Senate votes for ANWR oil drilling
#31
03-18-2005, 01:20 PM
If the people who LIVE there support it, then hey....:)
These all seem pretty reasonable to me. If the people in the area support it, I guess it makes sense for us who dont even live there to support it. From the ANWR website:
This is cut and pasted from the ANWR website that is mentioned in the above post: http://www.anwr.org/
TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN ANWR
1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. Thatıs less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.
2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates on bonus bids for ANWR by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Interior for the first 5 years after Congressional approval are 4.2 billion dollars.
3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.
4. Economic Impact Between 1977 and 2004, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union.
5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 16% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 943,000 barrels a day.
7. Imported Oil Too Costly In 2004 the US imported an average of 58% of its oil and during certain months up to 64%. That equates to over $150 billion in oil imports and over $170 billion including refined petroleum products. Thatıs $19.9 million dollars an hour! Including defence costs the number would be nearly a trillion dollars.
8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas.
9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.
10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.
1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. Thatıs less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.
2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates on bonus bids for ANWR by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Interior for the first 5 years after Congressional approval are 4.2 billion dollars.
3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.
4. Economic Impact Between 1977 and 2004, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union.
5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 16% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 943,000 barrels a day.
7. Imported Oil Too Costly In 2004 the US imported an average of 58% of its oil and during certain months up to 64%. That equates to over $150 billion in oil imports and over $170 billion including refined petroleum products. Thatıs $19.9 million dollars an hour! Including defence costs the number would be nearly a trillion dollars.
8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas.
9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.
10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.
#32
05-01-2005, 05:19 PM
Re: Senate votes for ANWR oil drilling
I'm not trying to be a pain in the ***, but lars, come on. The Anwr site is not a good place to get unbiased information.
I study this, and it will be my future job to know this. I'd love to say that development in ANWR will not affect wildlife much if at all. I'd also love to say that smoking really isn't bad for you-just cancer scaremonkers.
The reality is something else. There is a good scientific american article on ANWR. We know from the past that animals will change their migratory patterns even if little land is altered. This is based on experimental data.
We also know that historically, oil has had a poor track record of protecting the environment (oil spills, etc). Also once drilling is established, other things will follow-development, settlements. I'm not saying this is bad from a human standpoint, but from a conservationist standpoint, we do not have much if any land left that is such an example of "unspoiled" or in it's native state.
The Alaskians have seized this opportunity because oil has become like a short term money scheme-they can get rich off of it-for a little while.
One of the problems with our energy use is that we don't factor in all the externalities-external costs. Having the alaskian oil spill generated 10's of thousands of jobs. It pumped money into the economy, and even raised the GDP. But most people would say that's not how we'd like to boost our economy. What are the externalities? Lung cancer from pollution, oil spills-fisheries wiped out (fisherman), global warming (higher insurance rates-regardless of whether you believe in it, insurance companies are sure raising their rates in flooding-likely zones-costing the avg taxpayer more money), species loss (hard to put an economic value on this).
One other thing, the oil generated from Alaska will likely be all sold to the Asian market. Because the dollar is weak and they are willing to pay big $$$ for energy it is a world commodity. Americans will not see any of this oil. I'll bet my hybrid on this one.
In a nutshell ANWR is about fattening up the oil companies profits, and more importantly kicking environmentalists where it hurts, demoralizing them, and punishing them for just being a general pain in the *** for so many years. George Bush's level of indignation for environmentalists, "hippies" and pacifists is hard to comprehend-but it is a very large factor in why he is so adamant about getting this stuff passed. He wants to crush the environmental movement.
I study this, and it will be my future job to know this. I'd love to say that development in ANWR will not affect wildlife much if at all. I'd also love to say that smoking really isn't bad for you-just cancer scaremonkers.
The reality is something else. There is a good scientific american article on ANWR. We know from the past that animals will change their migratory patterns even if little land is altered. This is based on experimental data.
We also know that historically, oil has had a poor track record of protecting the environment (oil spills, etc). Also once drilling is established, other things will follow-development, settlements. I'm not saying this is bad from a human standpoint, but from a conservationist standpoint, we do not have much if any land left that is such an example of "unspoiled" or in it's native state.
The Alaskians have seized this opportunity because oil has become like a short term money scheme-they can get rich off of it-for a little while.
One of the problems with our energy use is that we don't factor in all the externalities-external costs. Having the alaskian oil spill generated 10's of thousands of jobs. It pumped money into the economy, and even raised the GDP. But most people would say that's not how we'd like to boost our economy. What are the externalities? Lung cancer from pollution, oil spills-fisheries wiped out (fisherman), global warming (higher insurance rates-regardless of whether you believe in it, insurance companies are sure raising their rates in flooding-likely zones-costing the avg taxpayer more money), species loss (hard to put an economic value on this).
One other thing, the oil generated from Alaska will likely be all sold to the Asian market. Because the dollar is weak and they are willing to pay big $$$ for energy it is a world commodity. Americans will not see any of this oil. I'll bet my hybrid on this one.
In a nutshell ANWR is about fattening up the oil companies profits, and more importantly kicking environmentalists where it hurts, demoralizing them, and punishing them for just being a general pain in the *** for so many years. George Bush's level of indignation for environmentalists, "hippies" and pacifists is hard to comprehend-but it is a very large factor in why he is so adamant about getting this stuff passed. He wants to crush the environmental movement.
#33
05-01-2005, 08:41 PM
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 1,797
Re: Senate votes for ANWR oil drilling
If I understand this right:
*We shouldn't look for oil in a place that was set aside to do so back when it was created 25 years ago.
*We can't tap the known vast oil fields in the Golf of Mexico.
*We can't open the tapped oilfields of our own great South West.
*We shouldn't create more refineries here in the states.
*We can't do any kind of oil explorations what so ever on any section of land anywhere at all.
Friends, why are we complaining so much about OPEC and the wealthy Kingdoms of the Middle East? Why are we complaining about gas prices when we can't do any thing at all, what-so-ever to relieve the supply right here at home?
I think that the fear of extreme conservationalism have paralized us to the point of creating a national security risk. We all live on this great Earth and need to be good stewards and it is easy to complain but what would you do?
You can't suggest to put fuel cells into circulation as the anti-atomic crowd will surely rise up against you as these batteries would likely be charged by nuclear plants.
Personally I'd explore and pump new wells using the most environmentally safe methods & safegards while continuing research on alternative fuels. I think hybrid cars are a great stepping stone to the next fuel source, as long as environmental organizations don't block that, too.
*We shouldn't look for oil in a place that was set aside to do so back when it was created 25 years ago.
*We can't tap the known vast oil fields in the Golf of Mexico.
*We can't open the tapped oilfields of our own great South West.
*We shouldn't create more refineries here in the states.
*We can't do any kind of oil explorations what so ever on any section of land anywhere at all.
Friends, why are we complaining so much about OPEC and the wealthy Kingdoms of the Middle East? Why are we complaining about gas prices when we can't do any thing at all, what-so-ever to relieve the supply right here at home?
I think that the fear of extreme conservationalism have paralized us to the point of creating a national security risk. We all live on this great Earth and need to be good stewards and it is easy to complain but what would you do?
You can't suggest to put fuel cells into circulation as the anti-atomic crowd will surely rise up against you as these batteries would likely be charged by nuclear plants.
Personally I'd explore and pump new wells using the most environmentally safe methods & safegards while continuing research on alternative fuels. I think hybrid cars are a great stepping stone to the next fuel source, as long as environmental organizations don't block that, too.
#34
05-01-2005, 11:43 PM
Re: Senate votes for ANWR oil drilling
Hot Georgia,
You asked .. what I would do:
1. Use gov policy to encourage and mandate conservation.
Offer 5K tax credits for EV and GO-PHEV cars
Add a 10cents/Kwh surcharge to homes on excess of > 500 Kwh/month.
Offer 50% subsidy of home improvements that reaches set criteria for energy efficiency. From light bulbs to appliances to adobe...
Tax petrol at $5/gallon. If SUV/truck purchases do not drop to 5% of baseline within a year, add a $10K tax surcharge.
2. Embark on a national 10 year plan to upgrade and decentralize the grid, while increasing non-fossil fuel use to 50% of demands, with concrete plans to reach 100% within 20 years.
Reinstate the 2cents/kwh subsidy to all clean fuel makers except hydroelectric and nuclear. This means wind, geothermal, solar, and wave. Remove all subsidies to fossil-fuel energy producers, and place a moratorium on any new carbon producing facilities.
3. I would *not* wage war to secure oil.
Take a majority of the money currently earmarked for defense of oil supplies (800 BILLION/yr, according to the ANWR manifesto quoted in the OP), and redirect to our internal, clean energy agenda.
4. Take all the subsidies earmarked for Detroit, and pour them into universities for energy basic research.
You asked .. what I would do:
1. Use gov policy to encourage and mandate conservation.
Offer 5K tax credits for EV and GO-PHEV cars
Add a 10cents/Kwh surcharge to homes on excess of > 500 Kwh/month.
Offer 50% subsidy of home improvements that reaches set criteria for energy efficiency. From light bulbs to appliances to adobe...
Tax petrol at $5/gallon. If SUV/truck purchases do not drop to 5% of baseline within a year, add a $10K tax surcharge.
2. Embark on a national 10 year plan to upgrade and decentralize the grid, while increasing non-fossil fuel use to 50% of demands, with concrete plans to reach 100% within 20 years.
Reinstate the 2cents/kwh subsidy to all clean fuel makers except hydroelectric and nuclear. This means wind, geothermal, solar, and wave. Remove all subsidies to fossil-fuel energy producers, and place a moratorium on any new carbon producing facilities.
3. I would *not* wage war to secure oil.
Take a majority of the money currently earmarked for defense of oil supplies (800 BILLION/yr, according to the ANWR manifesto quoted in the OP), and redirect to our internal, clean energy agenda.
4. Take all the subsidies earmarked for Detroit, and pour them into universities for energy basic research.
Last edited by EricGo; 05-02-2005 at 06:11 AM.
#35
05-02-2005, 10:18 AM
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 1,797
Re: Senate votes for ANWR oil drilling
You have some ideas there but let's take a look at the cost:
This would raise the price of gasoline to over $7 per gallon, which would mean to fuel today's Prius, HCH, Escape Hybrid etc would cost almost $100 to refuel.
Refueling many commercial trucks would climb from $100 to almost $400.
If fueling a vehicle cost so much it is reasonable that people (Especially the poor) couldn't possibly afford to travel to work. Mass transit is an option for many but not for many more.
This combined with the fact that a great many businesses & farms depend on delivery and utility trucks couldn't afford the fuel any longer and would have to close, even without a $10K surcharge.
Several years ago I upgraded a tiny 600 sqft 2 bedroom home from the 1960's with new double pane insulated vinyl windows, had 24" of insulation blown into the attic, floor insulation added as well as into the walls. Had insulated vinyl siding added and many other energy efficient upgrades completed.
It really made a good drop in our energy bills, about 40%.
Still, our tiny 2 bedroom home consumed more than 600KWH per month, and we even used natural gas for heat.
An added 10 cents/Kwh would mean an additional $60/month. I spent around $20K for the upgrades, and even if the government would pay 50% of improvements that is a big expense every month.
In 2000 we moved out of our tiny home into a new energy efficient one with just over 3K sq ft of space. It's a typical new suburban home. An addtional fuel surcharge would cost our family an additional approx. $200/month.
We are already upgrading & decentralizing the grid, the effort was mainly sparked by the recent large North East blackout.
Dropping fossil fuel use to 50% and ending it in 20 years is not realistic. Wind is the most promising but we currently have politicians who kill off projects like off-shore wind farms because it "wrecks their view" of the ocean?
I'm all for reducing fossil fuel use but not at the expense of a collapsing economy.
It's not only the up-front costs to heat/cool our homes and fuel our car but the effect on secondary business as the result of not having as much to spend on other things like food, clothing, maintenance, homes, entertainment etc.
For that reason I think our current course is a good one:
Satisfy our current demand at lowest cost possible while increasing efficiency, and at the same time continue R&D.
Tax petrol at $5/gallon. If SUV/truck purchases do not drop to 5% of baseline within a year, add a $10K tax surcharge.
Refueling many commercial trucks would climb from $100 to almost $400.
If fueling a vehicle cost so much it is reasonable that people (Especially the poor) couldn't possibly afford to travel to work. Mass transit is an option for many but not for many more.
This combined with the fact that a great many businesses & farms depend on delivery and utility trucks couldn't afford the fuel any longer and would have to close, even without a $10K surcharge.
Add a 10cents/Kwh surcharge to homes on excess of > 500 Kwh/month.
Offer 50% subsidy of home improvements that reaches set criteria for energy efficiency. From light bulbs to appliances to adobe
Offer 50% subsidy of home improvements that reaches set criteria for energy efficiency. From light bulbs to appliances to adobe
It really made a good drop in our energy bills, about 40%.
Still, our tiny 2 bedroom home consumed more than 600KWH per month, and we even used natural gas for heat.
An added 10 cents/Kwh would mean an additional $60/month. I spent around $20K for the upgrades, and even if the government would pay 50% of improvements that is a big expense every month.
In 2000 we moved out of our tiny home into a new energy efficient one with just over 3K sq ft of space. It's a typical new suburban home. An addtional fuel surcharge would cost our family an additional approx. $200/month.
Embark on a national 10 year plan to upgrade and decentralize the grid, while increasing non-fossil fuel use to 50% of demands, with concrete plans to reach 100% within 20 years
Dropping fossil fuel use to 50% and ending it in 20 years is not realistic. Wind is the most promising but we currently have politicians who kill off projects like off-shore wind farms because it "wrecks their view" of the ocean?
I'm all for reducing fossil fuel use but not at the expense of a collapsing economy.
It's not only the up-front costs to heat/cool our homes and fuel our car but the effect on secondary business as the result of not having as much to spend on other things like food, clothing, maintenance, homes, entertainment etc.
For that reason I think our current course is a good one:
Satisfy our current demand at lowest cost possible while increasing efficiency, and at the same time continue R&D.
Last edited by Hot_Georgia_2004; 05-02-2005 at 07:26 PM.
#36
05-02-2005, 11:16 AM
Re: Senate votes for ANWR oil drilling
I will respond to your points in a later post, but in the meantime, I would ask that you put on price tag on continuing the status quo:
Global Warming
Pollution
War
International military presence (the repubs say 800 Billion; feel free to double or triple, as you see fit).
Global Warming
Pollution
War
International military presence (the repubs say 800 Billion; feel free to double or triple, as you see fit).
#37
05-03-2005, 08:41 PM
Re: Senate votes for ANWR oil drilling
Hot_Georgia,
A somewhat belated start to answering your post..
I did the equivalent of a back of the envelope calc, how much it will cost in current US$ to build enough windfarms to replace the petrol consumed annualy in the US:
---------
Gasoline currently uses about 180 billion gallons of oil per year.
-- I do not know how much gasoline is made from a gallon of oil, so guessing 50%..
90 X 10^9 gallons * 30%(efficiency) * 113000btu/gallon * 1kWh/3413btu
= amount of electricity required to replace current petrol consumption =
893 *10^9 kWh per annum
At the NM wind farm, 133 1.5 MW turbines are expected to produce 600,000 kWh annualy, equal to .6 * 10^9 mWh
So .. 893/.6 = 1500 NM scale windfarms required.
If I factor in 30% electricity losses from turbine to wheels, 2000 NM scale windfarms required to replace petrol with windfarms as the energy source.
I vaguely recall that the NM windfarm cost $200 million US to build, so
200 *10^6 * 2 * 10^3 = $400 Billion cap cost,
or about 5 years in Iraq.
A somewhat belated start to answering your post..
I did the equivalent of a back of the envelope calc, how much it will cost in current US$ to build enough windfarms to replace the petrol consumed annualy in the US:
---------
Gasoline currently uses about 180 billion gallons of oil per year.
-- I do not know how much gasoline is made from a gallon of oil, so guessing 50%..
90 X 10^9 gallons * 30%(efficiency) * 113000btu/gallon * 1kWh/3413btu
= amount of electricity required to replace current petrol consumption =
893 *10^9 kWh per annum
At the NM wind farm, 133 1.5 MW turbines are expected to produce 600,000 kWh annualy, equal to .6 * 10^9 mWh
So .. 893/.6 = 1500 NM scale windfarms required.
If I factor in 30% electricity losses from turbine to wheels, 2000 NM scale windfarms required to replace petrol with windfarms as the energy source.
I vaguely recall that the NM windfarm cost $200 million US to build, so
200 *10^6 * 2 * 10^3 = $400 Billion cap cost,
or about 5 years in Iraq.
Last edited by EricGo; 05-04-2005 at 07:11 AM.
#38
05-03-2005, 08:49 PM
Re: Senate votes for ANWR oil drilling
There was an episode on West Wing, I believe, where they were discussing alternative power -- not necessarily the financial cost, but practicality. They estimated windfarms would have to cover like 5 or so states in the west to provide enough power for something... don't recall what it was 
Aha! https://www.greenhybrid.com/discuss/...west+wing+wind
(okay, not 5 states
)
Aha! https://www.greenhybrid.com/discuss/...west+wing+wind
(okay, not 5 states
)
#40
05-03-2005, 09:52 PM
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 1,797
Re: Senate votes for ANWR oil drilling
I'm all for wind farms.
They're kind of elegant in their own kind of way.
Several can be placed right in the middle of an agricultural farm, right along side the animals or crops. It would also mean additional monthly income for the property owners as well.
Our military does indeed consume alot of money and is around 3.5% yearly GDP.
About the same % as:
Bahrain,
Chile,
United Arab Emirates,
Ukraine,
Sri Lanka,
Algeria,
Zimbabwe,
Rwanda
Angola
Many other countries well exceed the ~3% military DGP figure like:
Israel (9%),
Singapore (5%),
Brunei Darusslam (7%),
Kuwait (10.5%),
Oman (12%),
Soudi Arabia (10%),
Lebanon, (5%),
Turkey (5%),
Jordan (9%),
Yemen (7%),
Eritrea (24%),
Ethiopia (5%),
Burundi (8%),
Personally I don't mind spending the money as a strong military is the largest deterrent for those who would kill us. I know others have other views and I can respect that.
The latest military budget request was $420b and I'd bet that we could well exceed that figure in funding these farms simply by cutting/eliminating the endless federal slush funds & pork projects.
Of course the politician and organizations who are the recipients of these funds and their followers would scream very loudly.
They're kind of elegant in their own kind of way.
Several can be placed right in the middle of an agricultural farm, right along side the animals or crops. It would also mean additional monthly income for the property owners as well.
Our military does indeed consume alot of money and is around 3.5% yearly GDP.
About the same % as:
Bahrain,
Chile,
United Arab Emirates,
Ukraine,
Sri Lanka,
Algeria,
Zimbabwe,
Rwanda
Angola
Many other countries well exceed the ~3% military DGP figure like:
Israel (9%),
Singapore (5%),
Brunei Darusslam (7%),
Kuwait (10.5%),
Oman (12%),
Soudi Arabia (10%),
Lebanon, (5%),
Turkey (5%),
Jordan (9%),
Yemen (7%),
Eritrea (24%),
Ethiopia (5%),
Burundi (8%),
Personally I don't mind spending the money as a strong military is the largest deterrent for those who would kill us. I know others have other views and I can respect that.
The latest military budget request was $420b and I'd bet that we could well exceed that figure in funding these farms simply by cutting/eliminating the endless federal slush funds & pork projects.
Of course the politician and organizations who are the recipients of these funds and their followers would scream very loudly.
Last edited by Hot_Georgia_2004; 05-03-2005 at 10:56 PM.
