My favorite part:
Coastal Plain
spring summer winter
High quality stereophonic communication. 
Posted on 02/28/2002 12:54:45 AM PST by kattracks
The energy bill coming up in the Senate this week offers the chance for at least one major improvement in energy policy, the exploration for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
The issue has prompted environmentalists to generate too many scare stories. The beauty of the refuge and the welfare of the wildlife using it would be no more threatened by oil exploration and production than they are in the two dozen other wildlife refuges where oil and gas have long been produced.
The importance of the refuge is not that its oil will replace imports - there simply isn't enough there. The importance is the influence on the world price that such a large field (some estimates say 16 billion barrels, rivaling the giant Prudhoe Bay field nearby) would have. There is only one world market for crude oil, and the last barrel produced sets the price for all of them. In other words, it's an essential insurance that makes price increases caused by OPEC's production shenanigans (the real oil threat to the U.S. economy) far less likely.
Proponents of drilling will offer an amendment along the lines of what the House approved in the bill it passed last year. Sen. John Kerry has promised a filibuster against it. With the aim of winning votes to defeat Kerry, the Bush administration may propose a smaller exploration area than what is in the House bill (500,000 acres vs. 1.5 million; the entire refuge is 19.6 million acres, almost the size of Maine).
This is a good example of yielding on a non-essential in the service of the larger point, and gives the drillers a chance to bring out an important fact: Modern production methods have less impact on the environment than ever. Slant drilling techniques can reach huge underground areas from one point. If there is oil there (you never know unless you look) all the needed production platforms would occupy an area smaller than Logan Airport.
An idiotic statement. Have a friend relax the tourniquet around your neck and allow some hemoglobin to flow to your brain stem.
It's a matter of relative population levels. The numbers are greater now than they were, because animals that would have frozen before the pipeline went in now survive.
Are such things really that difficult to understand in liberal la-la land?
No, that isn't what I said. I gave you two definitions from the dictionay.
1. Remaining in a pure state; uncorrupted by civilization.
2. Remaining free from dirt or decay; clean: pristine mountain snow.
Maybe you don't like clean mountain snow. Maybe you are in favor of dirt and decay. Maybe you think civilization never corrupts. Maybe you think that nothing should remain in a pure state. Maybe you do, but I don't.
I am glad there is a New York City, and a Detroit, and even a Three Mile island, all parts of civilization which make our standard of living possible. But I am also glad there are a few places that haven't yet been paved over, mowed down, and otherwise altered.
Why not go get it? You haven't offered a convincing reason not to (other than the word "pristine").
In addition to the fact that we don't need it now, there is one good reason not to drill there. The place is a wildlife refuge. We are not (yet) so desperate for oil that we need to drill in places set aside for other uses. That day will come, but it isn't here yet.
I haven't addressed you economic questions. Let me ask you this. If you want pure economics to decide the matter, do you agree that there should not be any subsidies for the drilling companies?
Too funny. You've never spent any time in the mountains, have you? What do you think is under that snow? Marble flooring and linoleum? Do plants and animals not decay? What do they do, sublimate into a fresh odor of vanilla and oleander? Does the liberal Nanny Goddess Gaia come through in the spring with a mop and bucket and scrub the mountain floors down so clean that Al Gore could eat from it?
Sigh.
Maybe you don't feel that way. Maybe you think only tree-huggers like fresh air. Fine, you are welcome to your opinion.
That said, the ANWR will be drilled. No question about that. The only question is when.
And "civilization" means, essentially, humans and our artifacts.
2. Remaining free from dirt or decay; clean: pristine mountain snow.
This definition does not (can not) apply to a piece of ground.
Maybe you don't like clean mountain snow.
I love nice clean mountain snow. I love to ski, for example. What's this got to do with a piece of frozen tundra in Alaska with oil underneath it that you're afraid to let people go get?
Maybe you are in favor of dirt and decay.
This does not follow from anything I've said. What does the act of drilling underneath some ground for oil which no one can currently see have to do with "dirt and decay"? I must be missing something.
I'll ask yet another question a second time: Does land look prettier (or "more pristine", if you wish) when there is oil underneath it which no one can see?
Maybe you think that nothing should remain in a pure state.
This is the second time you've committed this elementary logical error. Yes, it's true that I question why All Land Must Remain Pristine. But the logical inverse of All Land Must Remain Pristine is not Nothing Should Remain Pristine. This is very, very simple logic here and you seem unable to grasp it.
But I am also glad there are a few places that haven't yet been paved over, mowed down, and otherwise altered.
Now we're getting somewhere. Actually, I agree with you. For example, I'm glad that there is a Yosemite National Park, because it is a beautiful place to visit, hike, camp, climb, etc.
So now start actually defending your sentiment: What's all this got to do with a godforsaken piece of frozen tundra in Alaska?
You ever been there?
What's your favorite part of it?
What's your favorite thing to do there?
I assume you've been there, after all, or you would not be so "glad" that it is there in the first place. OR, if you are "glad" that it is there (and kept "pristine"), even though you haven't been there (and never will go there), kindly explain why. Kindly explain why you are "glad" that a piece of land exists on which you will never set foot and which is good for virtually nothing. Does it give you pleasant dreams? I guess I don't get it. (This is the quasi-religious feeling on your part which I was alluding to long ago, by the way, whether you recognize this or not.)
In addition to the fact that we don't need it now,
Actually, I dispute this ongoing assertion of yours that "we don't need it now". Who says we don't need it now? Our economy depends to a large extent on oil. This is oil. Therefore we need it. Yes, now.
The place is a wildlife refuge.
That's nice. Why does that mean we can't let people get the oil out from under the ground? Is the wildlife affected by the continued presence of oil under the ground?
We are not (yet) so desperate for oil that we need to drill in places set aside for other uses. That day will come, but it isn't here yet.
How about this: instead of just accepting this on your say-so, let's let the market decide. If you are right that we "don't need" this oil, then it won't pay off for anyone to go drill there. Thus no one will go drill there, and the problem is solved.
But if someone does go drill there, because the market will support this, then I guess you were wrong. Get it yet?
I haven't addressed you economic questions.
True.
If you want pure economics to decide the matter, do you agree that there should not be any subsidies for the drilling companies?
Sure. Does this mean you're going to answer my question now?
Wow, this is getting pretty technical for me. What's the chemical formula for Industrial Grime? What's the molecular weight of Grease Which Keeps The Economy Going?
But it is nice to have a few places that aren't covered in it.
Except, if we're talking about a godforsaken piece of tundra, then who the heck cares? You? Why?
Maybe you think only tree-huggers like fresh air.
In what sense will drilling for oil under a piece of land in Alaska affect your, or anyone else's, access to "fresh air"? Do tell.
The petroleum industry has made it clear that prices are too low. Supply is high, so prices are low and domestic oil is not economical to drill. So do they shut down? No. Instead they ask for a subsidy, royalty relief.
The Independent Petroleum Association of America urged Washington to open up more areas for exploration and provide royalty relief to producers at times of low oil and gas prices.The pro-drilling ANWR site is posting articles saying that oil is too cheap. There is the answer to your question.According to U.S. government estimates, undeveloped domestic oil resources are twice as big as developed resources while undeveloped domestic gas resources are three times as big as developed resources, he said
He also urged the government to introduce a sliding scale which would cut royalty rates on oil and gas production when prices came under pressure.
The IPAA recommends cutting royalty rates to 75 percent of normal levels when oil prices fell to $12-18 a barrel or gas prices fell to $2.00-2.50 per thousand cubic feet. Royalties would fall to 50 percent of normal levels for oil prices $10-12 and gas prices of $1.50-$2.00.
Moose care. :-)
THEN NO ONE WILL DRILL, AND IT'S A MOOT POINT!
THEN. NO. ONE. WILL. DRILL. AND. IT'S. A. MOOT. POINT.
How many times am I going to have to say this? Do I have to say it slower? In other languages? What exactly is your problem? You KEEP repeating this "prices too low" comment and STILL don't seem to realize that IF WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE, THEN NO ONE WILL DRILL AND IT'S A MOOT POINT.
Sheesh.
Instead they ask for a subsidy, royalty relief.
Be honest. Royalty relief is not exactly the same as a subsidy, now is it? What are "royalties"?
There is the answer to your question.
That does not answer me at all, because the economic issue I am raising is a much different one, on a much more basic level: IF PRICES ARE REALLY TOO LOW, THEN NO ONE WILL DRILL AND IT'S A MOOT POINT.
Either you are capable of comprehending this or you are not. Let me know.
Moose care. :-)
Moose like knowing there is oil underneath the ground they are walking on?
I wonder if they also like the warmth from the pipelines, like caribou. Consult the moose and let me know.
My favorite part:
Coastal Plain
spring summer winter
High quality stereophonic communication.
It costs American blood (thank God, not much; but who are we to say, "Mrs. Jones, your only son must die so that we can buy oil from Kuwait, rather than drilling fields of empty, godforsaken ice") and American treasure (unless Carrier Battle Groups sail around the globe for free).
Cut the Persian Gulf loose, promise them no reduction in Economic Risk Premium subsidized by American Military Presence, and we'll see how "cheap" their oil is... if they can stop killing eachother long enough to drill the stuff.
Meanwhile, no eskimos have recently gotten their dander up and flown jetliners into skyscrapers.
So let's drill there, instead.
Doesn't cost Blood, doesn't cost Treasure for carrier battle groups.
Now that's cheap.
Royalties are what the oil companies pay to the owners of the oil when they pump it out and sell it. You and I and the rest of the citizenry are the owners of the oil. Maybe you want to give it away half price?
That does not answer me at all, because the economic issue I am raising is a much different one, on a much more basic level: IF PRICES ARE REALLY TOO LOW, THEN NO ONE WILL DRILL AND IT'S A MOOT POINT. Either you are capable of comprehending this or you are not. Let me know.
I get it already. But the prices are clearly marginal.
Why sell it to oil companies when it is so cheap. Is that how you do business? Let's wait until the price is high and the economics make full exploitation feasible.
If the wildlife refuge is cancelled and opened for drilling, there will be drilling, even if it turns out later that there is not a market for the oil. Let's wait until we are SURE there is a market for all the oil.
Results of the economic analysis are presented as curves relating market price to the volume of oil that may be profitably recovered (see attached figure). Using the mean, or expected, value of technically recoverable resources, the USGS estimates that no oil is economically recoverable at a market price below about $15 per barrel, approximately 2.4 BBO are economically recoverable at $18 per barrel, and approximately 3.2 BBO are economically recoverable at $20 per barrel.Just a reminder, $18 a barrel is the level at which the oil companies want a subsidy. Oil is currently selling for about $20 a barrel.
The Persian Gulf provides less then 12% of our oil consumption. If we all cut back on consumption we can boycott their oil no problem. I'm all for it.
But unless we're willing to cut loose our 'allies' and the rest of the world economy, Mrs Jones's son will still be stationed in harm's way to protect the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.