Ted Re..Check out the link....it talks about how dependent we are on OPEC, and how much oil the ANWR actually holds:
Message 16165441 <<<
Garbage, do you really believe this stuff.
. Sustaining $22+ a barrel for decades would contradict practically every industry and government forecast—and the forecasts are trending down, not up. <<<<<<<<
That's not what the stock market thought. And I believe more importantly, what the oil companies think. AFAIK most companies think ANWR is the cheapest known recoverable oil in the US. Others are too small, or under too much water to be as economical.
The Alaska Department of Revenue earnestly hopes for Refuge drilling so its citizens will keep getting rebates instead of paying income taxes. Yet in December 2000, the Department projected a steady decline in the L.A. price of Alaskan crude oil to less than $13 a barrel in 2009. The latest Federal forecast calls for oil to stay below $22 until nearly 2020; when Alaska last published such a forecast in 1998, it was only $18. That means less economically recoverable oil. Indeed, the USGS says that below $16 (plus any lease fee paid to the Treasury), no economically recoverable oil is likely to be found. Alaska now forecasts prices below $16 throughout 2005–10, so why drill? <<<<<
That is one hell of a rationale. Lets stop big oil before they bankrupt themselves. Fat chance of that. I would be willing to bet, big oil knows within 10 cents/barrel what there expected drilling and transportation cost are; and you can bet that they expect to make a profit, or they wouldn't care less about ANWR. If that were the case, as consumers, that would be even more reason for me to want big oil to drill ANWR. I could only hope that big oil sends us all of that oil below costs before they smarten up. And according to this story, big oil is doing this out of their generosity to us SUV owners, not for profit, because there isn't any. GET REAL.
If Arctic Refuge oil isn't the cheapest way to provide the services now provided by imported oil, then drilling in the Refuge will make the oil-import problem worse than it could have been. That's because each dollar spent on the costly option could have bought more of the cheap option instead. Choosing the costlier option therefore results in using and importing more oil than if we'd bought the best buys first. <<<<<<<<
Sounds good, doesn't it. However, the money spent is the US stays in the US. Money that goes overseas, is gone; worsening our foreign trade deficit. Money that stays in the US pays taxes and through velocity, turns over several times a yr. generating more taxes. The money sent overseas generates more money for the Arabs through interest rates.
. Each barrel of oil supports three-quarters more GDP than it did in 1975—and that's just for starters.
More proof that the environmentalist are just plain lying when they say business doesn't care about conservation. Business has been conserving all along; but even then oil usage is still going up. Conservation won't do it by itself. We need both conservation and exploration.
Efficiency doesn't risk dry holes. It protects the climate and improves the environment. It will never suffer a terrorist attack. It creates a uniquely flexible and perennially profitable form of all-American energy security. In fact, it cut oil imports from the Persian Gulf by 87% during 1976–85 alone. Yet efficiency is strangely invisible in today's Refuge-oil debate. <<<<<<
True, if there were easy conservation practices that the consumers wanted, but as the previous paragraph pointed out, business is 1 3/4 more efficient now than it was 25 yrs ago. Even if business can improve efficiency by by a similar amount over the next 25 yrs, if past patterns hold, we will still need even more oil/day 25 yrs from now.
Between 1979 and 1986, GDP rose by 20 percent while the nation's total energy use fell by 5½ percent. This stuck the suppliers with costly new supplies without the revenue to pay for them. The resulting energy glut crashed energy prices in 1986, sending many producers into insolvency. <<<<<<<<
Now you guy are catching on to GW's premise. More supplies will lower prices. And you called GW stupid for saying that. Don't you feel just a little bit silly now?
All this sets the stage for a rerun of a very bad movie—the 1986 price crash that ruined so many energy producers. That crash was caused by mixing two ingredients: an underlying efficiency trend plus a Federal supply stimulus. The first ingredient is now here; the second is promised by President Bush. There's no reason to expect a result different from the past couple of times we've tried the same recipe. The light at the end of the energy tunnel is an oncoming train. The resulting wreck will not be healthy for the domestic energy industries, whose financial stability is an important element of national energy security. <<<<<<<<<
ROTFLMAO And you said GW didn't have vision. 1 yr ago GW prdicted, at the height of our business cycle, that we would need a tax cut. Now 1 yr later, with the US possibly headed for recession, everyone is hoping that GW's tax cut will spur the US economy. Yesterday, everybody was decrying GW's 23 billion dollar tax break packages for big oil, but here we have your guy saying that GW's package of more drilling and exploration will drive prices so low, they will need the 23 billion just to survive. Which will be money well spent as it will save our domestic companies from bankruptcy, but also get many times that 23 billion in savings by getting cheap oil from the Arabs. If at current rates, the US by increasing production can lower the market costs by just $7/ barrel, that would mean that the US would save 25 billion/yr. in imported oil costs. Which means as consumers we would get our investment back within 1 yr. One hell of a smart investment. No wonder Putin said that GW is a visionary and thinker.
Had the efficiency trend continued, America wouldn't have needed a drop of oil from the Gulf since 1985.
True, but for that to have happened, oil would have had to be expensive to pay for the extra conservation to be worthwhile. The expansion of the US GDP came about primarilly because of cheap oil. If instead of buying computers etc. business had to spend all of that money on conservation, or expensive oil; they wouldn't have had the money to buy computers, invest in startups, etc; ergo no huge expansion in GPD.
Even with no improvement in vehicle efficiency, just adopting aftermarket tires as efficient as the originals would save several Refuges' worth of oil. So would equipping appropriate U.S. buildings with superwindows, like the 1983 models that have let us harvest 27 banana crops inside RMI's headquarters with no furnace. Superwindows also make buildings more comfortable and cheaper to construct. These are just two examples of hundreds of available efficiency options. In 1989, RMI added up all the main U.S. efficiency options then available (automobiles, buildings, industries—everything). The total was equivalent nowadays to 54 Refuges' worth of oil, at one-sixth the cost. <<<<<<
All true, but they examples of the many conservation effort business will take over the next 25 yrs. But as was shown in the beginning of this discussion; even aftert improving conservation by 3/4, we still need to import more oil. We have to do both to maintain our improving standard of living.
. Energy efficiency is outpacing oil production so quickly that even cheap oil is simply becoming uncompetitive. <<<<<<
By his own words, this is a flat out lie. I refer you to this. . Efficiency providers suffered too: as attention waned, many energy-saving programs, products, and services faded from view for the next 14 years. He said this just 6 paragraphs earlier. He is lying in one of them. My bet is that conservation will never replace cheap oil. Supplement it yes; replace, never.
General Motors, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler have already tested family sedans that achieve 72–80 mpg, now headed towards production. For those who prefer small city cars, VW is already selling a 78-mpg model in Europe and plans a 2003 version at around 235 mpg (not a typo). <<<<<
The american consumer, given a choice, prefers big cars. Even Scumbria, this boards longtime resident environmentalist, drives SUVs. If you can't even get adevouted environmentalist to drive a small car, why would I; unless it was economically necessary. You need expensive gas to force conservation. Cheap oil has shown the ability to defeat small cars time and time again. Why would tomorrow be different. It certainly doesn't help that on network news last wk. it was reported that over 1500 extra people died in 1993, (I believe that was the yr. they compared statistics of deaths in small cars compared to deaths in large cars.)because they were driving a small car.
By combining fuel cells with sleek, carbon-fiber body materials, the start-up company Hypercar, Inc. has designed a spacious, uncompromised concept car that offers everything you'd find in a midsize sport utility vehicle, but uses 82% less fuel. (For more on Hypercar, Inc., see page 4.) A full 1999 U.S. fleet of such efficient vehicles would save 42 Refuges' worth of oil. Ultimately, globally, they'd save all the oil OPEC now sells. <<<
True, but it will take expensive oil, not cheap oil to make fuel cells worthwhile. Also, the most promising fuel cells use gasoline as a source of their hydrogen; thus fuel cells will li9kely be more efficient and burn cleaner, but still use gas.
: Energy Strategy for National Security, which concluded that the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System was among the gravest threats to U.S. energy security. It still is, and Refuge oil would make it more so.
How could this possibly be so? The author in the beginning of this piece says ANWR oil, isn't worth the trouble. Now he says Alaskan oil is so important, any disruption would harm US energy security. Does't it also follow to reason, that not allowing drilling in ANWR would harm US energy security. Either way the oil doesn't flow.
Disruption of any key point in midwinter, when it can't be mended, would cause its waxy oil, over some weeks, to cool, stop flowing, and congeal into a nine-million-barrel, 800-mile-long candle. <
Why couldn't the pipeline be fixed. It is certainly doable to put a small tent over the pipe and heat it, and repair it, just like we do here on construction projects which need to be fixed in winter. So far, I have never heard of the Prudoe line being shut down for months.
When scrutinized from every perspective besides environment—energy security, economic fundamentals, technological advance, the financial soundness of the domestic energy industry—Arctic Refuge oil is a risk the nation can't afford. <<<<
What this nation can't afford is more scare mongering. If our nation is to keep growing, we need more conservation, drilling, exploration and nuclear; not more hot air. We already have enough hot air from the green house effect. |
