Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hmaly who wrote (138576)	8/6/2001 3:54:55 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571281

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. Harry, first they are talking about the price for the highest grade oil; its called London or British or Brentwood sweet and its traded on the NY Mercantile. The price of that crude hit a high of $40 about a year ago and has been trading down ever since......currently at $27. OPEC wants to keep the price above $25 but most oil analysts don't expect that that will be feasible...more oil producers are non OPEC and eventually, they are expected to undercut OPEC and the price will drop to around $18. From what I understand below that price, drilling becomes economically unfeasible. Now I understand that the Alaskan north slope oil is of a lesser quality than the ______________ sweet crude and therefore is cheaper. I further understand that the oil under ANWR is another grade lower than the north slope oil. I don't know what the price relationship is between the different grades but its not hard to envision the ANWR oil selling for considerably below $18 should the best crude drop to that price. In other words, that article is hardly off in its evaluation of the situation. A friend brought over the latest Nat. Geographic which just happened to have an article on the ANWR. First the previous pics I have seen of the ANWR did not due it justice. Its a coastal plain sandwiched between the mts and the sea. It sits right up against the mts which appear to hang over the plain. While austere, its surprisingly impressive. Some facts: In the 80's, Reagan tried diligently to get drilling started in the ANWR only to be thwarted by the Wildlife Service and the Exxon Valdez...talk about shooting yourself in the foot.....its divine justice. Reps., again on behalf of their oil cronies, tried in 1991 and 1995 to get drilling in the ANWR only to be thwarted once again by the good guys. The US Geological Survey has estimated ANWR reserves to range from 4 billion to 16 billion barrels with "the lower number having a 95% probability of recovery and the higher only a 5% probability". However once you factor in the cost of getting the oil to market, the amount of oil that might be profitably recovered, according to the USGS, would probably "fall between 3.2 and 5.6 billion barrels, assuming a market price of $22-25 a barrel". To get the proper perspective, its important to realize that the US consumes 19.4 million barrels per day currently. In 2030 the ANWR is expected to reach peak production of 1 million barrels per day. Even at 5.6 billion barrels, the high end of expected recovery, the ANWR could satisfy the US's consumptive needs for only 10 mos. Of course, Bush disputes these numbers.....not surprising....eveyone knows the USGS is a very corrupt organization. The ANWR is home for a significant number of species including the Porcupine Caribou. There herd is huge consisting of 130k animals. The number of caribou per square mile is considerably higher than any other area in Alaska and is 5 times denser than the caribou population near Prudhoe Bay, another drilling site. For the Porcupine herd, the ANWR is critical for the dropping of their calves, providing forage, an area relatively free of predators and ocean breezes that repel the mosquitos. Many oil proponents say the infrastructure footprint would be smaller than that of Prudhoe because of new tech. However Alaskan environmentalists are concerned, that unlike Prudhoe which has one large pool of oil, the ANWR's oil is scattered over many small pockets over a larger area and may end up with a much larger infrastructure and subsequent footprint. The whole concept of drilling only in winter as proposed by pro drilling proponents is riddled with flaws. The Wildlife Service contends there is only enough river water for ten miles of ice roads.....the oil industry believes it will need considerably more than ten miles to service the drilling site. And while winter drilling will not interfere with the caribou and the migratory birds, the ANWR is the spot where pregnant polar bears set up their dens and drop their newborn....and they do that in winter. Politically, the ANWR abuts two Canadian national parks and any drilling or commercial activity has been prohibited in those parks to insure safe passage for the caribou herds and other migratory species. The Canadians expect us to do likewise in the ANWR. While the Alaskan Anglos are generally in favor of drilling, the native populations are very much divided. Many of the native peoples subsist on the caribou and are fearful of anything that may reduce the caribou population. The arguments for and against are many and so I suspect there will be many more attempts at trying to rape and pillage the ANWR. But you Reps., the bad guys, need to think again and then get over it...it ain't gonna happen!! ted