Do you support ANWR drilling?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

Poll question: Do you support ANWR drilling?

I know this seems an odd question to ask a democratic site. However, I was surprised by the number of democrats I know who just don't care whether or not drilling is allowed in the ANWR.

I know the arguments for it, but I don't buy it. There are plenty of opportunities for bringing American jobs out that the Republicans have passed by in favor of cheaper prices and more money for themselves. Further, finding more oil isn't the answer anyway. It's only a temporary solution. We need to reduce our dependence on oil. But of course, that's not economically profitable.

[Hobarticus]

1. Last I heard, there's maybe six months' worth of oil there...

Is it worth it? Can't believe from a driller's perspective that this would be an ideal.

[FDU]

5. I have to agree.

And this has confused me. Maybe someone here knows the answer. If there is only 6 months of oil there, wouldn't it cost more to drill than they could ever hope to recover? So, what the point?

[Hobarticus]

6. I really think it's a sop to oil developers...

It's a payday to them, either way. I'm sure it'll be heavily subsidized by taxpayers, if the investment doesn't break even.

Gawd, it just makes you sick.

[FreedomAngel82]

17. Seems like it

Plus I read somewhere that the oil wouldn't go to us. Is that true?

[Baby Cthulhu 69]

10. That is not quite true

ANWR has about 10e9 bbl of oil (low estimate). They think they can pump it out at a rate of about 1e6 bbl per day. That means about 27 years worth of oil. If they step it up and do 1.5e6 bbl/d you'd still have about 18 years worth.

The 6 months figure is misleading and derived by dividing the estimated reserve in ANWR by total world production (82e6 bbl/d). That gives you only a couple of months worth (however less than 6 by my calculations). So if you could pump 82e6 bbl/d from ANWR and if all other oil fields suddenly stop producing, then ANWR would last less than 6 months. In other words, that figure is bullshit.

[PaulaFarrell]

22. I thought the six-month figure came from the US

usage of oil in six-months, i.e. that all the oil in the ANWR was equivalent to total US usage in six months. SO it would give us six months worth of oil, even if it takes 27 years to extract it. If that's true (and your figures are true), then ANWR would provide about 6-7 days worth of US consumption per annum for 27 years, or less than 2%. So if everybody just drives 2% less, no need to drill ANWR (which is a national reserve by the way - so it's not like it's just up to Alsakans what happens to it).

[Viking12]

25. It does

US consumption = 21 mbo / day

ANWR = 50% 7.7 bbo technically recoverable

7.7b/21m = 366.6 days


At the 95% confidence interval it is about 142 days worth of US consumption.

At the 5% confidence level it is about 495 days worth of US consumption.

[Baby Cthulhu 69]

28. That is misleading

because you are not going to get the whole US consumption from a single source, even if there is only 7e9 bbl in there. There are many fields producing in parallel.

What people think when they hear 6 months supply is that oil equipment will be hauled in andn in 6 months the field will ruin dry. And that is just nonsense.

[Baby Cthulhu 69]

30. Why not do both?

And double the benefit. Besides, 2% of US consumption for a single field is pretty good. How many producing fields in the US can get 1e6 bbl/d as is estimated for ANWR?
US proved resevres are around 20e9 bbl. Even if there is only 7e9 bbl in there it would be a significant portion of US proved resevres in a single field. An dit can be gotten out using only a small percentage (less than 1%) of ANWR. Besides, Caribou population aropund Prudhoe Bay actually increased since the drilling commenced there.

[PaulaFarrell]

35. Because ANWR is a pristine place

which can't be replaced once destroyed. It's not just about caribou population, it's about an entire ecosytem, some of which is so fragile it takes centuries to recover from simple trampling. It's about selling out for a tiny amount of oil so that people can continue to waste oil like there's no tomorrow.

If you want double benefit, drive 4% less.

[Viking12]

24. Sorry Baby

The USGS estimates a 50% chance that there is 7.7 billion barrels (bbo) of technically recoverable oil. There is a 95% chance to economically recover 3bb and only a 5% chance to economically recover 10.4bbo.



Of course the economics don't include the enmvironmental costs to ANWR, the localities where the oil is eventually burned, the contributions to cliamte change, well you get the picturewe will pay with our flesh

Subtract from any daily production the capacity of the Alaska pipeline & the capacity of the Alaska pipeline dedicated to North Slope oil and we're talking about approximately 1% of the daily US oil consumption or 1/4% of the daily world oil production. Not enough to change oil prices. Not enough to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Not enough to offset the need for REAL energy reform in this country.

[Baby Cthulhu 69]

31. Those are 1998 estimates

The USGS estimates a 50% chance that there is 7.7 billion barrels (bbo) of technically recoverable oil. There is a 95% chance to economically recover 3bb and only a 5% chance to economically recover 10.4bbo.

These estimates, and your graph, are from a 1998 USGS document. Hardly up-to-date info. We won't know for sure until we actually go up there and start drilling some holes.

In any case, with oil topping $57/bbl and likely to be well above $60 in a few years new oil developments are a good idea.

[Viking12]

36. So you think there's been a major geological development since 1998?

[LynnTheDem]

37. ROTFLMAO!!!

*snort*

:D

[jdj]

2. the permafrost is melting like butter on hotcakes.

how can they even try to drill there, this is the region most severely affected by global warming, apparently they can't even predict what the landscape will look like there in 2 or 3 years, more or less 10 which is how long it will take to get the oil.

Someone help me out here...if these companies get set up to drill and all the equipment sinks and cracks because of global warming do they get to write it off as a loss and will the taxpayers end up paying for this fiasco instead?

[Hobarticus]

3. "Retreating ice caps will expose more oil fields"...

That'll be the oil industry's position on global warming.

Kee-rist. Yes, and burning my neighbor's home down will open up some sweet parking for me.

[GreenArrow]

4. Pure, unmitigated GREED

That's all it is.

[slackmaster]

7. I'd rather seen continued drilling off the California coast

The damage here is already done, and we haven't had a major spill for a long time.

[BigBearJohn]

8. WE ARE ONE VOTE AWAY FROM DEFEATING THIS (SEE BELOW)

2 key Democratic Senators who are not on board yet are Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-HI and Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-HI.

Click below to contact them to urge their no vote on drilling in ANWR.

http://democrats.senate.gov/senators.html

[LiberalEsto]

9. Destructive to the environment

costly, and noone knows how much oil is really there. Besides, I've read it will take 6 years before the first oil from there reaches consumers.

[Baby Cthulhu 69]

12. It's not like we won't need oil 6 years from now

Actually we will likely need it more than today, the way oil prices have been going these last couple of years.

And any human activity has an environmental impact. As long as the impact is managed properly (and oil companies should be held accountable for it) we should drill. After all, the total proposed oil drilling area is just a tiny fraction of the total ANWR area.

Interesting map of the ANWR area:
http://www.anwr.org/docs/CloseupofareaIII.pdf

Another reason I am for expanded drilling in the US is that a big chunk of the trade deficit is due to all the oil imports. US imports about 12 million bbl each day and at $53/bbl that comes to 232 billion USD! That is almost half of the trade deficit.
Certainly, getting less dependent on foreign oil is not just good national security policy but also good economic/fiscal policy.
Also expanded domestic drilling will create jobs, many of them well paying.

And to preempt the obvious challenge: yes we should also invest in energy conservation and alternative energies. It is a false dichotomy to think that we can do either or, but not both.

[Lindacooks]

15. 'Total poposed oil drilling area is just a tiny fraction of the total

ANWR area.'

Maybe so, but the plants, roads, and pipelines they have to build are going to be large and intrusive. Not to mention the inevitable spills that are going to devastate the environment for decades to come.

As far as oil companies 'held accountable for it', bullshit. Exxon STILL hasn't paid court ordered monies for the Valdez spill in Prince Edward sound.

[Dave Reynolds]

11. What do Alaskans want?

Last I heard from friends living there, a good number of people were for it.

[donheld]

13. To those who vote in favor of drilling

please explain to me why.

[KamaAina]

14. Not just no but HELL NO

this from the state whose two Dem senators are poised to put it over the top.

Apparently malama 'aina (take care of the land) applies only to OUR land, not anyone else's. :grr:

[Baby Cthulhu 69]

16. What language is that?

Just curious...

[KamaAina]

18. Hawaiian

it's been official here, alongisde English, since 1978. It is one of the very few indigenous languages that is growing rather than shrinking.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1312131&mesg_id=1312131

Our state motto: Ua mau ke ea o ka 'aina i ka pono (the life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness)

[evil_orange_cat]

19. I'd support drilling with strict regulations and limited impact...

... on the environment. There has got to be a middle ground here where we can get the oil without destroying the environment.

[roguevalley]

20. I don't support it for the usual reasons but also for the following:

The mob was here for the Prudhoe Bay job. They skimmed and tore the hell out of things. It cost more than it should have because of the Mob, because of the kickbacks among the companies and all the graft.

Every hooker within 1000 miles was here, walking around no matter the weather. Two Street in Fairbanks was something else.

The majority of jobs don't go to Alaskans. They go to outsiders.

It cheapens the state and ruins the environment. There is more but I'm too disgusted to remember all of it again.

[Strelnikov_]

21. Oil Companies Are No Longer Interested

My guess, they have run the numbers and the cost of polar oil on melting permafrost will be far greater than syncrude from coal gasification or GTL.


Big Oil Steps Aside in Battle over Arctic
By Jeff Gerth
The New York Times

Monday 21 February 2005

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/E022205Y.shtml

But if Mr. Bush's drilling plan passes in Congress after what is expected to be a fierce fight, it may prove to be a triumph of politics over geology.

Once allied, the administration and the oil industry are now far apart on the issue. The major oil companies are largely uninterested in drilling in the refuge, skeptical about the potential there. Even the plan's most optimistic backers agree that any oil from the refuge would meet only a tiny fraction of America's needs.

. . .

A Bush adviser says the major oil companies have a dimmer view of the refuge's prospects than the administration does. "If the government gave them the leases for free they wouldn't take them," said the adviser, who would speak only anonymously because of his position. "No oil company really cares about ANWR," the adviser said, using an acronym for the refuge, pronounced "an-war."

[LibDemAlways]

23. Yesterday a caller to the Ed Schultz show

pointed out that we shouldn't be using the term ANWR since most Americans don't know that it means Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Ask people if they support drilling in ANWR, the answer is more likely to be yes than if you ask if they support drilling in a national wildlife refuge set aside by a republican pres- Eisenhower.

[realFedUp]

27. Also heard on the show that the equipment was already there

maybe someone should check and see if
Cheney Inc. has already installed drills
in that area...

[newyawker99]

26. NO! I don't support it. n/t

[Deja Q]

29. Our country will not last 4 years and his own speeches have

suggested that Bush will use nuclear arms at some point. "untamed fire of freedom" = nukes.

They're allowing drilling for short term cash gain. Someone will drill up there. And once it's used up, then wear your lead outfits.

[Baby Cthulhu 69]

32. "Once it's used up"

is 20+ years after they start drilling (not 6 months as some would misleadingly state). And it would take a few years just to start drilling.
So, if US will not last for 4 more years who exactly will drill up there for "short term cash gain"? Independent Repuiblic of Alaska? Grande Canada?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. More bucks for the politicians and capitalists.

Just as long as they get their dough to hell with everything else.

The American Dream.

[ComerPerro]

34. Hell no. Its lazy, shortsighted, and wreckless

Therefore, it is the very essence of Bush.

We drill in Alaska... then what?

[Itsthetruth]

38. A Big No Here!

eom