Posted on 05/31/2006 5:23:23 AM PDT by thackney
Current gasoline prices makes exploring for new sources of domestic oil more necessary than ever for our national security and economic competitiveness. Last week the House passed the America-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act. This bill authorizes oil and gas exploration and production in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and offers the opportunity to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil by expanding our domestic energy supply and stimulating our economy.
Opening up ANWR, according to the mean estimate, would make available 10.4 billion barrels of oil for domestic consumption. That's more than the proven reserves in all of Texas. The resulting economic activity will create as many as 250,000 new jobs. As an additional benefit, royalties and corporate taxes in the amount of $111 billion would flow to the federal government over 30 years, a modest but real improvement in our nation's budget picture. I had the opportunity to speak on the House floor regarding the America-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act. I countered two arguments I always here against exploration in ANWR--it hurts the environment and it doesn't completely solve our energy crisis.
Exploring in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will increase our vital domestic supplies without causing damage to the environment. Twenty first century technology has made it easier than ever to harvest the vast resources available with minimal impact on the environment. Environmental protections in the bill are the strictest ever applied to a federal energy project, using the most sophisticated technology available. Stringent environmental protections include requiring that the Department of the Interior establish regulations to ensure that drilling will have no significant adverse effect on fish and wildlife and their habitat.
True environmentalists think globally not nationally. And this bill offers us a choice. We can have more production occur here, where it is done under the most stringent environmental regulations in the world using the most sophisticated technology, or we can have more production done overseas, where in many cases, far weaker environmental regulations prevail.
The second argument although true, is not a good excuse to keep ANWR closed to exploration. It is true--opening ANWR will not solve all of our nation's energy problems. But, there is no single solution for all of our energy problems. We should no more reject ANWR, just because it fails to solve all of our energy problems, than we should reject investing in future promising sources of energy that may be many years away from fruition. Likewise, we should not reject efforts at conservation just because this too can only solve part of the problem instead of all of it. The energy crisis is not a one size fits all problem. To become energy independent we will have to be creative and implement a comprehensive, multi-tiered solution.
I am very pleased the House passed this legislation that will provide our nation with a secure new source of domestic energy for many years to come. I look forward to debating additional legislation in the coming months that could also be part of a long-term energy solution for our country.
Agreed, but I have little faith in the Senate these days.
The Senate seems to be as disinterested in the will of the people as it is disinterested in doing the right thing for the nation.
We MUST remove the limitations on drilling for oil. I heard a petroleum engineer talking yesterday and he said that if they could drill on all of the known oil fields in the USA we would be oil self-sufficient for 50 years! Can you imagine what it would be like to no longer need OPEC!
First, contrary to what the good congressman claims, simply opening Anwar will not produce a single drop of oil for domestic consumption. And if it did, it would only increase the cost of gas.
Check out where the Alaskan oil already being produced is going. Japan and China. Once pumped, it enters the global marketplace and goes to the highest bidder(s) that can be supplied the cheapest (the highest delta/profit, dontcha know).
To divert any of this or future Alaskan oil for purely domestic consumption would, therefore, be cost inefficient (more expensive). It would also require legislated interference in the marketplace. We're simply not that bad off, yet.
On the other hand, in the future, there may well be a time at which the issue becomes one of national security and/or economic survival. Wouldn't it be nice to have these reserves still waiting to be tapped, then?
Rather than rushing to tap these potential "life boats," we should be pushing nuclear energy plants.
LIES!!!
The ban against exporting Alaskan North Slope was lifted in 1996 yet 100% of Alaskan North Slope oil is kept in America. This has been the case for all but 4 years of the nearly 3 decades of Alaskan oil production. Between 1996-1999 5.5% of North Slope oil was exported to Asian countries. These exports were overwhelmingly supported by the US Congress and by the Clinton Administration to offset an oil glut in California at the time. In June 2000 Alaskan North Slope oil again ceased to be exported, and 100% of Alaskan North Slope production has stayed in America.
Since 2000, the entire West Coast including Alaska and Hawaii, almost never exports any oil.
West Coast (PADD 5) Crude Oil Exports, EIA
When the US does export oil, the majority of it goes to Eastern Canada.
Crude Oil Exports by Destination, EIA
This myth is unstoppable. Next, the REAL truth about Little Red Riding Hood.
They spew inaccurate data, and people who are uninformed fall for it, and we pay the price. Gore's big info-bin goes back 14 years (incidentally that is when he and Clinton were elected, so who is really responsible, if there was a global warming, which I don't believe there is).
Interestingly, my research indicates the market distortion I mentioned was in fact real (but very dated). It depressed California production for years (in the 80s?) and the 5% number (foreign exports) may be a bit low. Apparently, some 25% of products from the Alaskan crude oil cannot be used in the California markets for which the refineries involved refine, significant amounts of this residual oil also "escapes" the US market. But "some" of 25% is still way lower than I thought.
Mea culpa.
It has to be done, and we all know it will be done. The only question is now or later.
That's an old myth DK. All of the oil produced in Alaska stays in the US.
Once pumped, it enters the global marketplace and goes to the highest bidder(s) that can be supplied the cheapest (the highest delta/profit, dontcha know).
Nonsensical. Oil is a global commodity. If we produced no oil in Alaska, it would simply mean that the global supply would be less pushing price higher. Every additional barrel produced in Alaska, or elsewhere, increases global supply. Keeping the Alaska oil for domestic use means we ship less dollars to other countries to pay for their oil.
Cheeze...talk about piling on. What, my response in #8 wasn't good enough for you?
IMHO, if we don't drill in ANWAR, we fully deserve the depression that will result. There is absolutely no reason, technically, economically, financially or ecologically not to drill there.
Well, other than, if we use it today, it won't be there tomorrow.
Folks said the same thing about North Slope oil 30 years ago. We used it then, and we're still using it today, and probably will be 30 years from now. (It was only supposed to last 10 years, they said)
That still is not true. 50% goes to California refineries near San Francisco and Los Angeles; 42% goes to Puget Sound refineries; and 8% goes to Hawaii. A fractional amount stays in Alaska.
It takes about 10 years from the decision from Congress to having oil flowing. No one can predict the oil market ten years in the future.
The area will have to be surveyed to gather geological data and prepare the area for bidding on leases. After leases are let, the seismic surveys will have to be completed, multiple exploratory wells will provide reservoir data that allow the gathering facilities and associated process to be designed. Material will be bought, much work will be done as off-site fabrication. Gravel pads will be installed during the winter with the access from Ice Roads quickly followed by the piling supports. The prefabricated modules that will be installed the following winter after the gravel has gone through a freeze and thaw cycle to compact. During module installation interconnects, main piperack and the like will be installed. During the same time pipelines from the Well pads / drill sites will be brought to the gathering centers where all the power plants, separation and treatment facilities, Gas Compressors, Pumps, Switchgear, Control Rooms, Living Quarters, Maintenance Facilities, Air Strips, Flare Stacks, Storage Tanks, etc are being built. From there other pipelines will move the product to Pump Station #1 of the Trans Alaska Pipeline. I design oil facilities for the North Slope, I have a decent idea what it takes from kick-off to product flowing.
Our long term energy security is oil sands, oil shale and methane hydrates. While we figure out how to economically produce those we need to quit sending our dollars in Taxes and Royalties to foreign govnernments and immediately start developing ANWR, the rest of NPRA, Bristol Bay, OCS and all our shorelines.
"Our long term energy security is oil sands, oil shale and methane hydrates. While we figure out how to economically produce those we need to quit sending our dollars in Taxes and Royalties to foreign govnernments and immediately start developing ANWR, the rest of NPRA, Bristol Bay, OCS and all our shorelines."
Agreed. Check this out:
Raytheon Technology Shows Promise in Extracting Oil from Shale Economically
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=149999&TICK=RTN&STORY=/www/story/05-08-2006/0004356676&EDATE=May+8,+2006
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.