# Drilling In ANWR



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

*Should we drill for oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge?*​
yes1252.17%no1147.83%


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

With all the talk on drilling in ANWR, I have been surfing looking for facts about the oil industry, the env. effects, oil fields, ect. I have found many interesting things. Go to a search engine and type in prudhoe bay, alaska oil, ect. Lets talk about it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

That is a though one. I have a pretty strong environmental feeling about these things, but I don't have an antib usiness feeling, so I could perhaps debate myself on this one. OK first guy that calls me Kerry gets a hex put on you. Hehe

I guess I don't trust the word of either side on this one. The environmental groups said the Alaska pipeline would destroy the porcupine caribou herd. The here has expanded dramatically. Then the oil companies say they operate in a safe manner. They said that before the Exon Veldez. That was an outdated ship that didn't have the required double hull construction.

All that said, if they could indeed get it out safely I would be for it. To ensure that I would link criminal liabilities to the drilling. Fines they simply pass along to you and I. There board of directors behind bars for five years would make them a lot more honest about their safe drilling capabilities. The problem is no one will go along with that. So the only alternative is ------- not set on this yet, but how about we let them drill on 1% of the land and if they don't screw that up we let them at a little more incrementally. I know slant drilling is more expensive, but if they want it use this method so much of the area can remain untouched. This isn't practical for the whole area so we couldn't let them into all of it. Also, the areas we do let them in they should be restricted to corridors. This means they could get to much of the area while having actual access to perhaps only 5% total. If they want oil outside those corridors slant drill for it.

These are not the final decisions in my mind, only the thoughts currently running through it.


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

Plainsman,

I am a lot like you in thinking. I will write up my views soon. Directional Drilling is a way to get into more pay zones, but what they son't want you to know is what is in the drilling mud used to drill the holes.(worked the patch for 8 years) I really like your idea of criminal charges. I will post more soon.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I choose to think of it this way, the hippies might be over-reacting, but they don't have a few hundred million riding on the deal either. The oil companies will tell you what you want to hear, the hippies will tell you what they think is right.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Did you know that the small section of the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge where some want to drill for oil was actually set aside for that specific purpose when ANWR was established!  That's right! All we're talking about here is drilling for oil on a section ... a very small section ... of ANWR that was designated for oil exploration from the very beginning! What's the problem here?

Do you want to see the price of crude oil, and thus the price of gas at the pump, dive for the floor overnight? Just let the congress go ahead and authorize the exploration in ANWR. The Oil Sheiks will immediately lower their prices in order to forestall a rapid implementation of any exploration or oil recovery that could cut into their market share. We woundn't even have to do it, just authorize it and the price of fuel would drop.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Do you want to see the price of crude oil, and thus the price of gas at the pump, dive for the floor overnight? Just let the congress go ahead and authorize the exploration in ANWR. The Oil Sheiks will immediately lower their prices in order to forestall a rapid implementation of any exploration or oil recovery that could cut into their market share. We woundn't even have to do it, just authorize it and the price of fuel would drop


Say heres an idea, how about we crack down on the oil refining and shipping companies gouging prices and we can get our gas for the price it should actually be sold for. Even such, you must remember why that section of ANWR was set aside, in case we were cut off from oil by all other countries, hence why it is a reserve, and if we choose to use it because you would rather that we drilled more holes as opposed to getting gas for the reasonable price it should be at we could be put in quite a predicament.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Why not?? You ask. Because refineries and shipping are not price gouging. They don't set the price of oil. Opec does, and they have doubled the price of crude in the last couple years. 
Environmentalists have not allowed the building of new refineries for about 27 years, yet demand has risen steadily. And all the various blends are nonsense, pick one( the cleanest one) and make all the refineries capable of producing it and the prices would be better also. 
Those are the two principle reasons fuel prices are high. We only have control over one of them, the refinery issue, unless we start producing ourselves.

Lastly, the oil business is a multinational business and we as a capitalistic society don't make the pricing rules here and especially worldwide, supply and demand determines price.


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

Here are a few links to help those who want to study this idea.

You think that the caribou are not affected? http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/Spreadi ... Fields.htm

Gov. Murkowski spewing false words:
http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/art ... evelopment

Alaska div. of Oil & Gas: (there are maps in the lower right of page)
http://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/

Do you trust the Audubon Soc.?
http://www.protectthearctic.com/CaribouOil.html

Here are some links from the search engine Dogpile (the best search eng.)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?M10E218AA


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I will read those this evening ej4prmc thanks. I guess I didn't think they were effected a lot, because their population has gone up by about 35% ( last that I knew) over the past 20 years. The original argument was that the Alaskan pipeline would impede their migratory patterns and destroy the population. We know that is false now. As much as I feel myself an environmentalist, I think we like others must do things to maintain our credibility.

Bobm, I didn't realize that setting aside ANWR had contained language defining it as an oil reserve. I wonder if a person could use the freedom of information act to get original documentation of the formation of this refuge system through the US Fish and Wildlife Service. So many of these good projects have gone awry after original agreements. I always think of the wolf introductions in Minnesota. Many groups agreed that if the wolf was successfully introduced and populations were stable that a hunting season could be established. Animal rights groups who had participated in negotiations reneged and went to court to stop the hunting season that had been proposed many years ago in Minnesota. Dishonesty like that can be very destructive to the recovery of species of concern. Many people will want to stop good reintroduction programs simply because others are not true to their word. If this is the case with ANWR we need to know.

ej4prmc I'm looking forward to reading your posts about slant drilling.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Why not?? You ask. Because refineries and shipping are not price gouging. They don't set the price of oil. Opec does, and they have doubled the price of crude in the last couple years.


You're right about the refineries and shipping not setting oil prices but I don't believe OPEC is the culprit either. OPEC does set production amounts which can affect the cost a little, but as far as I can tell it is the speculators on the stock market that are driving up the price. Want to see gas at the pump take a dive? Drop the price of crude $10 dollars a barrel and watch those slow moving ships on the high seas double their speed to get that stuff to the refineries before it drops any more.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I'll admit theres a lot of factors and its simpistic to blame any one of them but Opec sets the base price through production. If I was the only one with oil in the world you would be paying as much as I could get before I created competition too. I don't fault Opec for it, I fault us for being stupid about how we deal with it.

The origin of ANWR dates back to 1960, when the Eisenhower Administration set aside nine million acres of land in the northeast corner of Alaska for conservation efforts. Twenty years later, the Carter Administration and Congress added slightly more than 10 million acres to that site, officially designating it ANWR. To put it into perspective, ANWR is roughly the size of South Carolina.

At the time Congress established ANWR as a protected area, one significant sliver of it along the coastal plain, known as the 1002 area, was not included. *Congress specified further study of that portion for its oil and gas production potential. Today, the largest untapped onshore energy reserve in this country is made up of roughly 2,000 acres of the 1002 area.*

It seems to me that 2000 acres( out of 20 million) properly managed and stricly regulated for environmental concerns wouldn't harm anything. With all the attention its gotten you have to believe that oil companies would be very careful to showcase their best behavior. Few people understand what a small portion of the total Anwar we are talking about.

I believe its all about politics and there is little real environmental concern, Kerry is ****** because he lost the election so hes going to bygod disrupt anything Bush does. I honestly think that if there was a Dem in the presidency that wanted to drill that Kerry would be argueing for the other side and the damn republicans would be argueing against drilling. And with few exceptions, neither side really care about the good of the country. Its all about aquisition of political power. Unfortunately for the Dems once again world events are currently working against their position.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

heres an article describing just some of the methods the oil business has developed and uses to mimimize its impact on the arctic environment. They all make a lot of sense and tell me that it can be done without all the problems alluded to.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/scngo/Petroleum ... Page1.html


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

I have one simple question and that is how much of that oil will be for our consumption? after all it still will be going to Valdez and from there to Japan and Asia like most the oil from Prudoe Bay, If anyone can tell me the percentage of Alaskian oil that came our ports I would appreciate it


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

adokken said:


> I have one simple question and that is how much of that oil will be for our consumption? after all it still will be going to Valdez and from there to Japan and Asia like most the oil from Prudoe Bay, If anyone can tell me the percentage of Alaskian oil that came our ports I would appreciate it


Alaska hasn't exported crude oil since I believe the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act of 1973. What you read about being exported to Japan and other overseas places from Alaska is natural gas. The Governor of Alaska was trying to get the ban of exported crude oil lifted in 1995 but I don't think he was successful. The same ban on Alaska oil was placed on California oil.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

Its good news if your information is correct, The natives that I have visited up there are always telling me that most of the crude and timber go to Japan. If our crude were to all go to Asia it just as well stay in the ground. How about the oil off the coast of Florida? We have to do some thing soon as we are not in a position to tolerate another oil embargo.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

adokken

That would be a concern of mine also. I know the timber is going to Japan. Some of those coastal islands are nearly denuded of vegetation. I hope Gohon is right about the oil. I too was under the impression that Japan was still getting some, but you know how rumors go. I would also agree that if Asia is going to get it then it might as well stay in the ground. Burn everyone else's crude first then use ours. As far as energy crunches when we consider all of it we will have the last laugh with the oil rich countries. We have the worlds largest coal reserves. What are they going to produce electricity with hydroelectric? I think not. Nuclear? That's scary.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Here are two cites that help clear some of the information up about Alaska's crude oil. One cite is 2 years old and the other is 10 years old. If anyone has any up to date info I'd be interested in reading it.

http://www.gov.state.ak.us/Press_Murkow ... 031202.htm

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-227.html


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreport ... gen-25.cfm

This is pretty detailed about where the oil is going and whats going on politically to determine where its sent

I found this article informative also

http://www.facsnet.org/tools/energy/kaufmann.php


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

Royal Dutch Shell is also trying to revive the Colorado the oil shale project again, the Piceane Basin in Colorado alone contains 300 billiom barrels of potentionally recoverable Petroleum, equal to 48 percent of the middle east reserves.
We could take a lesson from what is going on in Alberta since the 1980s they have cut the cost of extracting oil from the tar sands to about $10.00 dollars a barrel. In the tar sands there is an estimated 300 billion barrels of recoverable oil plus another trillion plus barrels that with the developement of new retrieval methods could some day in the future be a source of available oil to us, after all the pipe lines are in place.


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

Gohon said:


> Here are two cites that help clear some of the information up about Alaska's crude oil. One cite is 2 years old and the other is 10 years old. If anyone has any up to date info I'd be interested in reading it.
> 
> http://www.gov.state.ak.us/Press_Murkow ... 031202.htm
> 
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-227.html


From your link you provided "Press_Murkowski":
"The sale of liquefied natural gas from the Kenai Peninsula to Japan remained stable and a new multi-year contract extension was signed for that export."

WHY IN THE UKKK are we exporting LNG (Liq. Nat. Gas)?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

ej4prmc said:


> WHY IN THE UKKK are we exporting LNG (Liq. Nat. Gas)?


Don't know ................... would assume there is no shortage of any kind in natural gas. At the present time I would suspect the only reason for natural gas prices to rise here in the USA is the cost of transportation of said gas due to the rise of crude oil which translates to higher prices at the pump for over the road truckers. I do know Japan is a very important partner of ours and they have no natural resources of their own.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Almost all natural gas is transferred in a pipeline so the cost of trucking is not a factor. They are raising prices cause they can and they will continue to untill no one is buyiny it anymore. I don't know why our great? government doesn't regulate the price of energy like they do everything else these days.

The government has set regulations for retailers of energy as to what they can mark it up so they don't gouge, why don't they do that to the big oil companys???? :evil:


----------



## backhome (Oct 25, 2004)

With respect to oil prices...oil is a global commodity. Supply and demand move the oil market. I do believe that OPEC can affect pricing (because they have some control over supply) so it is not a perfectly efficient market. Demand is also a real issue, though. For example, China's economy is growing at 8% - 9% per year, which has/is greatly affecting the demand for oil and many other commodities. I think the notion of "energy independence" is a fallacy, but I also think that large sources of new oil and gas supply in the US should be tapped in careful and controlled ways. I think drilling on ANWR should be pursued.....though considerable scrutiny and oversight is warranted.


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

Like most of AMERICA'S OIL...where will this end up - ASIA!

What a friggen waste with a potentially hazardous result on a sensitive ecosystem.


----------

