Drilling Anwr

[goldenchild17]

I'm not sure what wiki is relying on for information but regardless of who is right I don't think we know for sure, at least it is far from conclusive. Here is an interesting article:

[url="http://www.anwr.org/Background/How-much-oil-is-in-ANWR.php"]http://www.anwr.org/Background/How-much-oil-is-in-ANWR.php[/url]
[quote][b] How much oil is in ANWR? [/b]

Geologists agree that the Coastal Plain has the nation's best geologic prospects for major new onshore oil discoveries. According to the Department of Interior's 1987 resource evaluation of ANWR's Coastal Plain, there is a 95% chance that a 'super field' with 500 million barrels would be discovered. DOI also estimates that there exists a mean of 3.5 billion barrels, and a 5% chance that a large Prudhoe Bay type discovery would be made.

High potential. The high potential for significant discoveries of oil and gas in ANWR has long been recognized. Early explorers of the region at the turn of the century, found oil seeps and oil-stained sands. However, since ANWR was established in 1960, exploration in the region has been restricted to surface geological investigations, aeromagnetic surveys, and two winter seismic surveys (in 1983-84 and 1984-85). No exploratory drilling has been accomplished in the area except for one well commenced in the winter of 1984-85 on Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation lands southeast of Kaktovik on the Coastal Plain.

Location to big finds. Although little oil and gas exploration has taken place in ANWR, the Coastal Plain is believed to have economically recoverable oil resources. The Coastal Plain lies between two known major discovery areas. About 65 miles to the west of the Coastal Plain, the Prudhoe Bay, Lisburne, Endicott, Milne Point, and Kuparuk oil fields are currently in production. Approximately 1.5 million barrels of oil a day are produced from these fields, representing 25% of our domestic production. To the east of the Coastal Plain, major discoveries have been made in Canada, near the Mackenzie River Delta and in the Beaufort Sea.

U.S. Geological Survey - 1980. In 1980, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated the Coastal Plain could contain up to 17 billion barrels of oil and 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

U.S. Department of Interior - 1987. After several years of surface geological investigations, aeromagnetic surveys, and two winter seismic surveys (in 1983-84 and 1984-85), the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), in its April, 1987 report on the oil and gas potential of the Coastal Plain, estimated that there are billions of barrels of oil to be discovered in the area. DOI estimates that "in-place resources" range from 4.8 billion to 29.4 billion barrels of oil. Recoverable oil estimates ranges from 600 million barrels at the low end to 9.2 billion barrels at the high end. They also reported identifying 26 separate oil and gas prospects in the Coastal Plain that could each contain "super giant" fields (500 million barrels or more).

U.S. Geological Survey � 1998. The most recent petroleum assessment prepared by the USGS in 1998 (OFR 98-34), increased the estimate for technically recoverable mean crude oil resources. (See Oil in the ANWR? It�s Time to Find Out!)

Only drilling will tell. The geologic indicators are very favorable for the presence of significant oil and gas resources in ANWR, but the limited data means that there is a high level of uncertainty about how much oil and gas may be present. Consequently, current estimates represent the best scientific guesses. However, most geologists agree that the potential is on the order of billions of barrels of recoverable oil and trillions of cubic feet of recoverable gas and that these resources may rival or exceed the initial reserves at Prudhoe Bay. The validity of these estimates can be proved only by drilling exploratory wells. Authorization for exploration must be given by Congress and the President.

In 1996 the North Slope oil fields produced about 1.5 million barrels of oil per day, or approximately 25 percent of the U.S. domestic production. However, Prudhoe Bay, which accounts for over half of North Slope production, began its decline in 1988, and no new fields have yet been discovered with the potential to compensate for that decline.[/quote]

[goldenchild17]

Here's an article that contends that there is possibly 30 years worth of oil there. Just a little higher than the 6 month estimate. I don't know if its completely accurate or not, but it does prove that there is no conclusive answer on the issue. It could have only 6 months of supply. Or it can have 30 years.

[url="http://www.anwr.org/Resources/Worried-About-Fuel-Prices-ANWR-Equals-30-Years-of-Saudi-Oil.php"]http://www.anwr.org/Resources/Worried-Abou...f-Saudi-Oil.php[/url]
[quote]ANWR = 30 years of Secure Oil & Gas Supplies

Alpine ExplorationRising Prices: America’s homes and businesses have experienced dramatic spikes in their electric bills and the prices they pay for gasoline, heating oil and diesel fuel. Public service agencies have cut vital services to pay skyrocketing energy bills. Prices for everything from airline tickets to consumable goods are being recalculated to capture these increased costs. Policy analysts say relief will not come soon enough.

Shrinking Supply: Consumers have good reason to be worried about the future. They worry about our growing dependence on foreign oil imports—now nearing 60% of total supply. They fear the loss of mobility, of not being able to go where they want, when they want. They fear a repeat of the 1970s gas lines and price volatility, and the likelihood of brownouts and blackouts at home. Will there be another war with foreign suppliers? Americans now realize the growing costs of energy can gravely affect their livelihoods, their sense of security, their savings and investments. They demand to know why this situation exists, what can be done about it, and who will do it.

Solutions Sought: There are, unfortunately, no quick fixes. The fundamental problem is that national energy policy, largely fashioned by groups opposed to fossil fuel use, has seriously jeopardized industry’s ability to meet energy needs in a timely fashion. This failed, shortsighted policy has ignored abundant U.S. energy resources while encouraging foreign countries to produce more oil for the United States. Last year alone the U.S. bought more than $120 billion worth of imported oil while exporting thousands upon thousands of American jobs. This has resulted in huge spinoff costs to consumers and our economy.

The time to balance energy, economic and environmental concerns is long past due. It is up to the nation’s policymakers, from local and state elected officials to Congress and the President, to resolve this growing crisis. It is their responsibility to find solutions, in concert with energy conservation, and we must hold them to it. While we will always rely on substantial levels of imports, increased domestic production will provide needed leverage to negotiate from strength with foreign producers.

Alaska’s Role: Policy leaders now realize our government must reconsider rules that prevent industry’s exploring for oil and gas in America’s most promising locations. Obviously, Alaska’s Arctic is one such place. Both government and industry experts recognize the non-park area of ANWR, its coastal plain, as the single most promising unexplored region for major oil and gas discoveries.

Developing this tiny sliver of land, which would impact but two thousand acres (the size of a regional airport) of the 20-million acre refuge, could yield up to 16 billion barrels of oil. This would equate to 30 years of Middle East imports, and possibly more.

(The North Slope, originally thought to contain nine billion barrels of oil, has to date produced 13 billion barrels.) With new technology, production could occur sooner than expected. While the last major Arctic oil field took just seven years to bring on line, companies project it can be done in five years—assuming no delaying lawsuits—as opposed to the ten years claimed by development opponents.

America’s Environmentalists: More than 75% of Alaskans support careful energy exploration in ANWR, including the Inupiat Eskimos who live in ANWR’s coastal plain and have been stewards of the land for centuries. They’ve seen the Prudhoe Bay caribou herds grow nine times larger in the 34 years since oil was discovered there, and the environment negligibly affected. They’ve seen oil produced under the world’s strictest environmental standards, and Alaskans would have it no other way. (Some Canadian and Alaskan Gwich’in Indians, who live outside the Refuge, opposed ANWR exploration only after Exxon and BP let their leases on Gwich’in tribal lands expire.)

Oil and Gas vs. Wind and Solar Energy: A nationally organized advocacy effort seeks to prohibit oil and gas exploration in key prospective areas. Proponents favor using renewable energy resources instead, particularly wind and solar systems, believing they are more environmentally benign and less polluting. While increased use of home solar systems would likely be well received by communities, their cost (about $20,000 for a 2,000 sq. ft. home) is out of reach for typical homeowners. At the community level, it would be difficult to overstate the complexities of siting, permitting, legal challenges and construction problems associated with large commercial wind or solar installations.

Paul K. Driessen of Fairfax, Virginia calculates that producing 50 megawatts of electricity from photovoltaics would mean covering 1,000 acres with solar panels. To produce the same amount of electricity with wind towers (100-200 feet high) would require some 4,000 acres. By comparison, less than half an acre would be required to produce 50 megawatts of electricity from oil, or 2 to 5 acres for natural gas.

The noise, access roads, visual blight and wildlife impacts from wind turbines would be unacceptable to nearby residents. To transmit electricity to urban areas, wind and solar farms would have to be linked to miles of high-tension power lines; and fossil-fuel generators would still be required to supplement intermittent power generation.

Access: With projected energy shortfalls, access to public lands is critical for fossil fuel exploration, production and pipelines, as well as for staging areas for wind, solar and other non-fuel resources. Americans are now recognizing the need for choices among a combination of all energy resources that, along with energy conservation, will assure progress and prosperity over coming decades.

Arctic Power
April 01, 2001[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1513116' date='Apr 28 2008, 07:06 PM']If you want to talk strategic, if you leave it in the ground, then you have to defend the arctic. That's vulnerable. If we got into a WWII kind of situation, our biggest problem might end up being steel. We don't make our own anymore like we did 60 years ago. It's not just that the mills are closed, they have been dismantled. Ditto for a lot of the auto factories that would be needed to make tanks and planes. Then you've got shut down cotton mills and trying to make uniforms. The US is really a different place than it was when we last had a whole scale mobilization. That's just commodities. How about people. The school lunch program was started during WWII because recruits were undernourished. When my oldest went in the Navy his recruiter said that 50% of highschool seniors can't pass the physical because of excess weight, and 25% because of hearing loss (ear bud head phones).[/quote]

as per strategy... the likly hood that we'd have to defend it significanlty is far far less than the simple planning i mentioned... so, for that reason, we should stick to my simply plan.

you have a point.. maybe we shouldn't be taking all that steel and stuff. we probably should'nt shut it all down, but we reserve some. and, oil is much more a central aspect of our economy and stuff whwereas some other things like are not as much.
but that we may be abusing one thing doesn't mean we should abuse another. it's not really an argument as to why we should drill not pointing out potenital abuse elsewhere. you gotta argue against my reasoning.

i'm not sure what your poit is regarding the overwight people etc.

[fides quarens intellectum]

Like you suggested, i checked Wikipedia:

[quote]If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil reserves were used to supply 5% of the U.S. daily consumption -- most is imported from Canada (19%), Mexico (15%), Saudi Arabia (11.5%), Nigeria (10.5%) and Venezuela (10.5%)[12] -- the reserves, using the low figure of 4.3 billion barrels (680,000,000 m³), would last approximately 4300 days, or almost 12 years. Using the high estimate, the reserves would last approximately 11800 days, or 32 years. If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was used to meet 100% of U.S. demand, it would last for 215 days under the low estimate, and 525 days or just 1.4 years if it contained 10.4 billion barrels (1,650,000,000 m³).[/quote]

So, it sounds like the six month figure you're using is only if we relied on ANWR 100%, which would never happen.

[dairygirl4u2c]

golden. you need ot rethink wiki as most people do. a lot of them automatically assume it's wrong. the fact is, it's usually right. it's a starting point... a rebuttable presumption of accuracy.

you're the same one who say ordinary magisterium was always infallible, depsite most of the internet and respected theologians saying otherwise, a wikipedia article included. wiki presumption was probably right there if all those others are.

with taht said... the US uses 20 ish billion of oil per day.

""Developing this tiny sliver of land, which would impact but two thousand acres (the size of a regional airport) of the 20-million acre refuge, could yield up to 16 billion barrels of oil. This would equate to 30 years of Middle East imports, and possibly more.""

you do the math. i'd trust a wikipedia article over a bias website any day, especially at least looking at how they portray their figures even if accurate. ("lies, damned lies, and statistics")
the only thing htey could be arguing... is that if you use part of that oil with the rest of the world's oil, that it'd be last that long. that is not the comparision to use.
an emergency mindset should mean we anticipate that's our only source or we'll slowly reduce ourselves to next to nothing for when there is an emergency. that also answers intellectum's response.

also... if it's only suppling 5% of our supply... that translates perhaps into a five percent reduction in costs.... so.... if gas is 3.50 a gallon... we'd have 3.33 gas instead. whopdedoo.
the main point being.. if you raise it such taht we have a signifiant reduction.... we'd be using it up in no time.

i think there's another article or soemwhere else that says the liklihood is closer to half a year, like 95% probability that's the case or something. whatever the case, 215 days is close to .6, maybe .7 or something. we should'nt defer to it being 1.4 instead to be conservative. and even if it was 1.4, that's still not a super amount. that's a drop in the bucket compared to how long we expect to last as a nation, expeislaly as an oil nation.

Edited April 29, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1513202' date='Apr 28 2008, 07:52 PM']golden. you need ot rethink wiki as most people do. a lot of them automatically assume it's wrong. the fact is, it's usually right. it's a starting point... a rebuttable presumption of accuracy.[/quote]
I use wiki all the time, but only as a starting point. I check it to get an idea of what to research further. It usually has some decent information but it's written by regular people who can be wrong.

[quote]you're the same one who say ordinary magisterium was always infallible, depsite most of the internet and respected theologians saying otherwise, a wikipedia article included. wiki presumption was probably right there if all those others are.[/quote]

If you think that's what I said then you clearly don't pay attention to what I write. I never said it is ALWAYS right. Only that it does make infallible teachings, and more often than the extraordinary magisterium does. I don't know who your "respected theologians" are, but you didn't post any in that thread, whereas I did. My sources of respected theologians said it does make infallible statements. So I don't know what your point is here.

[quote]with taht said... the US uses 20 ish billion of oil per day.

""Developing this tiny sliver of land, which would impact but two thousand acres (the size of a regional airport) of the 20-million acre refuge, could yield up to 16 billion barrels of oil. This would equate to 30 years of Middle East imports, and possibly more.""

you do the math. i'd trust a wikipedia article over a bias website any day, especially at least looking at how they portray their figures even if accurate. ("lies, damned lies, and statistics")
the only thing htey could be arguing... is that if you use part of that oil with the rest of the world's oil, that it'd be last that long. that is not the comparision to use.
an emergency mindset should mean we anticipate that's our only source or we'll slowly reduce ourselves to next to nothing for when there is an emergency. that also answers intellectum's response.[/quote]

You can ignore it if you want. You can't prove that the wiki article wasn't written by a biased person either. Most likely it was as those articles can be written by anybody.

[fides quarens intellectum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1513202' date='Apr 28 2008, 07:52 PM']also... if it's only suppling 5% of our supply... that translates perhaps into a five percent reduction in costs.... so.... if gas is 3.50 a gallon... we'd have 3.33 gas instead. whopdedoo.
the main point being.. if you raise it such taht we have a signifiant reduction.... we'd be using it up in no time.[/quote]

but that would be 5% that we don't have to be dependent on other countries for.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm not sure what your point is?
it's 17 cents per gallon that we'd be saving over that time. are you joking or?

we'd be using it up slowly, till we have an emergency or really need relief... and we've done used a bunch of it in the spirit of saving 17 cents per gallon...
you need to still be arguing about the emergency andor econ relief stuff i've been saying.

cause the arguemnt about lessened harm right now, is pretty much the same argument.. except saying what you guys are now arging... is essentially a way to dodge it.

Edited April 29, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[goldenchild17]

[quote]but that would be 5% that we don't have to be dependent on other countries for.[/quote]

and considering how much we use, that would be significant, especially over as long a period of time as 30 years. But I agree that its not ideal. The regulations on alternative energy (particularly nuclear) need to be lifted so we can pursue clean energy that has been largely untapped and could provide us with energy for a way long time.

Edited April 29, 2008 by goldenchild17

[fides quarens intellectum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1513220' date='Apr 28 2008, 08:03 PM']i'm not sure what your point is?
it's 17 cents per gallon that we'd be saving over that time. are you joking or?

we'd be using it up slowly, till we have an emergency or really need relief... and we've done used a bunch of it in the spirit of saving 17 cents per gallon...[/quote]

no, i'm not joking. i am in favor of drilling in ANWR in order to reduce our dependency on oil imports. That's 5% that we wouldn't have to import. period.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"""You can ignore it if you want. You can't prove that the wiki article wasn't written by a biased person either. Most likely it was as those articles can be written by anybody."""

so are you going to ignore what it said then? you say it's rebuttable,,, then rebut it.

i posted that your figures are clearly off.... it mentioned 16 billion gallon are there in that spot, and they said it'd last 30 years. we use 20 billion a day... again, do the math.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]we'd be using it up slowly, till we have an emergency or really need relief... and we've done used a bunch of it in the spirit of saving 17 cents per gallon...
you need to still be arguing about the emergency andor econ relief stuff i've been saying.

cause the arguemnt about lessened harm right now, is pretty much the same argument.. except saying what you guys are now arging... is essentially a way to dodge it.[/quote]

so how do you respond to this?

well.. there are some arguments that could be made, depending on various things.

but i'm going to see if you guys can make them.
i'm enjoying watching you say 17 cents a gallon is signifiant without a reason.

Edited April 29, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

if that's not saying the ordinary magisterium is infallible... then i dn't know what is.

[quote]The ordinary magisterium is infallible. The ordinary magisterium consists of the unanimous teaching of the bishops on a certain point. I don't listen to the CCC because I don't listen to the post-Vatican II church. So I don't care what the CCC says. In regards to the death penalty, it is possible that it can be reconciled with pre-Vatican II teaching, but I don't really care all that much if it can or can't. Pre-Vatican II teaching states that the death penalty is allowed not only for the good of the public (i.e. protection) but also as a punishment. That is good enough for me on the issue.[/quote]

[quote]I'm not sure why you're following wikipedia for your answer but Catholic sources say that the ordinary magisterium is infallible when it produces a teaching. Note that it is a De Fide teaching, meaning it is an infallible teaching that the ordinary magisterium is infallible when teaching on faith and morals:[/quote]

the only thigns you posted for "sources" said that when the bishops teach unanimous with the pope, it's infallible. that's what i said all along, if you actually read what i write.
those are reputable sources probably... but it doesnt prove anything to the poit of what was being discussed.

whereas... i posted the pope refering to the ordinary magisterium as fallible sometimes... and www.catholicplanet.com... look at that site as to what he says on the matter, and who he is

.....

Edited April 29, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[CatherineM]

If something bad happened, ya'll could just invade Alberta and take over the oil sands instead of it going to China.

Seriously though, I thought you were talking about all the strategic reserves, not just oil, and our pool of potential soldiers is always our most important reserve. Sorry.

If you could come up with a better delivery plan from the ANWR to the refineries, that might make a difference. The problem with pipelines right now is that they have been anchored to the permafrost, which is now melting, quite inconveniently. Tankers or a more secure pipeline system will cost more, and might make it a whole different cost/benefit.

[goldenchild17]

[quote]so are you going to ignore what it said then? you say it's rebuttable,,, then rebut it.[/quote]
I didn't say its rebuttable (do you even read my posts? I think not...) I'm saying that your numbers are not proven and that they are debatable. That's all. What proof does the author provide that shows that there is only this much there?


[quote]i posted that your figures are clearly off.... it mentioned 16 billion gallon are there in that spot, and they said it'd last 30 years. we use 20 billion a day... again, do the math.[/quote]

and fides already answered you. Never would our whole country depend on any one source of oil. That just would never happen. But 5% of our entire oil consumption for the next 30 years from a source that consists of only 2000 acres is quite good. You can disagree if you want, but 5% is still 5%. I could turn your argument around and say that if we depended solely on ANWR, even if only for 6 months to one year then that would still improve the economy greatly as it is 100% independence from foreign oil and gives us a whole year of recovery from probably our single most detrimental costs. This would create an economic boom in the country, which is obviously good. But this would never happen because no way would our whole country depend on one drilling spot.