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

Just for parados.

In accord with my superior intellect, intuition, and flying skill as its sole support, I hereby predict that if Congress were to cancel no later than 11:00 am, October 24, 2008, the current federal prohibitions against oil drilling in ANWR and the other oil rich domestic sites, the price of crude oil per barrel would drop below $76.00 within 13 years.

Cool

0 Replies

okie wrote:

The primary difference is not what we are paying, it is instead who we are paying.

That's entirely different from what ican is claiming, though.

You're saying that domestic drilling, even if it would lower the price of gas by only a few dollars or even cents per barrel, would still be desirable, because you would be less dependent on other countries.

ican, on the other hand maintains that by gaining somewhat more independence from oil imports, it would dramatically lower the price of gas and would therefore be desirable.

0 Replies

I don't know how much the price would come down. It might not even come down, but it would not rise as much as it might otherwise, so a better statement is that the price will be lower than it will otherwise be, whatever that might be. I think the price effect would be more than some have posted here, but considering the rapidly rising demand in countries like China and India, I think we will be in for some very volatile price fluctuations and possible rises and speculation for the future. This will only be solved when an alternative becomes widely feasible and more directly competitive with oil across the board, rather than on a very marginal basis for a few vehicles, etc. So far, it looks to me that conventional oil is king and will remain so for a long time, a number of years or decades, until we emerge from the rapidly changing state of flux in the energy sector, if we ever do.

I don't think anyone can predict this any better than stock market speculators, and we all know how difficult that is. I think oil futures trading has a high emotional factor included, and considering the U.S. is a country with high consumption, if the U.S. made a sweeping policy change to drill and develop most of its highest remaining potential oil resource areas, it would definitely have a significant price impact, how significant, nobody knows. But as I said, and you apparently agree, I think the biggest reason for developing our own oil is who we are buying it from, and for national security and foreign policy reasons. If we produce more of our own oil, we will reap the benefits of doing that, regardless of the price.

One last observation, I think oil price is in a bit of a bubble now, and it will probably burst at some point. How much the price will drop, I don't know, perhaps $20 to $40 per barrel, but then the pressure will again push prices higher again at some point. If we made sweeping decisions to drill alot more in highly prospective regions, namely ANWR and offshore, it could hasten the bubble action, or intensify it short term, and affect things longer term to a lesser extent.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

....... then the pressure will again push prices higher again at some point. If we made sweeping decisions to drill alot more in highly prospective regions, namely ANWR and offshore,

Okie - with respect, and while I agree with much of what you say, I am categorically opposed to drilling in ANWR as well as in most offshore waters for reasons best stated by President Theodore Roosevelt:

Quote:

"Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method." -

0 Replies

High Seas wrote:

okie wrote:
....... then the pressure will again push prices higher again at some point. If we made sweeping decisions to drill alot more in highly prospective regions, namely ANWR and offshore,

Okie - with respect, and while I agree with much of what you say, I am categorically opposed to drilling in ANWR as well as in most offshore waters for reasons best stated by President Theodore Roosevelt:

Quote:
"Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method." -

As a committed environmentalist I have thought and thought and thought about that HS, but I've come to the conclusion that ANWR will suffer little upset or damage due to the proposed drilling and that what very little risk there is will be worth it in light of a higher purpose. A secure and prosperous nation is far more able to care for its precious legacy of wildlife and beautiful places than is one that is struggling financially or under threat from outside forces.

This article details the opinion of Alaska about ANWR:
http://www.juneauempire.com/anwr/oilandgas.shtml

The anti-ANWR oil drilling folks usually refer to photos like these to illustrate why it would be such a sin to drill there:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y55/silverbeam/A%20CSM%20Blog/ANWR5.gif

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/image005.jpg

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/image006.jpg

The actual anticipated area where the drilling will occur looks like this, however:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y55/silverbeam/A%20CSM%20Blog/ANWR1.jpg

Or this:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y55/silverbeam/A%20CSM%20Blog/ANWR2.jpg

Or this:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y55/silverbeam/A%20CSM%20Blog/ANWR4.jpg

Further, the actual lease area would be about 2000 acres (slightly more than 3 square miles) with the actual drilling sites anticipated to be about 97 acres or as somebody described it, a comparable area of a flea on an elephant's butt:

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/image002.jpg

Okay, that's what my not-all-that-thorough research has turned up on this, but I'm not finding much credible to dispute it. As for the wildlife out there, the oil and gas wells don't seem to bother it. The pipeline itself that would probably need to be extended to ANWR is quite beautiful and the caribou love it-they cuddle up to it for heat.

0 Replies

High Seas wrote:

okie wrote:
....... then the pressure will again push prices higher again at some point. If we made sweeping decisions to drill alot more in highly prospective regions, namely ANWR and offshore,

Okie - with respect, and while I agree with much of what you say, I am categorically opposed to drilling in ANWR as well as in most offshore waters for reasons best stated by President Theodore Roosevelt:

Quote:
"Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method." -

Foxfyre has posted an excellent set of pictures to illustrate or place into proper perspective what the effect of drilling is.

Also, I would add that our attitude basically springs from an underlying philosophy. There is a philosophy that man and his technology are more or less intruders upon nature and a destroyer. I instead subscribe to the philosophy that man is part of nature, which includes his intellect, which is responsible for all of the inventions, so that technological progress is not an evil thing or a bad thing. I believe Judeo-Christian thought grants man or tells man that he is to have dominion over and to use nature, but of course that includes responsible use. If you don't believe that, then you would have to re-examine almost every facet of man's advancement, whether it be discovering fire or building high rise office buildings. I also do not subscribe to the commonly expressed view that the earth is fragile. The earth and its environs are powerful and flexible, with many built in off setting effects that keep things in balance. I do not believe it is existing only by some delicate balance, that when disrupted will go completely awry. Such is total nonsense in my opinion.

As a result of that philosophy, I do not see how drilling for oil in a very small portion of ANWR in a very responsible manner is any more disruptive, intrusive, or destructive than drilling in West Texas, or Saudi Arabia, or most other places. I think it is in fact very arrogant of Americans to refuse to drill in areas that they may deem almost sacred, yet at the same time have no compunction to buying the extracted oil from arguably equally valuable sensitive areas in foreign countries. The impressions by Americans of what ANWR is like, and what percentage of the land is affected is in fact almost assuredly as a result of indoctrination by the environmental crowd. This is not an either / or situation. We can preserve ANWR, while using the oil. As long as the mafia doesn't begin building casinos there, I think it should be just fine.

I have worked around drill rigs, and in my own personal opinion, it is the overpopulated cities that are the most environmentally polluted places on the face of the earth, not in the outback where drilling rigs and oil production take place.

One last comment, oil is a naturally ocurring substance, and there are great deposits of oil bearing rock found in the earth's crust, and exposed or outcropping in many places. Have you ever visited the La Brea tar pits in the Los Angeles area? That is one tiny example. Oil is nothing to be afraid of or to consider as pollution.

0 Replies

2,000 ACRES / 19,000,000 ACRES = 2 / 19,000 = 1 / 9,500 = 0.0001053

0.0001053 X 100% = 0.01053%

One more way to improve the environment is to not curtail indicidual prosperity, convenience, comfort, and health.

Curtailing these reduces the quality of all human environments.

0 Replies

When we lived in the north Texas Panhandle in the 1960's, the petroleum industry in that area was in its infancy and consisted initially of a few widely spaced wildcat rigs. The carbon black plants emitted choking smoke however and coated vast areas of the countryside with oily black soot, some of which is still evident today.

As the area developed, however, it became a huge producer of petroleum and natural gas, a large refinery was constructed at Borger TX, and large underground pipelines extend from there to the Texas coast and also west at least through Albuquerque (where I live now) and probably beyond. You cannot tell where the pipeline is--Conoco/Phillips knows--as it spoils nothing. And the Texas Panhandle itself? It is all cleaned up--smoke, soot, smell and all--just pristine clean air and sunshine now despite massive development.

In the 1960's deer in the Panhandle were virtually unheard of and other wildlife was also relatively sparse. Now folks are almost afraid to drive at night for fear of hitting a deer they are so plentiful plus other wildlife has moved into the area as well as migrating birds and butterflies.

And out there in the Gulf? I have been there in the last year too, and the water around those rigs is clean and clear and teeming with life--the fish and other sea creatures use the rigs like reefs. And despite Cat 5 hurricanes, no spills.

The oil companies know how to produce the fuel for energy for us without fouling the soil, water, or air. Okie is right. We need not fear it.

0 Replies

Merriam-Webster wrote:

environment =
1. the circumstances, objects, or conditions by which one is surrounded;
2a. the complex of climatic, edaphic [influenced by the soil], and biotic factors that act upon an organism or an ecological community and ultimately determine its form and survival;
2b. the aggregatof social and cultural conditions that influence the life of an individual or community.

Improving the environment requires complex tradeoffs.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Just for parados.

In accord with my superior intellect, intuition, and flying skill as its sole support, I hereby predict that if Congress were to cancel no later than 11:00 am, October 24, 2008, the current federal prohibitions against oil drilling in ANWR and the other oil rich domestic sites, the price of crude oil per barrel would drop below $76.00 within 13 years.

I hereby predict that when it doesn't, you'll find a way for it to be the democrats fault. Rolling Eyes

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest predicts that if Congress were NOT to cancel no later than 11:00 am, October 24, 2008, the current federal prohibitions against oil drilling in ANWR and the other oil rich domestic sites, ican will find a way for it to be the democrats fault.

it Question

I'll blame the democrats for a failure of Congress to approve this cancellation, if and only if, 100% of the Republicans in Congress were to vote FOR this cancellation and not enough Democrats were also to vote FOR this cancellation for there to be a majority of Congress voting for this cancellation. I predict that 100% of the Republicans in Congress WILL NOT vote for this cancellation.

I predict that the fault for a failure of Congress to vote FOR this cancellation, if it were to occur, would be the stupidity of Congress. Crying or Very sad

If this cancellation were to be adopted by Congress and the price of crude oil were NOT to decrease to less than $76 per barrel within 13 years of its adoption, the fault would be the stupidity of ican. Shocked

0 Replies

You make being stupid look so easy. "It" refers to your claim that oil barrel's cost will go below $76.00.

At this point, I'm convinced that the system is not designed to let rices ho down.

T
K
O

0 Replies

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

You make being stupid look so easy. "It" refers to your claim that oil barrel's cost will go below $76.00.

At this point, I'm convinced that the system is not designed to let rices ho down.

T
K
O

It takes great skill, attention to detail, and hard work for me to look stupid. But success is so very satisfying.

I don't know about the design for "rices ho down," but the free market system was not designed, it has evolved. Smile

Check with Adam Smith and Thomas Sowell. Both these guys write well. You might even learn something.

0 Replies

ican,

Have you ever read Smith? Your posts certainly lead me to think you haven't.

0 Replies

I certainly have, and I think he would have approved of Ican.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

High Seas wrote:
okie wrote:
....... then the pressure will again push prices higher again at some point. If we made sweeping decisions to drill alot more in highly prospective regions, namely ANWR and offshore,

Okie - with respect, and while I agree with much of what you say, I am categorically opposed to drilling in ANWR as well as in most offshore waters for reasons best stated by President Theodore Roosevelt:

Quote:
"Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method." -

As a committed environmentalist I have thought and thought and thought about that HS, but I've come to the conclusion that ANWR will suffer little upset or damage due to the proposed drilling and that what very little risk there is will be worth it in light of a higher purpose. A secure and prosperous nation is far more able to care for its precious legacy of wildlife and beautiful places than is one that is struggling financially or under threat from outside forces.

This article details the opinion of Alaska about ANWR:
http://www.juneauempire.com/anwr/oilandgas.shtml

The anti-ANWR oil drilling folks usually refer to photos like these to illustrate why it would be such a sin to drill there:

The actual anticipated area where the drilling will occur looks like this, however:

Or this:

Or this:

Further, the actual lease area would be about 2000 acres (slightly more than 3 square miles) with the actual drilling sites anticipated to be about 97 acres or as somebody described it, a comparable area of a flea on an elephant's butt:

Okay, that's what my not-all-that-thorough research has turned up on this, but I'm not finding much credible to dispute it. As for the wildlife out there, the oil and gas wells don't seem to bother it. The pipeline itself that would probably need to be extended to ANWR is quite beautiful and the caribou love it-they cuddle up to it for heat.

Foxfyre - you know my general scientific background but are probably unaware that I've worked on petroleum projects worldwide going back decades. I've spent some time on platforms on the Beaufort Sea and more recently near Sakhalin, not to mention southern lands like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran, Australia, or Brazil.

This has nothing to do with photographs, it's to do with the numbers and the nature of oilfields - I saw what happened to Ghawar after they went flat-out in the early 1980s, for instance.

0 Replies

High Seas wrote:

This has nothing to do with photographs, it's to do with the numbers and the nature of oilfields - I saw what happened to Ghawar after they went flat-out in the early 1980s, for instance.

You have highlighted one of my points. I think it is arrogant of Americans to not mind buying oil extracted from other countrys' lands that suffer impacts from oil production, but oh no we can't drill a few wells in a very small portion of ANWR. My point is that if we want the oil, our country should be first priority, and we have the capability to produce oil there with minimal impacts.

0 Replies

Okie - the Ghawar oil field took over six years to recover, and may have been irreparably harmed. No animals or plants were involved, so your comment doesn't apply.

Ghawar, for anyone unfamiliar, is the largest oilfield ever found on this planet. It produces 5 million barrels of oil a day.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know