I just love those reclamation bonds. Oil companies may hate those twisty state & BLM regulations re plugging and abandonment, but they do eliminate a lot of competition from the more traditional well servicing companies. It's a good niche to occupy, and undertakers never run out of business. Well, we are the last to run out of business, at any rate.
Well Farmerman, you've basically put me back to square one. If it's just a matter of another 10,000 acre salvage yard, that's enviroment. I give more weight to ecological issues and consider how many people are going to be exposed to it. Roughnecks just love the salvage yard look.
the word is pristine wilderness, and at PB, theres a lot of formational damage by salt water and sulfur brines. Thatll never be cleaned up .
BTW, are you in the reclamation business? please PM me if so.
roger wrote:Oil is so perfectly fungible, it is the economics textbook example of the word. Let the economics of the situation determine which barrel is imported, and which is exported.
I thought the whole point of drilling in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (and eradicating the Porcupine Caribou Herd in the process) was so we would not be quite so dependent on foreign oil imports.
I don't see how selling the oil overseas achieves that goal.
(I should clarify my position, which is that there should be
no drilling at that location at all, as it is the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou Herd.)
Not reclamation per se. Plugging and abandonment of dead or uneconomical wells, which normally involves removing rod and production tubing, installation of plugs, perforating of casing, and injecting cement (not concrete) to separate hydrocarbon zones from waterbearing formations. By the way, I'm bookkeeping - not technical.
Selling from Port X and importing like amounts through Port Y is just economic good sense, Oralloy. I exchange my gold for your gold, and the net effect is zero, except it saves money. As a political proposition, the net effect is still zero. Maybe the money we send to the mid east helps support terrorism, so we don't buy their oil. The net result is that the Japanese, for example, are spending the same bucks for Saudi oil as they are now spending for American oil.
Now, I'm coming to be against this Alaskan proposition too, but if we're going to reduce oil consumption of mideast oil, it will be because we reduce consumption of all oil. And if we do, it will surely be due to decisions based on higher prices - whether they come from true market pricing or increased federal fuel tax. Fuel Tax, not vehicle tax.
roger wrote:Selling from Port X and importing like amounts through Port Y is just economic good sense, Oralloy. I exchange my gold for your gold, and the net effect is zero, except it saves money. As a political proposition, the net effect is still zero. Maybe the money we send to the mid east helps support terrorism, so we don't buy their oil. The net result is that the Japanese, for example, are spending the same bucks for Saudi oil as they are now spending for American oil.
I understand the economics, but the only reason given to drill this oil is because it is supposed to reduce imports of foreign oil.
As I see it, given the above reason for drilling there, the alternative to using it domestically isn't to sell it overseas, but to not drill for it at all.
roger wrote:if we're going to reduce oil consumption of mideast oil, it will be because we reduce consumption of all oil.
I agree.
