

So, again: How is that a compelling case?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jun, 2008 02:58 pm
One important point here is the value of the dollar hinges upon our domestic economic situation and government spending vs revenues. Obviously, we should have started ANWR before yesterday if anyone could have had a crystal ball to see the pickle we are in today. But starting today would still be better than nothing.

If ANWR has a small impact on bettering things, offshore drilling would as well, as well as other things. All added up would make a large difference. The same attitude that is dampening projects like ANWR is also dampening our entire economy. Its time to wake up, people.

oe, you don't make a compelling case for drilling any oil field under your guidelines, unless it is maybe the largest in Saudi Arabia. If you justified everyone to do anything by your compelling case scenario, we would all still be living in caves.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jun, 2008 03:12 pm
oe wrote :

Quote:
okie wrote:
Quote:
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.


that's a lot easier said than done , imo .
the U.S. debt seems to have taken on a lfe of its own .
while expenditure cuts would no doubt help , i find it difficult to believe that it could be reduced substantially without TAX INCREASES - of some sort .
those two words seem to be abhorrent to many/most americans .

as i have stated several times before , canada was close to becoming an economic basket case about 20 years ago - we were on the watchlist of the IMF !
the canadian dollar stood at about 60 cents U.S. !
expenditure cuts , revenue(tax Shocked ) increases , SURTAXES (!) and oil revenues have brought the canadian dollar back to life - to about parity .
i can tell you that those were tough years . i'm glad we had a good social safety net (universal health insurance , umemployment insurance , canada pension plan and old age security payments) that helped prevent the country from going into a tailspin - from which we might never have recovered.

i certainly hope that the U.S. economy will recover soon - the sooner the better - for everyone in the whole world .
hbg
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jun, 2008 04:09 pm
old europe wrote:
Yes, ican. Oil imports are projected to decline by about one barrel for every barrel of ANWR oil production.

How is that a compelling case? I'm sure you've read this bit here, too:

Quote:
With respect to the world oil price impact, projected ANWR oil production constitutes between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030, based on the low and high resource cases, respectively. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices. Relative to the AEO2008 reference case, ANWR oil production is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light (LSL) crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 in the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 in the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 in the high oil resource case. Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount.


ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices. ANWR oil production is projected to bring down oil prices by no more than $1.44 per barrel in 2027 in the best case scenario. And OPEC could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production.

So, again: How is that a compelling case?

First, if USA domestic oil production were to increase an amount equal to 100% of OPEC's, then we would require 0% of OPEC's oil, and the price of OPEC's oil would decrease..

Second, if USA domestic oil production were to increase an amount equal to 50% of OPEC's, then we would require 50% less of OPEC's oil, and the price of OPEC's oil would decrease.

Third, if USA domestic oil production were to increase an amount equal to 1% of OPEC's, then we would require 1% less of OPEC's oil, and the price of OPEC's oil would decrease.

Whatever % of OPEC's current oil production, an increase of USA's oil production would equal, the USA's economy would be better for it, and the price of OPEC's oil would decrease.

Therefore, by whatever % ANWR in particular increases USA oil production, the USA's economy would be better for it. The less oil we have to buy from OPEC, the better off the USA would be. That's because we instead of OPEC would be profiting from our own increased oil consumption.

OPEC would of course react by lowering its price of oil in competion with USA's additional ANWR and other oil. The more the USA increases domestic oil production, the lower will be the price of OPEC's oil to maintain its demand. Any reduction of oil production by OPEC would reduce its income more than would the reduction of its price.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jun, 2008 04:59 pm
ican711nm wrote:
OPEC would of course react by lowering its price of oil in competion with USA's additional ANWR and other oil. The more the USA increases domestic oil production, the lower will be the price of OPEC's oil to maintain its demand. Any reduction of oil production by OPEC would reduce its income more than would the reduction of its price.


I think you have it completely backwards. The EIA report at least reaches exactly the opposite conclusion:

Quote:
Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount.


ANWR oil production would only constitute between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption. Bringing ANWR online has hardly any real effect on global demand, and would certainly not bring down global oil prices.

OPEC could simply lower its production, drive up prices and make up for the loss of money by getting higher prices for the oil America would still be forced to import.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jun, 2008 05:08 pm
okie wrote:
oe, you don't make a compelling case for drilling any oil field under your guidelines, unless it is maybe the largest in Saudi Arabia.


Let me give you a counterexample: Barnett Shale is located in the middle of Texas, with 2.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and an estimated 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas resources. Sure, costs are prohibitive if gas is at $20/barrel. But as prices go up, drilling there would become as viable as tar sand mining in Canada.


okie wrote:
If you justified everyone to do anything by your compelling case scenario, we would all still be living in caves.


Well, I'm trying to make an argument in favour of innovation, a free market approach and against government intervention. You're arguing for government intervention in order to bring down the prices, so you can support a technology that was invented 150 years ago....
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jun, 2008 05:11 pm
since countries other than the U.S. will be incresing their oil consumption - perhaps quite substantially - i fail to see how a marginal reduction in U.S. oil imports would LOWER the price of oil .
at best , lower U.S. oil imports might keep price increases in check for a while .

oil producing countries have more than once indicated that they would prefer to reduce exports .
particularly any regime change in saudi-arabia would likely cause such reduction .
hbg
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jun, 2008 07:41 pm
Economics 101: Supply and Demand when the value of the currency is constant (e.g., a constant dollar)

When the rate a commodity is produced increases (or the demand for that commodity decreases), the constant dollar price of that commodity generally decreases.

When the rate a commodity is produced decreases (or the demand for that commodity increases), the constant dollar price of that commodity generally increases.

Oil is a commodity!

If the production rate of oil were to increase (or the demand for oil were to decrease), the constant dollar price of oil would decrease.

If the production rate of oil were to decrease (or the demand for oil were to increase), the constant dollar price of oil would increase.


For example, drilling in ANWR will lead to an increased rate of oil production. At constant demand, the constant dollar price of oil will decrease.


When both the production rate of a commodity increases and the demand for that commodity increases, the constant dollar price of that commodity generally will increase less than it would have if the production rate had remained constant.

When both the production rate of a commodity decreases and the demand for that commodity decreases, the constant dollar price of that commodity generally will decrease less than it would have if the production rate had remained constant.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 12:11 am
I drink your milkshake!

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 01:59 am
ican711nm wrote:
Oil is a commodity!
No its not. Its an inheritance of stored sunlight. Its a precious and finite resource, but a resource like no other because everything else depends on it. If oil is a commodity, so is sunlight.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 06:12 am
ican711nm wrote:
If the production rate of oil were to increase (or the demand for oil were to decrease), the constant dollar price of oil would decrease.

If the production rate of oil were to decrease (or the demand for oil were to increase), the constant dollar price of oil would increase.


The above statement is true when a polypoly exists - when you have a large number of small sellers, none of which can influence prices.


Regarding oil imports into the United States, however, that is not true. What you have there is an oligopoly, with only a very limited number of suppliers.

And, to make matters worse, out of the top 15 countries where America imports crude oil from, 9 are OPEC members.

According to these EIA numbers, the top suppliers account for roughly 95 percent of United States crude oil imports. But out of those suppliers, the 9 OPEC members alone account for about 56% percent of all the crude oil imports into America.

------

Now, looking at the oil production projected by EIA, ANWR would, in the very best case, account for about 6.4% of American demand. In the worst case, it would only produce about 2.2%.

Hardly enough to compete with OPEC. Even if oil production from ANWR would increase the supply and lower gas prices (in the best projected case, by $1.44 per barrel), OPEC could single-handedly decide to decrease its oil production. Given a relatively constant demand, the decreased supply by OPEC would be enough to increase gas prices by a lot more than what production from ANWR could compensate for.


(And yes, that's economics 101 alright... maybe you should look up 'oligopoly', ican...)
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 08:55 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Oil is a commodity!
No its not. Its an inheritance of stored sunlight. Its a precious and finite resource, but a resource like no other because everything else depends on it.
With current technology, there is nothing done with oil that can't be done with coal, NG or even biofuel. Oil is just energy, very cheap energy hence it's a commodity like any other and considered as such by markets, traders and users.

It's a concentrated form of enery, that's all. With energy, in whatever form, you can do anything, fertilizers to t-shirts.
BTW, you don't use oil. Most people never use oil and have never seen what crude is like. They use gasoline, paraffine, cosmetics, plastics, bitumen, fertilizers, all can be made with substitutes (South Africa has developped for decades under embargo without oil). But it would be stupid to use substitutes while you can use the original.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 11:18 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Oil is a commodity!
No its not. Its an inheritance of stored sunlight. Its a precious and finite resource, but a resource like no other because everything else depends on it. If oil is a commodity, so is sunlight.

Yes, oil is a commodity. Complain to Merriam-Webster.
Quote:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commodity

Main Entry: com·mod·i·ty
...
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural com·mod·i·ties
Etymology: Middle English commoditee, from Anglo-French commoditee, from Latin commoditat-, commoditas, from commodus
Date: 15th century
1: an economic good: as a: a product of agriculture or mining b: an article of commerce especially when delivered for shipment <commodities> c: a mass-produced unspecialized product <commodity> <commodity>
2 a: something useful or valued <that>; also : thing, entity b: convenience, advantage
3obsolete : quantity, lot
4: a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors (as brand name) other than price
5: one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market <stars>

Along with oil, coal and gas, corn, wheat, sugar, and hemp, are examples of inheritance of stored sunlight. Sunlight on the other hand is not a commodity because it cannot be something humans own and trade for products, goods, services or money.


I bet collectivist Democrats are searching for a way for government to own and trade sunlight for taxes.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 11:28 am
The more oil that is lifted domestically, the more Americans instead of more mid eastern potentates can profit from oil lifting.

The more oil that is lifted to supply world demand, the lower will be the price at constant dollars for that oil that satisfies that demand.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 11:32 am
The more energy that is produced by wind, solar, and nuclear, the more Americans reduce their reliance on mid eastern potentates; and the less pollution is produced simultaneously.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 11:32 am
THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

155.
Dr. Art Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine declared his climate skepticism in 2007. "Long-term temperature data suggest that the current - entirely natural and not man made - temperature rise of about 0.5 degrees C per century could continue for another 200 years. Therefore, the best data available leads to an extrapolated value of about 1 foot of rise during the next two centuries," Robinson wrote to EPW on September 23, 2007. "There is no scientific basis upon which to guess that the rise will be less or will be more than this value. Such a long extrapolation over two centuries is likely to be significantly in error - but it is the only extrapolation that can be made with current data. There may be no sea level rise at all. No one knows," he added.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 11:38 am
ican711nm wrote:
THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

155.
Dr. Art Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine declared his climate skepticism in 2007. "Long-term temperature data suggest that the current - entirely natural and not man made - temperature rise of about 0.5 degrees C per century could continue for another 200 years. Therefore, the best data available leads to an extrapolated value of about 1 foot of rise during the next two centuries," Robinson wrote to EPW on September 23, 2007. "There is no scientific basis upon which to guess that the rise will be less or will be more than this value. Such a long extrapolation over two centuries is likely to be significantly in error - but it is the only extrapolation that can be made with current data. There may be no sea level rise at all. No one knows," he added.


Per Wikipedia,

Arthur B. Robinson is founder, president and professor of chemistry at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, where he conducts research on protein chemistry and on nutrition and predictive and preventive medicine. He also sells the Robinson Curriculum, which is a self-taught home school curriculum for grammar school children through high school.[1][2]

---

This is yet another in the list of scientists whose area of study have nothing to do with climatology whatsoever, yet are held up by your bunch as 'experts.' He is no more an 'expert' then I am on the subject.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 11:40 am
ican711nm wrote:
THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

155.
Dr. Art Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine declared his climate skepticism in 2007. "Long-term temperature data suggest that the current - entirely natural and not man made - temperature rise of about 0.5 degrees C per century could continue for another 200 years. Therefore, the best data available leads to an extrapolated value of about 1 foot of rise during the next two centuries," Robinson wrote to EPW on September 23, 2007. "There is no scientific basis upon which to guess that the rise will be less or will be more than this value. Such a long extrapolation over two centuries is likely to be significantly in error - but it is the only extrapolation that can be made with current data. There may be no sea level rise at all. No one knows," he added.


Red added.

I'm pretty sure you've posted yourself that the number is closer to 1 degree average rise. 50% error.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 11:49 am
Well now. . .in the wake of Dr. Chalko's prophecy of doom related to increasing seismic activity on Earth--an increase caused by global warming of course (cough)--we now have an opinion that all the great seismic activity could solve a lot of the world's energy problems:

Harness volcano power, energy experts sayBy Catherine Elsworth in Los Angeles
Last Updated: 7:01pm BST 26/06/2008

Volcanoes and hot springs could supply up to 25 per cent of America's power needs, energy experts have said.

Have your say: Is harnessing more geothermal energy just a pipe dream?
As fuel prices soar, Alaskan officials announced the exploration of the state's volcanoes, saying they could be exploited to provide energy for thousands of homes.


'High prices and climate change are definitely creating a renaissance in geothermal interest'


Companies are being invited to lease the rights to explore geothermal resources beneath Mount Spurr, a snowcapped 11,070-foot volcano that most recently erupted in 1992 showering much of Anchorage with volcanic ash.

The state Division of Oil and Gas hopes the lease sale, due to go ahead in August, will be the first of many. It is also considering allowing exploration of the 4,134-foot Augustine Volcano, 171 miles southwest of Anchorage.

The move echoes a trend underway across much of the US as fuel prices, worries about dependence on foreign oil and climate change trigger a surge in geothermal projects, particularly in the West and along the Gulf Coast.

According to experts, America is only just waking up to the ancient power source lying beneath dozens of states that has the potential to supply as much as 25 percent of the nation's energy needs.

"High prices and climate change are definitely creating a renaissance in geothermal interest, particularly on a state and local level," said Karl Gawell, executive director of the Geothermal Energy Association.

"There really is a tremendous amount going on right now."

As well as Alaska, geothermal projects, which are eligible for tax benefits, are underway in most Western states and across the Gulf Coast from Texas to Florida, he said.

"It's only the tip of the iceberg in terms of what is possible," said Mr Gawell.

"If we really want to go all out for it, we could easily achieve a substantial amount, 20, 25 per cent of US energy needs within a few decades. We're limited more by public policy than the resource - the resource is enormous."

The Bureau of Land Management has just surveyed 11 western states and Alaska for "lands with high potential for renewable geothermal resources".

But he estimates 80 per cent of geothermal systems remain undiscovered as they have no tell-tale surface feature such as a hot spring. "We're still just finding the obvious stuff."

Alaska, which is rich in oil and gas, sits on the Pacific Rim of Fire but despite "clear evidence of geothermal resources" the state had shelved its geothermal development "in the 1970s once they hit the major oil streaks", Mr Gawell said.

"It's really only been rediscovered in the past couple of years in part because prices are up."

The biggest challenge to harnessing underground power is working out how to access and tap heat buried deep under earth or rock.

Interest has partly been spurred by the Alaska's successful geothermal venture at Chena Hot Springs, a resort near Fairbanks, which is completely powered by underground energy.

Mr Gawell said that although mentioned this week by Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, during a speech about alternative energy policies in Nevada, geothermal power had yet to receive enough attention in the national energy debate.

"The problem is it's only being produced in a handful of states. It's well known in those states but it's unknown in others," Mr Gawell said.

Geothermal power is also enjoying a renaissance in Europe, home to the first geothermal steam power plant in Larderello, Italy, which began operating in 1904.

The GEA estimates that the number of countries producing geothermal energy will more than double by 2010 to 46 countries.
LINK
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 10/14/2024 at 06:26:37