AtomicCEO Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 one more thing...the world is going to move away from fossil fuels either way, because they are more expensive and less efficient (at least prospectively) than alternative sources. that process is already well underway, and I have faith in technology. we really don't need to hasten it by wilfully and intentionally crippling the world economy with higher oil prices How exactly are we doing that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 How exactly are we doing that? well, for one, since it's what we've been talking about in this thread, by making sure it is as difficult as possible to develop any new sources of supply. have you read all the comments in this thread about how it's a good thing if the price of oil is ridiculously high? I promise I am not making them up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 You fix computers. I'm was in-house counsel at a major oil and gas company. Yeah, I see your point. ANWR is like Rowe V Wade to these republicans. It gets them aroused but will hardly do anything for 5-15 years and even then won't add much. Instantly lower oil prices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 well, for one, since it's what we've been talking about in this thread, by making sure it is as difficult as possible to develop any new sources of supply. have you read all the comments in this thread about how it's a good thing if the price of oil is ridiculously high? I promise I am not making them up. I don't know what the hell you meant here, other than to infer that the answer is obvious. But what is not obvious is the impact drilling in the Arctic would have on the global price of oil or, more specifically, on the price Americans pay for gasoline. We'd have to know that part of the equation in order to do any meaningful cost benefit analysis. I mean, once that oil is gone, its gone. I'd like to know more specifically what we're going to get if we elect to tap that one-time resource now. If the benefit were shown to be marginal, then what exactly would be the point? Scarcity of supply is only one of many factors impacting the global price of oil right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 (edited) I don't know what the hell you meant here, other than to infer that the answer is obvious. But what is not obvious is the impact drilling in the Arctic would have on the global price of oil or, more specifically, on the price Americans pay for gasoline. We'd have to know that part of the equation in order to do any meaningful cost benefit analysis. I mean, once that oil is gone, its gone. I'd like to know more specifically what we're going to get if we elect to tap that one-time resource now. If the benefit were shown to be marginal, then what exactly would be the point? Scarcity of supply is only one of many factors impacting the global price of oil right now. well, it would be adding a significant amount to the global supply, which, you know, pushes that supply curve out to the right and lowers prices. how much? well, it's impossible to say with so many other factors at play, but probably not too terribly much. maybe hardly at all. but even if it doesn't affect the global price of oil more than a nickel a barrel, I say we should be tapping that oil. as I've said again and again and again in this thread (yet nobody has replied to it), every barrel of oil we pump out of alaska is a barrel we don't have to buy from OPEC. it makes us that much less dependent on these yahoos, as well as helping our trade deficit, boosting our domestic capital, creating some jobs, etc. at a million barrels a day this is a significant thing to consider. and what is the downside exactly? it won't cost the taxpayers anything as far as I know, in fact it will bring money IN to the treasury from the leases. it will be producing oil for longer than we should expect to need it, so the saving it for a rainy day argument holds no water. I just can't see a legitimate argument against it EXCEPT the idea that we should keep oil prices as high as possible to get people to stop using gas. Edited June 12, 2008 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 ANWR is like Rowe V Wade to these republicans. It gets them aroused but will hardly do anything for 5-15 years and even then won't add much. Instantly lower oil prices. well randull, when you consider that most of the current market price of oil is built-in speculation about future supplies and demand, if a government like the united states came along and took significant steps to ramp up its domestic supply, you have to assume it WOULD have an effect on the current price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 If the benefit were shown to be marginal, then what exactly would be the point? Scarcity of supply is only one of many factors impacting the global price of oil right now. There is plenty of oil out there, and no one can say there is not. But at $20 barrel, it wasn't worth going after. But even at $70/barrel, it sure as hell was. You cannot deny it. The US contains oil shale reserves that dwarf the Saudi oil reserves. The deposits all lie on federal land in the west. With conventional crude oil at $120 a barrel, oil shale is economically competitive. Bringing the vast US oil shale reserves to market could be enough to lower the price of gasoline and home heating oil. Shell Oil company has a process that might bring oil shale to market at competitive prices. They are ready to start making the enormous investments needed to create an oil shale industry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoopazz Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 well, it would be adding a significant amount to the global supply, which, you know, pushes that supply curve out to the right and lowers prices. how much? well, it's impossible to say with so many other factors at play, but probably not too terribly much. maybe hardly at all. but even if it doesn't affect the global price of oil more than a nickel a barrel, I say we should be tapping that oil. as I've said again and again and again in this thread (yet nobody has replied to it), every barrel of oil we pump out of alaska is a barrel we don't have to buy from OPEC. it makes us that much less dependent on these yahoos, as well as helping our trade deficit, boosting our domestic capital, creating some jobs, etc. at a million barrels a day this is a significant thing to consider. and what is the downside exactly? it won't cost the taxpayers anything as far as I know, in fact it will bring money IN to the treasury from the leases. it will be producing oil for longer than we should expect to need it, so the saving it for a rainy day argument holds no water. I just can't see a legitimate argument against it EXCEPT the idea that we should keep oil prices as high as possible to get people to stop using gas. Well, someone has to say it so I will. ANWR is one of the last pristine pieces of the planet that we haven't already f*cked up with our thirst for energy. I know, no one lives there but a bunch of seals and caribou, but does that fact hold no meaning whatsoever? Wouldn't it be nice to protect at least a couple chunks of earth from human activities? Just sayin' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I know, no one lives there but a bunch of seals and caribou No, where they would drill is closer to the surface of the moon than a habitat for seals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Well, someone has to say it so I will. ANWR is one of the last pristine pieces of the planet that we haven't already f*cked up with our thirst for energy. I know, no one lives there but a bunch of seals and caribou, but does that fact hold no meaning whatsoever? Wouldn't it be nice to protect at least a couple chunks of earth from human activities? Just sayin' this area is friggin HUGE, there is nothing and nobody there...just some migrating carribou going to and fro. so you'd end up with a few things like this scattered across a vast area and at worst some reindeers might have to go a few hundred yards out of their way to walk around one on their migrations that cover thousands of miles. seems pretty low-impact to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Bottom line: as you pointed out, drilling in the Arctic won't give anyone relief at the pump anytime soon. Furthermore, we would never have to rely on the Arctic on an emergency basis. That's why we we have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Ergo, drilling in the Arctic now makes no sense at all for consumers or for the nation. There's only one segment of our country that benefits from drilling that oil now. Better to leave it until we *really* need it for something. You do know this argument is ignorant, right? For mainly the reasons Az has already pointed out. If we start drilling when we "really" need it, it's still 5-10 years away. Oh, and H8 is right, if we started in on ANWAR and FL and the plains, etc, the price of oil would drop dramatically pretty quickly. The mideast nations would see it as in their best interests to keep us buying from them as much as possible. Throw China and India out there all you want, but we still use more oil than both of them put together (IIRC) and it's still going to take a decade or two for that to come close to levelling out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 well, it would be adding a significant amount to the global supply We have different definitions of "significant". The US contains oil shale reserves that dwarf the Saudi oil reserves. The deposits all lie on federal land in the west. With conventional crude oil at $120 a barrel, oil shale is economically competitive. Bringing the vast US oil shale reserves to market could be enough to lower the price of gasoline and home heating oil. Shell Oil company has a process that might bring oil shale to market at competitive prices. They are ready to start making the enormous investments needed to create an oil shale industry. How much progress could we make with nuclear, hydrogen and wind with the investment we would need to put into developing oil shale development? Take away the incentives to produce oil, and switch them to the incentives to develop alternatives, and won't our nation be both safer from middle-eastern BS, and also not have strip mining operations all over the state I live in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 We have different definitions of "significant". How much progress could we make with nuclear, hydrogen and wind with the investment we would need to put into developing oil shale development? Take away the incentives to produce oil, and switch them to the incentives to develop alternatives, and won't our nation be both safer from middle-eastern BS, and also not have strip mining operations all over the state I live in? thats all great, but what do we do in the mean time while those alternatives become mainstream. you have to build the infrastructure first once something is found viable. this will take years. its not like quiting smoking where u can just quit cold turkey. we will need oil for years to come. why not drill in anwar and the gulf while also starting the switch to the alternatives? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 thats all great, but what do we do in the mean time while those alternatives become mainstream. you have to build the infrastructure first once something is found viable. this will take years. its not like quiting smoking where u can just quit cold turkey. we will need oil for years to come. why not drill in anwar and the gulf while also starting the switch to the alternatives? 5-10 years to get a drop of oil from ANWR. It didn't say how long it would take to develop shale oil technology. Either way is a wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 I wonder if theyve ever considered drilling on the moon. Maybe there is oil there and they could have a really long pipe from the moon to the earth that pumps oil. Man, I should win a Nobel prize or something.... No carbon-based life = no fossil fuels. Try another one, Einstein. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 we really don't need to hasten it by wilfully and intentionally crippling the world economy with higher oil prices, that is simply dumb. damn envirofundamentalist ascetics trying to force their morality down everyone's throat I'd hazard that the reasons for the high oil prices have a ton more to do with your money-grubbing neo-con homies. The environfundamentalist ascetics don't have the pull to do it - though that doesn't mean that they can't feel smug about it when they're walking out to the compost pile in their hemp clothes and Birkenstocks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 I believe they would purchase an oil lease from the government, just like they would purchase an oil lease from you if they wanted to dig a well in your backyard. The gov't could make billions if not trillions on such leases. However, past experience with mineral and logging rights on national land shows that the gov't sells the rights to use the resources of the United States' citizens for FAR less than they're worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Take away the incentives to produce oil, and switch them to the incentives to develop alternatives, and won't our nation be both safer from middle-eastern BS, ... We can't stop fighting with our war buddies all of a sudden. It might make them mad. And how else will the government keep us in line if not for the Middle East. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Ryan Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 (edited) Am I the only one who thinks Bush is making a killing right now because of the higher oil prices, and the timing couldnt be more perfect with him getting ready to leave office. I voted for the moron, and I still have no idea what the hell we are still doing in Iraq. Why we are spending billions of dollars a month to protect oil, we have to buy at a huge profit to the ones we are giving the protection. I could see if we got the oil for pennies on the dollar for that protection to be there, but this makes no sense at all to me. Which is why I think Bush is somehow getting rich off this war, and why we went after Sadam instead of Osama. I dont get why we cant use natural gas, that is now being drilled in Ft Worth as fuel for our cars. Why there are not more alternatives already available, and why cars have the capacity to get 2-3 times the MPG but are restricted in some way by those manufacturing them. Edited June 13, 2008 by Sgt Ryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 ANWR... what a waste of breath to argue about that one. Its not about ANWR or oil anymore, its about the American politics of I'm right and you're a moran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 ANWR... what a waste of breath to argue about that one. Its not about ANWR or oil anymore, its about the American politics of I'm right and you're a moran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.