http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2005-03-16T200242Z_01_N16622704_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-ENERGY-CONGRESS-DC.XML
"As U.S. oil prices soared to a record high on Wednesday, the Senate gave President Bush's energy plan a major boost by voting to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling."
...I seem to have heard that Alaska's oil is very low quality?
Isn't that a desperate measure?
It's more a measure of how much energy it takes to make it usable. Oil is more-or-less liquid energy, so all the pumping, refining and transport has to cost less energy than is available in the oil itself.
We've picked most of the low-lying fruit, so to speak. What's left will cost more to get at.
www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0305/18edrefuge.html?UrAuth=%60NbNUObN[UbTTUWUXUTUZTYU]UWU^U%60UZUaU^UcTYWVVZV
"For example, the administration claims oil drilling in ANWR will help reduce America's crippling dependence on foreign oil. While that's a laudable goal, that argument stretches the truth.
It would take at least a decade to make the oil beneath ANWR commercially available, even if drilling began tomorrow, which it won't. That's far too long to have an immediate impact on rising gasoline prices that have sent chills down the spines of motorists who are now paying more than $2 a gallon for regular unleaded.
More importantly, even if the most optimistic estimates of ANWR oil supplies prove true, it will make no real difference in either the price of oil or in easing America's dependence on foreign sources of oil. Based on projections by the U.S. Geological Survey, ANWR might meet U.S. oil demands for a year at most."
"If Congress and the Bush administration were serious about making the nation more energy independent, they should raise fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. Increasing fuel economy by a mere 3 miles a gallon would save more oil in a decade than could be recovered from ANWR in a lifetime."
Right, so we're just drilling in ANWR just because we're bored?
There's gotta be some profit coming out of it; if not soon, then in the future. It may not be the ultimate answer to the oil snafu, but every little bit helps.
albright makes a good point.
while its true that the projected maximum output is 8 months domestic use, or 3/8ths of 1% of world total supply, what's wrong with that? are people saying people should only drill for oil if they're going to get a lot of it? if so, people will stop drilling for oil whatsoever. all the good finds are tapped.
the fact that there is corporate interest proves that it is rational. corporations are extremely good at doing the most economical thing in the short run. the u.s. will not drill for the oil itself, by the way. it leases the land for the purpose of drilling, and may receive up to 40% of the projected value. an instant cash-gain for a cash-strapped country.
I'm wondering why the ANWR exists in the first place. What rational purpose did its creation ever serve, except for symbolic cowtowing to environmentalist extremists?
Most overused word of last year: extremist.
Not everyone you disagree with is an extremist.
>> 7
agreed.
disagreement is good. nobody ever learns anything from having people tell them they're right all the time. but there's a vast difference between attacking someone's point of view, and attacking them.
you only weaken yourself by caricaturing your enemies as weak. you can't change their inimical character through your words, all you can do is delude yourself.
>>6
ANWR was created in 1960 to preserve North Slope wildlife. Oil on the North Slope wasn't known about back then otherwise they never would have created that refuge.
The drilling is being done in ANWR because it is good for the Alaskan economy, and since the Alaskan Senator and Representatives are all high ranking Republican party members the rest of the party is voting for them. It will also make British Petroleum, Conoco, and Exxon a lot of money if they make big finds.
Note that there are no extant finds in ANWR. What has been opened is the possibility for exploration drilling and seismic sounding, just looking for oil. Whether they get permits to actually set up functioning wells is one thing, and whether they actually find good pockets to drill is another. And they also have to get permits to build pipelines to connect the wells to the Alyeska Pipeline, and they need permits to build stations where the crews can live, and permits to build roads to get around in the summer. The environmentalists wanted to fight against opening ANWR to exploration so they wouldn't have to fight each one of the permits separately. Now they have to, so they still have plenty of chances to file arguments against the Environmental Impact Statements that have to be submitted for the permitting process. It'll be years and years before the drilling actually starts, if it does.
I should note that almost all the people who have been fighting against ANWR live outside of Alaska, and have never been to the North Slope, nor particularly have ever worked in or even been to the oilfields. If you ever visit the North Slope you would be surprised at how barren and empty it is. It's basically thousands of miles of flat, empty land covered with wet moss and grasses. Almost nothing lives there except some rabbits, a few types of birds, the occasional polar bear (during the summer) and lots of mosquitos. The caribou that everyone talks about don't live there, they just pass through on their yearly migrations.
The people who live in the region who are fighting against ANWR drilling are the Gwich'in Athabascans. The Inupiaq eskimos overall don't particularly mind the drilling because it has brought them wonderful economic benefits, like regular employment, and sewer and water. Before the oil boom there was no sewer or water services in any North Slope towns, and there still aren't in most Alaskan towns. People crap in five gallon plastic "honey buckets" and throw the sewage in lagoons where it slowly leaches into the ground downstream from the village. Something that was told me by an Athabascan from further south is that the Gwich'in are fighting against ANWR because they won't be getting anything out of it. ANWR is completely Federal property, and the Native Corporations don't have any holdings, nor do any villages. So nobody will get lease sale money except the feds, and the only money the state will get is wellhead taxes.
How about the money brought into the local economy by the mining business? How about the actual profits of oil drilling, which represent improved utility of extracted versus buried oil? Real new wealth injected into the economy matters and will eventually improve everyone's standard of living to some extent. There is no such thing as a bad profit.
> There is no such thing as a bad profit.
rofflecopter
Economists and their "externalities"...
have you guys seen ANWR? it looks like a wet carpet soaked in molasis and mud and then covered in snow. The animals are practicly begging you to make it go away.