COLOMBUS, Ohio, March 9 (AFP) - US President George W. Bush called Wednesday for development of US oil reserves in Alaska, including within the bounds of a wildlife refuge, to contend with the US undersupply of petroleum.
"To produce more energy at home, we need to open up new areas to environmentally responsible exploration for oil and natural gas, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," Bush said, as he made a speech here.
"The Department of Interior estimates that we could recover more than 10 billion barrels of oil from a small corner of ANWR that was reserved specifically for energy development."
The amount of oil Bush said could be accessed would be equivalent to that currently obtained "from 41 (US) states combined."
The Republican president in 2001 presented a bill seeking to develop US petroleum reserves at the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. Congress never voted on it due to opposition from Democrats and environmentalists.
But following Bush's second term presidential victory last November, party officials suggested that the vote might go through thanks to a larger Republican majority in Congress.
Developing...
I hope this is able to go through. We need to use our own oil before fuel cells get fully developed and oil is worthless.
Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
quote:We need to use our own oil before fuel cells get fully developed and oil is worthless.
And we'd better start using our nuclear weapons before everyone gets them.
Preach on, Brother Jay!
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
Grrr.
Btw, Jay, I think you misunderstand the role of fuel cells. They're not sources of energy, they're basically batteries.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Hell no. They need to leave that place alone, plain and simple. Besides, tapping it won't save us from the dreaded peak oil Which I am scared of.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Here Here Synesthesia! Peak Oil is creeping me out big! There was on article on China's global hunt for oil on the BBC yesterday.
We are peaking and demand is spiking. This does not bode well.
BTW, how do fuel cells make oil worthless? What energy is used to charge the cells? What is the replacement for fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, plastics, tires, energy production, and about everything else our economy and way of life depends on?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
The problem with the Bush administrations argument to drill in the reserve is that the peak amount of 10 billion barrels will only sustain U.S. consumption for six months(according to the USGS). Real smart plan, but then again, Bush is going to need a job in three years. It may as well be at an oil company.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Arg. I do NOT want to think about peak oil... There's really not much that can be done about it and these leptons will NOT try to find an alternative source of energy to lessen our dependence on oil... Furthermore, it might not do a bit of good anyway... Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Not to mention, that oil will always be in need so long as plastics are around.
-Bok
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Besides, we all know how truly pledged big oil is to keeping their environmental promises. I mean have you seen how fast Exxon cleaned up after their little spill. It took about a decade for the money they were ordered to pay to actually be paid.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I knew a conservative who was strongly against drilling in Alaska... on the theory that it was better to use up all the Mideast's oil first and save ours for when we really need it and everyone else is out.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I am not worried about the environment. I believe we will hit peak oil and the long road to depletion long before oil can do any permanent damage. I would be worried for "Mother Earth" if we had an unlimited supply of oil. We don't.
I am scared of a major depression, world conflict (especially with China) over oil, and not being able to grow or afford food. The world instability that is going to occur in our lifetime is far more troubling then oil on a shore. Poor poor Toshi.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
There is no US undersupply of petroleum. There is only the VAST wastage of petroleum, natural gas, and other resources due to governmental incentives to do so.
[ March 10, 2005, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
could you elaborate?
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote: We need to use our own oil before fuel cells get fully developed and oil is worthless.
...
...
I guess all I can think of to say to this is Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Bang your head all ya like. But it’s not going to be long, within our lifetime, that either fuel cells or some other effective energy source replaces gasoline in our vehicles. It’s happening already. You’ve seen the hybrids. We had the huge thread on the 500 miles per gallon story. Yes, we’ll still use oil for other things. But, it’ll be cheap then. Worthless comparatively. The funniest thing about the environmental arguments are that we’d rather let other countries use bad practices where we don’t see it, instead of doing it ourselves where we can do it right.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Jay, I'm not sure you're getting what people are saying about fuel cells. Fuel cells aren't an energy source any more than a Duracell battery is. They are an energy storage device.
The energy must be produced elsewhere. Massive increases in solar, hydroelectric, nuclear, and wind electrical generation will be needed to reduce our need for fossil fuels. Fuel cells are incidental to this effort at best.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I know I plan on writing my congressperson about this, and I hope all of you do too.
6 months of oil is not worth it! This is an incredibly short-sighted, short-term solution for a long term problem.
space opera
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
Jay,
I'm banging my head because: 1) As Miro said, Fuel cells are NOT an 'alternative energy source'. Besides, even as 'batteries' they're not even close to being ready for use in a car.
2) Even if there is going to be some magic 'other effective energy source', I don't follow the logic of saying that we should use up this resource now 'while we still can'.
Shouldn't we save this reserve for when/if we really NEED it? I mean after all, I may be paying more but I'm still filling up my tank. We don't have a shortage as far as having enough fuel, we're just paying more for it.
This is like going and drinking all the water in your bomb shelter since the water company raised it rates. What if you actually need that bomb shelter someday?
and, if the Government is really serious about solving out 'energy crisis' maybe it should start by investing some serious money into R&D of new techologies.
-me
[ March 10, 2005, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: just_me ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
This is terrible. Absolutely. It's called a Nature Reserve not because you've got to be careful and responsible about your drilling there, you're supposed to do that everywhere, but because it's supposed to be Reserved for Nature.
I just don't get it. The man must be mad.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I know I plan on writing my congressperson about this, and I hope all of you do too.
I do plan on writing them, but probably not to say the same thing about this as you.
Dagonee
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
What are you planning on writing them about, Dag?
space opera
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
To keep them from interfering with the drilling.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Don't suppose you'd care to elaborate on your reasons, Dag?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: We need to use our own oil before fuel cells get fully developed and oil is worthless.
Basically, your argument is "we have to make as much money as we can while we still can".
EDIT: Dag... are you saying you too support this?
[ March 10, 2005, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Don't suppose you'd care to elaborate on your reasons, Dag?
No one else has elaborated their reasons for being against it, except ElJay's conservative friend.
Essentially, though, it's because the reasons to oppose it aren't compelling to me. Maybe if someone comes up with a new reason, I might change my mind.
[ March 10, 2005, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Well, I'm against it because I feel it's very short-sighted. We need to be spending funds on perfecting/developing newer energy sources. It's pretty clear that our supply of oil, coal, etc. will not be around forever and we need to be decreasing our dependency on them, not disrupting animal reserves because there's a 6 month supply of oil there. I'll leave it at that for now.
But Dags, I am interested in hearing your reasons for being pro-drilling. I always like to hear opposing views because often I learn things from them.
space opera
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Bang your head all ya like. But it’s not going to be long, within our lifetime, that either fuel cells or some other effective energy source replaces gasoline in our vehicles.
I've said this before here, but one of the things that I as an engineer find infuriating about many people is the way that they just sort of assume we're going to wave our magic wands and solve your (and our) problems in the blink of an eye.
Fuel cells are not the magical solution to the limited resources problem, for a number of reasons that I and others have elaborated on at some length on various threads here. Nothing else is ready for prime time, either.
The best thing to do is to get away from this absurd notion of one vehicle per person.
quote: It’s happening already. You’ve seen the hybrids. We had the huge thread on the 500 miles per gallon story. Yes, we’ll still use oil for other things. But, it’ll be cheap then. Worthless comparatively.
This is just wrong. Where do you think we get plastic from? How do you think we'll make plastic when it gets difficult to extract petrochemicals from the ground and we've dug up all of our old landfills? How do you think we'll make cars? Computers?
quote:The funniest thing about the environmental arguments are that we’d rather let other countries use bad practices where we don’t see it, instead of doing it ourselves where we can do it right.
Now that is a sound argument, but it leads me to a different conclusion: I think that Western governments should simply require all oil companies that are based in or operate in industrialized nations to follow the same environmental practices in their operations outside of the Western world as they do for their "domestic" operations. These kinds of environmental and safety standards should be global.
As to drilling in Alaska, I think Bush is simply using it. He knows it isn't going to solve anything one way or another, but he likes to look like he's acting on things (social security is another example), so he talks big. But drilling in doesn't do much of anything to solve the problem, and Bush's implications that it will simply lead American consumers to think that they are free to keep on consuming at their present absurd rate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The fact that it's just 6 months doesn't matter - that's 6 months for the whole country. Which means that for a much longer period of time, it will reduce what we would otherwise have imported.
I'm also not convinced that the drilling would be terribly harmful to the wildlife refuge as a whole.
Finally, drilling doesn't preclude research on alternative energy sources.
Dagonee
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Dag, if it helps any I would rather we decrease what we import as well.
"But drilling in doesn't do much of anything to solve the problem, and Bush's implications that it will simply lead American consumers to think that they are free to keep on consuming at their present absurd rate."
Twinky said that rather well, I think. This is pushed by consumerism. To me, drilling is rather like sticking our heads in the sand and continuing along on our present path. There needs to be a line that we refuse to cross, and there should have been long ago.
space opera
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: But it’s not going to be long, within our lifetime, that either fuel cells or some other effective energy source replaces gasoline in our vehicles.
When you talk about replacements for gasoline, you are really talking about replacements for fossil fuels. Fuel cells just store energy, they do not create energy. What we need is something that replaces fossil fuels for harnessing energy. Fuel cells still need to be charged by an energy source, and are not part of the equation--unless you want to subtract how much energy it takes to create them, and then fuel cells are arguably bad for our energy crisis.
What will we charge them with? We have Solar, Wind, Tidal, trash decomposition to produce methane, and biomass alternatives like ethanol to produce energy.
quote:Let's put it another way; if 8 billion were to have Australian oil plus gas use via methanol 30 billion ha would have to be in plantations constantly yielding 7 t/ha. But there are only 13 billion ha of land on the planet!
Not enough arable land to produce the biomass fuel to convert our economy is just one of the many problems of relying on ethanol.
Tillerson, the president of Exxonmobil corp has this to say:
quote:The enormity of what our petroleum industry delivers day in and day out is not well understood by the public and, regrettably, by many policy-makers. This gives rise in some circles of well-intended but misplaced views of the role that alternatives can play in the future energy picture. For example, you would need to cover [with solar power equipment] four city blocks of Manhattan to provide an energy equivalent of one very average Exxon or Mobil corner retail gas station."
Big energy market "The world energy market is huge, and it will take a great deal of investment and a very long time before significant changes are going to be evident in the mix of energy sources that we depend upon for our economic prosperity. For the foreseeable future—and in this business, we have to see the future in terms of decades—the world economy will continue to require significant and growing supplies of crude oil and natural gas. Any notion of a silver-bullet solution for the developed economies, and particularly here in the US, is simply not realistic across this time frame[.]
I could go on. Would you like me to?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Yes I understand they’re a battery. And yes, I know they’re not ready yet. But they will be. Sooner then later. And it looks like eventually these hydrogen cells could run off of water. There’s different ways of doing it where you can use water or produce water. They’re also looking at doing it where it could run off the hydrogen in the air. Whichever they perfect for me to have 200 horses under the hood is fine with me. If you want to get technical and ague about something silly like that they’re not an alternative energy source, feel free. I for one am excited about them and can’t wait. And if we’re getting out own oil and not wasting money on oil from the Middle East, don’t you think we’d have more $$ for R&D? Plus those counties wouldn’t be so rich anymore and less able to fund terror.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Twinky's logic in that quoted sentence would apply to all domestic drilling.
quote:There needs to be a line that we refuse to cross, and there should have been long ago.
What I haven't heard explained is why drilling for oil in this place is worse than drilling for it elsewhere.
Dagonee
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Dag, to me its worse because this place is an animal reserve. Somewhere along the way this piece of land and the animals that survive on it were considered important enough that they be declared off-limits. Now, because we practically refuse to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels and we need oil, all the sudden the land and animals aren't so important anymore. There was a line drawn, but we're now willing to jump over it because of selfish needs.
I know this sounds simple, but that's the best way I can explain how I feel.
space opera
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And it looks like eventually these hydrogen cells could run off of water. There’s different ways of doing it where you can use water or produce water. They’re also looking at doing it where it could run off the hydrogen in the air.
This is akin to saying, "Let's burn the carbon that's in CO2 in the atmosphere. We'd lower green house gasses and get free energy at the same time."
Hydrogen in water has no energy to give up in a chemical reaction. Any hydrogen in the air is either in water or in trace amounts.
quote:Whichever they perfect for me to have 200 horses under the hood is fine with me. If you want to get technical and ague about something silly like that they’re not an alternative energy source, feel free. I for one am excited about them and can’t wait.
It's not technical. It's a key distinction in energy policy. Imagine we had unlimited non-polluting electricity and perfect land-based transmission. We would still have to come up with some way to power non-attached power consumers, such as cars, tools, and the like. Fuel cells will help greatly in that regard. But not with the necessary condition - sufficient power in the right place to charge them.
quote: 1. How Much Energy is Returned for the Energy Invested (EROEI)?
quote:Converting water to hydrogen is done through electrolysis. Scientist David Pimentel has established that it takes 1.3 billion kWh (Kilowatt hours) of electricity to produce the equivalent of 1 billion kWh of hydrogen. (BioScience, Vol. 44, No. 8, September 1994.)
Even a small positive EROEI, if obtainable, is not a solution because fossil fuels on the whole return many times the energy invested, not just a fraction. That's why we use them.
Ethanol is another case in point. Some research has shown a negative EROEI for ethanol. Newer research from Oregon shows a slightly positive return. Ethanol is, at best, a slightly beneficial temporary alternative - not a substitute.
Claims that cars can run on vegetable oil never take into account the amount of energy necessary to generate the vegetable oil (farming, vegetable transport, extraction, etc.).
quote:2. Have the claims been verified by an independent third party?
3. Can I see the alternative energy being used?
4. Can you trace it back to the original energy source?
5. Does the invention defy the Laws of Thermodynamics?
6. Does the inventor make extravagant claims?
7. Does the inventor claim zero pollution?
8. Can I see blueprints, schematics or a chemical analysis of how it works?
9. Infrastructure Requirements -- Does the energy source require a corporation to produce it? How will it be transported and used? Will it require new engines, pipelines, and filling stations? What will these cost? Who will pay for them and with what? How long will it take to build them?
quote:A 1999 University of California study revealed that more than 3,000 gallons of gaseous hydrogen is necessary to produce the same energy as a gallon of gasoline.
Compressed hydrogen is highly explosive. Liquid hydrogen comes close to equaling gasoline's energy but it is so cold, it fractures the metals used in fuel systems. Where will people get hydrogen? And if one relies on a zero-point technology to make it, how much energy will be returned and where will the new engines come from?
Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
Here is a link to the report by US Fish & Wildlife Service that discusses the environment impacts by drilling in this area.
I don't know how anyone can be surprised that Bush is once again pushing for this. He has been trying to get drilling in this area forever it seems. I'm thinking it is one of those "Clinton was against it so I'm gonna do it" things...since it won't have any REAL impact on the oil supply. I just chalk it up to another bone-head Bush policy that I'm against.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Yes I understand they’re a battery. And yes, I know they’re not ready yet. But they will be. Sooner then later.
[quote]And it looks like eventually these hydrogen cells could run off of water. There’s different ways of doing it where you can use water or produce water.
That's electrolysis, and you have to put more energy in to make the hydrogen than you get out when you use the hydrogen.
Which reminds me that I meant to try to get solid fuel cell efficiency data. I should look into that...
quote: They’re also looking at doing it where it could run off the hydrogen in the air.
There is almost no hydrogen in the air.
quote:Whichever they perfect for me to have 200 horses under the hood is fine with me. If you want to get technical and ague about something silly like that they’re not an alternative energy source, feel free. I for one am excited about them and can’t wait.
They aren't, and that's not just a semantic quibble. What lem and I are both saying is that they do not solve the problem. The hydrogen still has to come from somewhere and right now that somewhere is from petrochemicals (and even that process is less efficient than simply burning the petrochemicals directly).
So you may not have your 200 horses under the hood, or even a hood of your own. What you are more likely to have, in a sensible world, is an electric bus/train, and no car of your own. The bus could even be fuel cell powered, if an efficient means of generating and distributing hydrogen can be developed (no such means exists today).
IMO, the notion that we can simply replace the engines in our cars with something "clean" and then suddenly everything will be hunky-dory is just ridiculous.
quote:And if we’re getting out own oil and not wasting money on oil from the Middle East, don’t you think we’d have more $$ for R&D? Plus those counties wouldn’t be so rich anymore and less able to fund terror.
American oil is more expensive than Middle Eastern oil to produce, so profits on it are lower. That's why the Middle East is so lucrative -- you can just stick a pipe in the ground and up it comes. Finally, because oil is fungible (sells for the same price worldwide), it more or less doesn't matter where it comes from, the cost is essentially the same. Drilling Alaska won't save America any money, and ten billion barrels won't put an appreciable dent in your imports. America imports over six million barrels of oil per day from its top four suppliers alone.
Basically, I'm opposed to drilling in the reserve because I think it's a political diversion tactic that doesn't actually accomplish anything other than distracting the public from the problem.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Well, lem, I'll start by reposting a minor rewrite of what I previously posted here, which was deleted from the archives due to one of the forum glitches:
Annual Wind Energy Potential in billions of kiloWatthours for wind class of 3 and higher, factoring in environmental and land use exclusions.
.North Dakota 1,210 ..Nebraska 868 ......Colorado 481 ......Illinois 61 ...........Texas 1,190 ..Wyoming 747 .New Mexico 435 ..California 59 .........Kansas 1,070 .Oklahoma 725 ...........Idaho. 73 .Wisconsin 58 South Dakota 1,030 .Minnesota 657 ......Michigan. 65 .......Maine 56 .......Montana 1,020 ..........Iowa 551 .....New York. 62 ....Missouri 52 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a minor revision of my writings elsewhere which was also posted here previously - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - First, I'm not sure whether the AWEA's "energy potential" means 1) total wind energy, or 2) the amount that could be realisticly extracted&converted into electricity, or 3) what could be delivered in a timely manner to satisfy the electricity market's usage demands, or something in between. And it's a BIG step between potential energy and usable electricity.
Assuming that it is 2), there is the problem of peaks and valleys in power production. Somewhat smoothed out through averaging across the national powergrid, but it is still a headache. A better storage system will have to be devised to even come close to making maximum utilization of the potential. After the initial production of electricity, there's a way to come up with a bit better than 80%efficiency thru the conversion to storage to reconversion for usage process (not counting transmission losses). However, I don't know whether or not there is sufficient potential storage* capacity by that means without really mucking up the environment.
Wind power machinery coexists quite well with farming and ranching operations. The AWEA figures probably included farms and grazing lands as the majority of their windpower production areas, though they don't seem to include offshore production. And most of the US is connected to the NorthAmerican powergrid. Present US electricity use is about 3800billion kWh, or 13000 kWh per capita (per person average).
Assume that Texas&Colorado has the same per capita usage as the US. Then that Colorado&Texas could provide for the electricity demands of their own ~26million people with ~338billion kWh of useable electricity converted from their 1671kWh windpower-potential. That would imply ~20% conversion efficiency from windpower potential to usable electricity using interpretation 2) of AWEA's numbers.
So, beginning with the assumption that the Texas&Colorado combination would use all that could be produced in those two states, there's no reason that the rest of the top twelve states (those with high windpower potential and relatively low populations) can't become major electrical power exporters. Using the same 20% potential-to-usable conversion efficiency, the other 10 states in the top 12 could provide ~1,680billion kWh to the NorthAmerican powergrid.
So the top twelve windpower states could produce about ~2018billion kWh, or ~53% of the ~3800billion kWh produced in the US. Add the 7.19% currently produced by hydroelectric generation and 19.84% produced by nuclear, and that's ~80%.
Considering that the older&prosperous members of the EuropeanUnion use ~5400kWh per capita or ~41% of the US per capita to maintain an equivalent lifestyle, there is obviously room left for improvements in efficiency of US utilization. So it's hard to believe that the US would suffer by using twice as much electricity per person as the more prosperous EU nations.
But even assuming that the US would want 100% of current production, reduction of fossil fuel generation from 70% to 20% of the total would create a substantial reduction in demand for fossil fuels. There would also be a more favorable US balance of trade due to lessened oil&gas importation, as well as from the lessened world oil&gas prices due to a decrease in US demand-pressure. And lower fuel cost would mean cheaper generation of electricity by the fossil-fuel plants that remain, as well as less strain on the environment.
Remember this is at 20% conversion efficiency in the top twelve windpower-potential states**. At ~38% efficiency those same twelve states could provide 100% of US electricity needs**.
And remember it does not include conversion of the 38 other states' windpower-potential. Nor the offshore windpower potentials of the states: which would be substantial, especially for the coastal states not counted amongst the top twelve. Then there is the VAST excess Canadian windpower potential: which I'm sure they would be happy to sell, in the same manner as OntarioHydro/etc currently exports surplus electricity into the US market.
100% windpower production of baseline electricity needs presents opportunity to reduce oil&gas importation in other ways. Which I'll return to.
* A schematic of the proposed Galala-RedSea power storage system which could be adapted for use -- including matching demand peaks&valleys to production peaks&vallleys -- with solar/wind electricity powerplants.
** Both statements do not include storage-conversion losses and transmission losses to&from storage sites.
[ March 15, 2005, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I actually really like the idea of sea wind farms. The ones off the coast of Norway, for instance, are a really good case study and will hopefully be used as an example for other regions. We could do this in Canada, and I'd be thrilled if we did.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I saw the research area on PEI with the windmills, and it was pretty cool, twinky. Even so, when we got there ,and for about 20-30 minutes, none of them where moving, due to lack of wind.
-Bok
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Evironmentalists are cracking down on windfarms. They're trying to get the licenses revoked for the huge one in the Altamont Pass on the grounds that it's killing birds.
Can you give me more links to study that out? I am doing a personal project trying to determine whether Peak Oil is an insurmountable crisis. The more I read, the more I am convinced it is. HOWEVER, I have not made a study of Wind Power...yet. I know my hometown's electric company just put out a flyer asking if anyone wanted to be charged off of the wind power grid. The wind power does not yet exist, but if we are willing to pay a little more, they will have the money to build the windmills. I am thinking of joining in.
I have also not looked into the claim that there is plenty of oil but America has not built new refineries.
Any info I can use is appreciated!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've been against Alaskan drilling for years, as far back as I remember. And it's always been for two reasons before.
1. That it's a nature preserve, and it needs to be preserved, that I'm sick of big oil, big timber, etc destroying the environment for profit.
2. It ignores the issue that we need to be using renewable energy instead of fossil fuels.
But recently I've changed my mind. I don't so much buy into the environmental argument, because it IS such a small portion of the reserve, and I believe impact will be minimal.
However, I still beleave my second reason is enough to stop any drilling in Alaska. Most estimate indicate that we won't be able to get any of the 10 billion barrels out of Alaska for ten years. That's at least 10 years more of putting off responsible energy development. I don't care if they want to drill there, but the only way I would ever go along with it, is if in the same bill that authorizes it, billions are approriated to update the energy grid and for renewable energy. It will be good for the enviornment and extremely good for the economy.
I guess it all boils down to me being sick of Bush putting off the responsibilty of bringing this nation's energy structure into the 21st century. Hell I'd settle for the second half of the 20th century. When he decides to step up to the challenge, I'll support ANWR drilling.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Interestingly, twinky, long before I ever ran across the Galala proposal, using Norway's fjords was my first thought after that of multiplying US hydropower production to act as a windpower storage "battery" -- by using excess windpower electricity to pump the hydropower-released freshwater back up into the reservoirs -- led to thinking of damming across inlets on the US coast.
Consider low dams placed across the fjords to store energy -- using excess windpower electricity to pump seawater up into the reservoirs -- to allow hydropower production to fill in shortages when windpower production is less than the electricity demand. Norway could remain the wealthy"oil"exporting nation, ie power capitol of the EU long after its NorthSea oil&gas fields ran dry.
[ March 11, 2005, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
This is just a chapter in history, the sad thing about the Middle East is that it will become an economic sink after the worldwide dependency on oil splutters to an end.
I do not know what intrinsic value all that oil deep in the ground has for mother Earth, it certainly will not do us much good if it gets spilled in the ocean and the atmosphere, but that will happen anyway. Short term interests should prevail while the long term solution is developed, these new solar cells are commercially viable though while I agree with the potential of wind power, I find it to be a bit intrusive.
Of course I have never cared for power lines either. As long as the new sources are opening, we should decrease forgein dependancy for our own security.
After all while drugs may or may not fund terrorists, we know for certain oil does!
BC
[ March 10, 2005, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Bean Counter ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Don't forget that northern Ecosystems and Environments are far more precarious (sp?) that temperate zones.
Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
quote: And if we’re getting out own oil and not wasting money on oil from the Middle East, don’t you think we’d have more $$ for R&D? --Jay
...because oil is fungible (sells for the same price worldwide), it more or less doesn't matter where it comes from, the cost is essentially the same. Drilling Alaska won't save America any money...--Twinky
Twinky is right, Jay. Oil is fungible like any other global commodity. I was going to say that myself.
The war on terror as justification for drilling in ANWAR? Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hey Mormo, outright laughing at someone isn't very polite, even if you do think his ideas are wrong.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Wouldn’t the extra supply make prices go down worldwide or did I miss something in my economics class?
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Just to throw in another alternative, what about using algae for biodiesel? (You may want to skip the first paragraph. It has a bit of a... slant.) The article goes over the benefits of biodiesel (it uses existing infrastructure, there are existing vehicles that can run on the stuff, zero net greenhouse emissions, etc.) and lays out a method to replace imported oil with algae farms in the desert. The focus is on transportation rather than generation of electricity, but that's a huge chunk of where our oil goes, so it's still very relevant.
The article does gloss over some problems, like the huge initial cost of the farms and the substantial upkeep costs (though the upkeep is considerably less than what we pay for oil currently). There's also the issue of the high-particulate emissions that diesel engines produce, though the author's pet idea of diesel-electric hybrids does go a long way towards reducing this one.
Any other problems/benefits/other consequences that I'm missing? Does this look possible? Politically feasible?
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
I hope it won't pass. The reason it didn't the first time around was that enough Northern Conservatives voted against it. Now, however, the parties have gotten more polarized than EVER. Increased chance of passing this. Not good.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Jay: You missed something (several somethings).
OPEC is an oligopolistic institution. When other sources of world oil go up, OPEC reduces production and raises prices (but since they have the cheapest production their prices are still cheaper than other peoples'). This keeps their income pretty much the same. They control enough of the oil, in the right situation, to be mostly price-takers.
[ March 10, 2005, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by holden (Member # 7351) on :
Good point fugu but I think you are missing something as well. The price of oil is currently at high levels for two primary reasons:
1. Increase in global demand due to global economic recovery 2. Supply concerns related to terrorism and geopolitical unrest in many oil producing countries.
While it is true that OPEC could cut production to combat increased supply from ANWAR, they could do nothing about the fact that more oil would be coming from stable sources. This would cause the so called terrorism premium to evaporate or at least decrease. Many analysts speculate that the current premium represents $10 to $15 per barrel.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oil from ANWR would have almost nil effect on the terrorist premium, that's a pretty much separate factor.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Jay, the amounts in Anwar, while enough to make several oil people noticeably richer, are not enough to greatly effect world market prices.
Dag, her is why I am against it.
Trust.
We are being told that we can trust the oil companies to drill in a safe, clean, friendly way.
Yet we have a history that shows they routinely do otherwise.
We are being told that this is a cure for high gas prices. That its the solution to our energy problem when the science, the basic math, does not give us that answer.
We are being told that while Nature Preserves are off limits to hunters and campers, housing developers and lawyers who want to set up offices there, people in the Oil Business are special and can go right in. Their money and power give them rights that we don't have.
Rights to risk our national resources for their gain.
Do you notice that no one is saying this will improve the Alaskan economy?
Do you know why?
Because Alaska is becoming one of the nations greatest tourist locations. It offeres great skiing and lots of beautiful nature to relax in.
Eco-Tourist organizations are making good money for the people of Alaska, but the rumble of oversized gas hauling trucks and the sound and smell of 24 hour drilling, pumping, and processing that oil will drive those tourists away.
This is a good deal for a couple of Oil companies. It has not been shown to be a good deal for the American public.
Posted by holden (Member # 7351) on :
How so fugu? The more oil that comes from stable sources, the less the market needs to be concerned about terrorism related supply disruption. Add significant domestic supply of oil to the market and the terrorism premium would decrease. The only question is one of magnitude.
edit spelling
[ March 10, 2005, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: holden ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, it isn't. The question is one of magnitude from efficient sources.
If the additional oil is coming from ANWR and costs more, we haven't affected the terrorist premium much at all -- in fact, we've increased it on our oil (after all, we just chose to pay more in order to avoid buying oil from terrorist supporting states).
The problem with the terrorist premium will continue to exist as long as the unrest exists in the places its easy to get oil out of, plain and simple, and anything which does not address that problem isn't going to be more than a fluctuation in the terrorist premium (unless we somehow find a way to get a huge amount of our oil from elsewhere, which we can't yet, AND are willing to absorb the huge economic costs by using less efficient sources -- which means we haven't really eliminated the terrorist premium, just bypassed it).
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dan, you said much of what I wanted to say. I had this very conversation with an exec from an oil-related company (not an oil firm, but a company taht made supplies for oil companies). Basically I told him that having grown up in Santa Barbara, CA, where we were told for years that the tar on our beaches was due to "natural seepage" when, in fact, it was leaks from the off-shore drills and they KNEW IT, just leads me to think that the industry is not to be trusted.
I'm also used to the fact that drilling in a small area (or transporting out of just one port, etc.) doesn't really mean that the ecological damage will be so contained should something go wrong.
There's one more consideration on the ecological side for me. That is that certain types of ecosystems are more fragile than others. If a migration route is disrupted, for example, the effect is seen sometimes on the scale of an entire continent, not just the few square miles that were damaged.
Frankly, this idea bothers me because the people who should be stewards of the resources have a conflict of interest.
I believe it's possible to drill and transport oil safely. I think our industry has improved a lot since the days when I lived with their mistakes in Santa Barbara. But I still do not trust them because the promise I want, nobody could deliver. I don't want a promise that the damage will be slight, I want a promise of no possible damage. Ever.
No-one can deliver that promise credibly. And so we end up debating the "acceptable" damage to an ecosystem that is not well understood. Will an oil spill there mean the extinction of some species? Probably not. But is that the criteria we should use? As long as we don't anticipate mass extinctions in the local environment, then it's okay?
I don't like that one.
Here's the question I have, though. Why can't those who want to drill there commit to pulling the plug if their damage projections are wrong? Here's the deal: Congress sets an upper limit on the oil-related devastation we're willing to tolerate over x years. Then we monitor it independently. Assess it every month if we have to.
Then, if the damage comes in above that amount, we pull the plug.
Does anyone ever even consider these types of things? It would damn well guarantee that the industry would play it extremely safe if they knew that they'd have to stop and lose their investment if the damage got too large too fast.
Instead, we give the stuff away with no guarantees at all. They can drill and if something really bad happens, we go to court and they take years to do whatever it is we can force them to do...
I'm sorry, but I'd rather suffer with higher gas prices. I don't need to drive as much. I'll live.
If they want to play by rules that punish them ultimately and immediately if they don't live by the rules, I'll go along with it.
These companies have not earned my trust and thus I will expect serious and irreversible consequences of their mistakes. I do not respect a government process that fails to plan for the reasonable likelihood that there will be spills. I'm of the opinion that fines are not enough. We should provisionally grant use of a resource, but immediately pull that permission the instant things go wrong. That's the only kind of threat (the complete loss of their investment) that these companies ever seem to fear.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Nope, Jay, you are right: increased supply would put downward pressure on sellers assuming there is no increase in demand.
Which is an absurd assumption considering that eg India and China -- which currently use ~20% per capita of the US per capita; in large part for industries exporting to the US&FirstWorld -- are fast-growing economies which will increase their oil&gas demand faster than supply can be increased just to keep up with the employment growth needed to match their own population growth (especially India) and with the rising expectations of their own citizens (especially China). Plus the rest of the under-developed nations will surely also want to follow the FirstWorld into prosperity.
Besides, the growth in average fuel-usage-per-mile by US private automobiles since the KyotoSummit alone will eat up 100% of all Alaskan oil reserves -- both those already being exploited, and the potential as estimated by the AmericanPetroleumInstitute* -- within a decade or so.
So unless you can come up with another solution short of genocide -- which will include genocide of Americans since India and China can lob nukes back at the US -- the only way to get around increasing demand rapidly driving up prices is through increased efficiency in utilization of oil&gas and increased use of alternative power.
Increasing efficiency in the US is a many multiples less expensive method of decreasing demand and lowering upward-pressure -- which still won't lead to downward pressure -- on world oil&gas prices than increasing supplies: all the cheap-to-develop reserves are already being exploited at the lowest production costs. And a combination of increased efficiency and an increased use of alternative energy production is the only way to possibly put downward pressure on the oil&gas markets; as well as reduce the ever-increasing debt load of America's negative balance of trade and its downward pressure on the value of the USdollar.
* A neo"conservative" lobbying organization -- which even the major oil&gas producers&refiners have distanced themselves from -- unlikely to underestimate potential oil&gas reserves.
[ March 10, 2005, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by holden (Member # 7351) on :
quote: unless we somehow find a way to get a huge amount of our oil from elsewhere, which we can't yet, AND are willing to absorb the huge economic costs by using less efficient sources -- which means we haven't really eliminated the terrorist premium, just bypassed it).
You are right. It is true that it would be more efficient to solve the problems in the middle east and benefit from their cheap oil with no terrorism premium. Unfortunately that option is not on the table. What is on the table is increasing our own sources of oil to the point where disruptions in the middle east are less important. The price of oil will be higher than getting it from the most efficient source, but lower than current prices including the supply disruption premium we pay to get oil from the mid east. I recognize this cannot be accomplished from ANWR alone but that it would be a good first step. I am also in favor of increased research into alternative sources of energy as well as conservation. I don't think this is an issue where you either have to be in favor of conservation or more drilling. We should be doing both.
quote:Do you notice that no one is saying this will improve the Alaskan economy?
Do you know why?
Because Alaska is becoming one of the nations greatest tourist locations. It offeres great skiing and lots of beautiful nature to relax in.
Eco-Tourist organizations are making good money for the people of Alaska, but the rumble of oversized gas hauling trucks and the sound and smell of 24 hour drilling, pumping, and processing that oil will drive those tourists away.
By the way Dan, a large majority of Alaskans are in favor of drilling in ANWR. They do believe that it will benefit their economy. Inferring that drilling in a tiny portion of ANWR will turn Alaska into a giant oil refinery unsuitable for tourism is not an acurate representation of the facts.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I actually find chemical plants somewhat attractive, but that might have something to do with my chosen profession. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm partial to old time manufacturing plants with lots of loud rhythmic noises myself.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
They're good backround noise for techno songs.
"The system is down."
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
More on windpower production from Nature.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If we were producing 72 terawatts from wind, would that be enough to effect weather patterns?
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
I know I plan on writing my congressperson about this, and I hope all of you do too. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)