SWEET!!!

[charrison]

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: charrison

With that being said, we are not running out of oil anytime in the near future.

estimates put it at the next 10 to 40 years. i'm not sure about your definition of "near future" but in my lifetime and definitely in my children's lifetime is near future to me.

The problem is that people don't understand the concept of peak oil. it's not when we're at zero that it's a problem. it's as soon as we can't drill the same amount as last year, and it goes down each year after that. that's when countries start fighting for oil. China vs. USA? it's possible. we'll be the biggest oil consumers at that point.

most people: "eh, i'll drive less". driving less is the least of our problems. how about no power because we don't have enough nuclear plants? how about no food because the food is an average of 1500 miles from the suburbs?

this is why we need to find alternate energy sources NOW.

And 10 to 40 year estimates have been around for the last 100 years. And as time has passed technology has allowed us to only increase our known oil reserves. Our known oil reserves have doubled since the oil crunch of the 70s. I am not saying oil is an infinte source, as that would e false. I just dont underestimate out ability to create the energy we need. There will still be large quantities of oil in the ground when we stop using it.

Between more fuel effecient cars(plug in diesel powered hybrids/hydrogen), recycled plastics, nuclear power, coal(liquided/gasififed), tar sands, shale, methane hydrates we are not running out of energy anytime in the near future.

 

[alent1234]

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: charrison

With that being said, we are not running out of oil anytime in the near future.

estimates put it at the next 10 to 40 years. i'm not sure about your definition of "near future" but in my lifetime and definitely in my children's lifetime is near future to me.

The problem is that people don't understand the concept of peak oil. it's not when we're at zero that it's a problem. it's as soon as we can't drill the same amount as last year, and it goes down each year after that. that's when countries start fighting for oil. China vs. USA? it's possible. we'll be the biggest oil consumers at that point.

most people: "eh, i'll drive less". driving less is the least of our problems. how about no power because we don't have enough nuclear plants? how about no food because the food is an average of 1500 miles from the suburbs?

this is why we need to find alternate energy sources NOW.

which estimates? The US alone has enough oil in the 50 states to last at least 100 years and most likely a few hundred more. Too bad that oil is politically blocked from being extracted by people that keep saying we are running out of oil.

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
You guys and your six months... get real. If that were the case Prudhoe would have dried up decades ago. It's the single dumbest reason ever given for not drilling there. Get over it. ANWR will be pumping for DECADES!!! What's more it will give this state a huge boost. Jobs, lease royalties, oil royalties... Life is good.

Note to Whoozyerdaddy ...

4.25 bil barrels recoverable oil divided by US consumption 7 bil barrels per year equals ... Yup a little over 6 months worth of oil.

Going to SAVE AMERICA!!!!!

Not:frown::frown::frown::frown::frown::frown::frown:

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: alent1234

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: charrison

With that being said, we are not running out of oil anytime in the near future.

estimates put it at the next 10 to 40 years. i'm not sure about your definition of "near future" but in my lifetime and definitely in my children's lifetime is near future to me.

The problem is that people don't understand the concept of peak oil. it's not when we're at zero that it's a problem. it's as soon as we can't drill the same amount as last year, and it goes down each year after that. that's when countries start fighting for oil. China vs. USA? it's possible. we'll be the biggest oil consumers at that point.

most people: "eh, i'll drive less". driving less is the least of our problems. how about no power because we don't have enough nuclear plants? how about no food because the food is an average of 1500 miles from the suburbs?

this is why we need to find alternate energy sources NOW.

which estimates? The US alone has enough oil in the 50 states to last at least 100 years and most likely a few hundred more. Too bad that oil is politically blocked from being extracted by people that keep saying we are running out of oil.

Links?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: ntdz
Thank god they finally opened it up, it should've been done years ago.

:thumbsup:

Yup, to hell with national parks so long as you can drive your SUV.

Drilling only affects 19,000 acres out of several million.

Actially I think they only need about 2000 acres.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: charrison
Looks at the people complaining about anwr and compares that to the list of people complaining about high gas prices.


It appears they are the same people. So to these people I ask, what is our solution to power cars over the next 20 years if anwr is just a bandaid?

crickets?

 

[Captante]

By far the largest known oil reserve in the world right now actually lies in Northern Canada embedded in sand, the only serious obstacle to getting at it has been cost to extract which is roughly $10 per barrel vs roughly $1-$2 per barrel for a standard oil field & because of this its gone mostly untapped until recently... anyone who doubts me, just go do a google search on oil in Alberta for some very interesting reading.
Having said that, there are a lot of very good reasons to use alternate energy sources instead of any fossil-fuel and very few positive aspects to staying reliant on them as our primary energy source... theres no question that the oil industry has played a huge part in slowing adoption of alternate energy sources through lobbiests & other less savory means in order to protect their epic profits.
Even so, anyone getting all worked up over the pipline extension is silly, the Alaska pipeline didn't have anywhere near the negative impact on the enviornment that
people said it would and the extension will be constructed even more carefully then it was, but to say that its going to have any serious impact on oil prices when the best-case scenario is 2-3 years of meaningful supply is equally so.
A far better long term goal for the USA would be to aim for elimination of all fossil fuel use within 20 years regardless of cost, it won't happen & greed + ignorance will see to it, but its a nice thought & somthing I'd feel a lot better about spending my tax dollars's on then more oil from anywhere.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: ntdz
Thank god they finally opened it up, it should've been done years ago.

:thumbsup:

Yup, to hell with national parks so long as you can drive your SUV.

Drilling only affects 19,000 acres out of several million.

Actially I think they only need about 2000 acres.

Either way, it's a drop in the bucket

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
My argument, whoozyerdaddy, isn't about the environment, at all, but about resource management, and about looking past the ends of our collective noses.

The sooner we extract all of our own resources and use them up, the sooner we'll be completely dependent on foreign sources.

Yet much of the argument in favor of drilling in ANWR is to "reduce dependency on foreign oil"... an oxymoron, as is much of current repub sponsored policy.

Your reference to the Alaska State Compact is also erroneous, as a relatively quick google reveals-

" (b) Section 35 of the Act entitled "An Act to promote the mining of coal, phosphate, oil, oil shale, gas, and sodium on the public domain", approved February 25, 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. 191), is hereby amended by inserting immediately before the colon preceding the first proviso thereof the following: ", and of those from Alaska 52 1/2 per centum thereof shall be paid to the State of Alaska for disposition by the legislature thereof".

http://www.lbblawyers.com/state28.htm

Your legalistic misinformation goes up in a puff of smoke...

In terms of cashflow, Alaska has always been and remains a negative net flow for the residents of the lower 48. Which we've supported, and continue to support in an effort to develop the state for the benefit of all Americans.

As weird as it sounds... and at first glance it does sound weird... when taken in context with the full Mineral Leasing Act cited in section 28(b), that is the phrase that actually gave us the 90/10 split. The current act 30 U.S.C 191 now reads:

(iii) provision of public service; and excepting those from Alaska, 40 per centum thereof shall be paid into, reserved, appropriated, as part of the reclamation fund created by the Act of Congress known as the Reclamation Act, approved June 17, 1902, and of those from Alaska, 90 per centum thereof shall be paid to the State of Alaska for disposition by the legislature thereof: Provided, That all moneys which may accrue to the United States under the provisions of this chapter and the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 from lands within the naval petroleum reserves shall be deposited in the Treasury as ?miscellaneous receipts?, as provided by section 7433 (b) of title 10.

The clearest explaination of this is contained in this pdf file. Link Skip to the 33rd page and read section VI. Disposition of Leasing Revenues. That phrase inserted in to the Mineral Leasing Act raised our take from 37.5% to 90%.

So... for the record... our Statehood Act grants us 90% of all mineral/oil leasing revenue. Of that 90% we usually only see 50%. We are not a negative net flow.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

It's ok jhhnn... you can admit you're wrong. It won't hurt that much.

Now raise your right hand and repeat after me: "I will never use a quote without knowing it's true context ever again."

 

[Jhhnn]

UHh, whoozyerdaddy, maybe you need to take that pledge yourself, by first reading page 34 of the pdf you linked... which rather clearly states that 50% is the current amount. I mean, yeh, sure, there's room for some argument by the state of Alaska, which was denied by federal court... the statehood act being effectively nullified by congress and the federal courts... Maybe you should secede. or just whine.

And the truth remains that Alaska receives more per capita from the feds than they put in...

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
UHh, whoozyerdaddy, maybe you need to take that pledge yourself, by first reading page 34 of the pdf you linked... which rather clearly states that 50% is the current amount. I mean, yeh, sure, there's room for some argument by the state of Alaska, which was denied by federal court... the statehood act being effectively nullified by congress and the federal courts... Maybe you should secede. or just whine.

And the truth remains that Alaska receives more per capita from the feds than they put in...

It absolutely does not say that 50/50 is the norm. Pgs. 34-35 show instances where the 90/10 split was arbitrarily ammended by congress and then brings into question whether or not those splits were legal and questions congress' authority to change the revenue split per our standing in the MLA.

That congress has allowed drilling on federal lands with a 50/50 split only lends to my argument that we are forced to take less in order to open the lands to development. Again, we can have half of something or 90% of nothing.

On your last point, if you are only looking at federal taxes collected then yes... it's not a surprise that we get back more than we put in. We are a small, growing population spread out over a large area with major infrastructure needs. However, when you take in all the factors, (like all the revenue we don't get from our oil) we pay out more than we take in.

In just the initial exploration leases for ANWR we will lose $2 billion in revenue sharing. That's before anyone even puts a stick in the ground.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: ntdz
Thank god they finally opened it up, it should've been done years ago.

:thumbsup:

what should have been done years ago was focusing on getting us off the damn crap in the first place, and massive petro-material recycling (ie plastics, and such). they've made so many fuel efficient vehicles over the years that seem to have evaporated before they could be manufactured. nuke energy, solar, wind, fuel cells, even biodiesel (although it's just as polluting as oil) are all things that should have gotten funding decades ago. we knew damn well these leaner days were coming...

You know we can't that. It would cut into Big Oil's entitlement to profits if they spent some on alternative research, and gasp, diversifying their business.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Settle down Beavis. Nobody is sh8tting anywhere. We're drilling!

You're right, Butthead. Considering that sh8ing would leave something behind to promote plant growth, the effects of drilling on the environment are far worse.

And you know what... you don't live here. So I don't care.

And you know what... I DO live in the U.S., and I do live on this planet. Your pea brained, ultra-myopic view is plenty of reason not to care what you think. :|

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Settle down Beavis. Nobody is sh8tting anywhere. We're drilling!

You're right, Butthead. Considering that sh8ing would leave something behind to promote plant growth, the effects of drilling on the environment are far worse.

And you know what... you don't live here. So I don't care.

And you know what... I DO live in the U.S., and I do live on this planet. Your pea brained, ultra-myopic view is plenty of reason not to care what you think. :|

Same to you. You're just on the other end of the scale. Truth be told I get the feeling you're even further from the center on this than I am in that you seem to believe it's impossible to harvest resources in an environmentally responsible manner.

 

[trenchfoot]

i can't see why anyone who supports the oil industry is complaining about the people who care for the environment and are disagreeing with the development of oil fields in pristine wildlife sanctuaries.

the oil industry has been silently laughing their collective butts off at and thanking the environmentalists for years for giving the industry a perfect patsy for the oil industry's strategy of restricting their oil/gas supplies with the resultant increase in demand and consequent increase in profits.

we should give the business leaders and lawyers of our great nation free reign over us (if they still don't) and let them decide just how far the world's natural resources can be exploited, and just how much pollution and damage our earth and the people in it can take. we'll all be better off for it. :roll:

edit for clarification...

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Same to you. You're just on the other end of the scale. Truth be told I get the feeling you're even further from the center on this than I am in that you seem to believe it's impossible to harvest resources in an environmentally responsible manner.

Truth be told, I get the feeling you're incapable of understanding anything beyond the mind numbingly stupid and false propaganda from the Bush administration and their oil buddies.

I also get the feeling that, despite quoting my first post in another of yours, you didn't bother to read it, let alone understand it, or you would have addressed the point I made. To save you the work of looking back, here it is, again.

The U.S. Department of Energy estimates:

The range of potential is from 5.7 to 16.0 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil (the 95 percent to 5 percent probability range).

U.S. oil consumption is almost 20 million barrels per day!. Assuming the best case estimate of recovering 16 billion barrels, that's only about a 750 day supply, and as you so casually note, it won't even be available for ten years.

You're looking at an insignificant gain in the oil supply in a time span makes it even more meaningless and at the risk of enormous collateral environmental damage. How the hell is that "environmentally responsible?" :roll:

 

[Gusty987]

All the oil in the ANWR is not even enough to meet America's needs for 1 year.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: Gusty987
All the oil in the ANWR is not even enough to meet America's needs for 1 year.

All the more reason to get it NOW so the oil companies can make their obscene profits from it before the country collapses :thumbsup:

 

[Agnostos Insania]

I don't like this. Then again, I'd rather see a WW3 nuclear war that obliterates all of humanity than see nature suffer.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Gusty987
All the oil in the ANWR is not even enough to meet America's needs for 1 year.

That doesn't matter. It will alleviate prices by increasing supply.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: ntdz
Thank god they finally opened it up, it should've been done years ago.

:thumbsup:

what should have been done years ago was focusing on getting us off the damn crap in the first place, and massive petro-material recycling (ie plastics, and such). they've made so many fuel efficient vehicles over the years that seem to have evaporated before they could be manufactured. nuke energy, solar, wind, fuel cells, even biodiesel (although it's just as polluting as oil) are all things that should have gotten funding decades ago. we knew damn well these leaner days were coming...

You know we can't that. It would cut into Big Oil's entitlement to profits if they spent some on alternative research, and gasp, diversifying their business.

Right. God why don't they diversify? If you think about it, they've been kings of modern society, and could continue to be such if they develop and patent a new way to power things. It's not like they HAVE TO PRODUCE ONLY OIL. Short sighted SOBs.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: ntdz
Thank god they finally opened it up, it should've been done years ago.

:thumbsup:

what should have been done years ago was focusing on getting us off the damn crap in the first place, and massive petro-material recycling (ie plastics, and such). they've made so many fuel efficient vehicles over the years that seem to have evaporated before they could be manufactured. nuke energy, solar, wind, fuel cells, even biodiesel (although it's just as polluting as oil) are all things that should have gotten funding decades ago. we knew damn well these leaner days were coming...

You know we can't that. It would cut into Big Oil's entitlement to profits if they spent some on alternative research, and gasp, diversifying their business.

Right. God why don't they diversify? If you think about it, they've been kings of modern society, and could continue to be such if they develop and patent a new way to power things. It's not like they HAVE TO PRODUCE ONLY OIL. Short sighted SOBs.

I guess that is why shell is one of the biggest producers of solar panels in the world and it appears BP is joining that game as well. IN a few years you will stop bitching about big oil companies and starting bitching about big energy companies...

 

[MicroChrome]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
its amazing to see so many people on this thread are that are just retarded when it comes to understanding the enviroment and eco systems, guess thats what our stellar science classes in public schools are brewing, ignorance



i'm guessing that all these people who support this have no background in biological sciences what so ever, in fact i'm guessing that most people like the orginal poster and ntdz have degrees in business or finance, but definately not science

just another example of "who cares about anything else, i'm getting what i want, i'm right, win at all costs"

Nah... They are just bushwhaked. Anything that bush says they are like zombies it has to be RIGHT.

What do you expect from bushes pseudo science team. God told me to drill in alaska.

Link

 

[0marTheZealot]

ANWR oil is 6-10 years away if we started drilling right now.

Realistically, ANWR won't have any affect on oil prices. Initially, ANWR will produce between 100,000 - 150,000 barrels per day. However, by 2012, the US will need 25 mbd per day. Because lower 48 has been in steady decline, we will import even more oil. ANWR is the proverbial drop in the bucket.