ANWR

[Smallpotatoes]

Many people think that drilling in ANWR is a way to increase our supply of oil and eventually lower the prices.
A few weeks ago on CNN, somebody pointed out that it would take 10 years for the oil from ANWR to get to the consumers and that there's only enough oil up their to get through two years or so.
That hardly seems like it's worth the effort to me.
Is what that guy said on CNN true? If it is, why is it still worth drilling at ANWR?

 

[DisembodiedOwlHead]

Many people think that drilling in ANWR is a way to increase our supply of oil and eventually lower the prices.
A few weeks ago on CNN, somebody pointed out that it would take 10 years for the oil from ANWR to get to the consumers and that there's only enough oil up their to get through two years or so.
That hardly seems like it's worth the effort to me.
Is what that guy said on CNN true? If it is, why is it still worth drilling at ANWR?

Innovate, or die.

 

[old_tony]

Many people think that drilling in ANWR is a way to increase our supply of oil and eventually lower the prices.
A few weeks ago on CNN, somebody pointed out that it would take 10 years for the oil from ANWR to get to the consumers and that there's only enough oil up their to get through two years or so.
That hardly seems like it's worth the effort to me.
Is what that guy said on CNN true? If it is, why is it still worth drilling at ANWR?

The left's argument that it would take 10 years for the oil to get to consumers means that it would have been in consumers' tanks already had Clinton not vetoed ANWR drilling in 1995. How much is there is a matter up for debate. All I know is we would be better off with it than without it.

 

[deskslave]

Many people think that drilling in ANWR is a way to increase our supply of oil and eventually lower the prices.
A few weeks ago on CNN, somebody pointed out that it would take 10 years for the oil from ANWR to get to the consumers and that there's only enough oil up their to get through two years or so.
That hardly seems like it's worth the effort to me.
Is what that guy said on CNN true? If it is, why is it still worth drilling at ANWR?

The left's argument that it would take 10 years for the oil to get to consumers means that it would have been in consumers' tanks already had Clinton not vetoed ANWR drilling in 1995. How much is there is a matter up for debate. All I know is we would be better off with it than without it.

How, exactly, do you KNOW that?

 

[In Exile]

One of the big problems with ANWR oil is that scientists belive apparently, it is not very high quaility, as in the light sweet crude the oil companies prefer to turn into gasoline. Drill ANWR, and you'll get a lot of oil but comparatively little gasoline.

From the Energy Information Administration, a government site:

ANWR Production Uncertainties

There is much uncertainty regarding the impact of opening ANWR on U.S. oil production and imports, due to several factors:

* The size of the underlying resource base. There is little direct knowledge regarding the petroleum geology of the ANWR region. The USGS oil resource estimates are based largely on the oil productivity of geologic formations that exist in the neighboring State lands and which continue into ANWR. Consequently, there is considerable uncertainty regarding both the size and quality of the oil resources that exist in ANWR. Thus, the potential ultimate oil recovery and potential yearly production are highly uncertain. [poster note: some adjacent fields have already been assessed and are generally useless, some are poor, some are okay. It's a crap shoot.]

* Oil field sizes. The size of the oil fields found in ANWR is one factor that will determine the rate at which ANWR oil resources are developed and produced. If the reservoirs are larger than expected, then production would be greater in the 2018 through 2025 timeframe. Similarly, if the reservoirs are smaller than expected, then production would be less.

* The quality of the oil and the characteristics of the oil reservoirs. Oil field production rates are also determined by the quality of oil found, e.g., viscosity and paraffin content, and the field’s reservoir characteristics, i.e., its depth, permeability, faulting, and water saturation. This analysis assumes oil quality and reservoir characteristics similar to those associated with the Prudhoe Bay field. If, for example, the oil discovered in ANWR has a considerably higher viscosity than the Prudhoe Bay field oil, e.g., over 10,000 centipoise, then oil production rates would be lower than projected in this analysis.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

Many people think that drilling in ANWR is a way to increase our supply of oil and eventually lower the prices.
A few weeks ago on CNN, somebody pointed out that it would take 10 years for the oil from ANWR to get to the consumers and that there's only enough oil up their to get through two years or so.
That hardly seems like it's worth the effort to me.
Is what that guy said on CNN true? If it is, why is it still worth drilling at ANWR?

It is true.

 

[zagoshe]

Many people think that drilling in ANWR is a way to increase our supply of oil and eventually lower the prices.
A few weeks ago on CNN, somebody pointed out that it would take 10 years for the oil from ANWR to get to the consumers and that there's only enough oil up their to get through two years or so.
That hardly seems like it's worth the effort to me.
Is what that guy said on CNN true? If it is, why is it still worth drilling at ANWR?

It is true depending on which set of experts you talk to and if you are a left-wing enviromental nut who doesn't want polar bears to die. And the biggest obstacle to drilling in the United States and why it takes so long is the absolutely insane amount of regulations we have for the industry to try and meet.......

Fixed.

 

[Dickens Cider]

Many people think that drilling in ANWR is a way to increase our supply of oil and eventually lower the prices.
A few weeks ago on CNN, somebody pointed out that it would take 10 years for the oil from ANWR to get to the consumers and that there's only enough oil up their to get through two years or so.
That hardly seems like it's worth the effort to me.
Is what that guy said on CNN true? If it is, why is it still worth drilling at ANWR?

It is true depending on which set of experts you talk to and if you are a left-wing enviromental nut who doesn't want polar bears to die. And the biggest obstacle to drilling in the United States and why it takes so long is the absolutely insane amount of regulations we have for the industry to try and meet.......

Fixed.

Are you sure?

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

Many people think that drilling in ANWR is a way to increase our supply of oil and eventually lower the prices.
A few weeks ago on CNN, somebody pointed out that it would take 10 years for the oil from ANWR to get to the consumers and that there's only enough oil up their to get through two years or so.
That hardly seems like it's worth the effort to me.
Is what that guy said on CNN true? If it is, why is it still worth drilling at ANWR?

The left's argument that it would take 10 years for the oil to get to consumers means that it would have been in consumers' tanks already had Clinton not vetoed ANWR drilling in 1995. How much is there is a matter up for debate. All I know is we would be better off with it than without it.

Not at the price of destroying one of the truly must-sees of any lifetime.

Honestly.... ****ing puhhhhlease.

 

[Armchair_QB]

An area smaller than DFW airport in an area the size of New Jersey.

 

[jgmacg]

Or we could reduce consumption by 5% - just by cutting out waste and inefficiency - and never have to drill ANWR at all. But that would be hard, and thus unAmerican.

 

[Batman]

Many people think that drilling in ANWR is a way to increase our supply of oil and eventually lower the prices.
A few weeks ago on CNN, somebody pointed out that it would take 10 years for the oil from ANWR to get to the consumers and that there's only enough oil up their to get through two years or so.
That hardly seems like it's worth the effort to me.
Is what that guy said on CNN true? If it is, why is it still worth drilling at ANWR?

The left's argument that it would take 10 years for the oil to get to consumers means that it would have been in consumers' tanks already had Clinton not vetoed ANWR drilling in 1995. How much is there is a matter up for debate. All I know is we would be better off with it than without it.

Not at the price of destroying one of the truly must-sees of any lifetime.

Honestly.... ****ing puhhhhlease.

Not to sound like an asshole (or maybe I am), but how many people actually trek up there to see it? It ain't exactly Yellowstone in terms of accessibility or comfort.
One of the best moments of this whole debate came a few years ago during one of the Senate hearings. The environmentalists broke out the pictures of ANWR in spring, with polar bears frolicking and some tundra plants blooming. Ted Stevens, senator from Alaska, countered with a picture of the bleak ANWR tundra in winter.

 

[Armchair_QB]

Or we could reduce consumption by 5% - just by cutting out waste and inefficiency - and never have to drill ANWR at all. But that would be hard, and thus unAmerican.

Which would also do nothing to lower the price OR save the environment because China and India are increasing consumption at a higher rate.

 

[Grimace]

We've had this discussion before. From what I've read, the impact would be insignificant.

But don't take my word for it:

---------------
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/05/23/arctic-drilling-wouldnt-cool-high-oil-prices.html

The U.S. Energy Information Administration, an independent statistical agency within the Department of Energy, concluded that new oil from ANWR would lower the world price of oil by no more than $1.44 per barrel—and possibly have as little effect as 41 cents per barrel—and would have its largest impact nearly 20 years from now if Congress voted to open the refuge today.
-----------------


And remember, that's "per barrell." The actual savings per gallon would be much less.

Then, like someone mentioned, all it would take would a slight decrease in oil production by Saudi Arabia to offset the slight increase in US oil production and we're right back where we were before.

That's all I got.

 

[jgmacg]

Or we could reduce consumption by 5% - just by cutting out waste and inefficiency - and never have to drill ANWR at all. But that would be hard, and thus unAmerican.

Which would also do nothing to lower the price OR save the environment because China and India are increasing consumption at a higher rate.

ANWR's peak output is estimated at 1 million bbls per day. That's 5% of our national rate of consumption. Opening ANWR will do nothing to lower the price of oil or decrease the rate of Chinese or Indian consumption.

The low estimate is that ANWR pumps at that rate for six years. The high estimate, 12 years.

If we simply eliminated waste, inefficiency and gluttonous consumption, we could realize the same 5% advantage simply through conservation and never have to sink another well.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,999228,00.html

 

[BrianGriffin]

I don't think ANWR is a sacred cow. If it must be drilled, it must be drilled. However, I fail to see how advocating additional drilling without first advocating conservation is in any way wise. The biggest problem we have is how inefficient we are. We consume much more per person than any other country.

So why would we tear up all the land at ANWR? So we could consume what's there faster than any other society on earth would? I say you fix our issues with efficiency before you go drilling new limited sources that we would, with our current habits, surely waste.

 

[Armchair_QB]

Or we could reduce consumption by 5% - just by cutting out waste and inefficiency - and never have to drill ANWR at all. But that would be hard, and thus unAmerican.

Which would also do nothing to lower the price OR save the environment because China and India are increasing consumption at a higher rate.

ANWR's peak output is estimated at 1 million bbls per day. That's 5% of our national rate of consumption. Opening ANWR will do nothing to lower the price of oil or decrease the rate of Chinese or Indian consumption.

The low estimate is that ANWR pumps at that rate for six years. The high estimate, 12 years.

If we simply eliminated waste, inefficiency and gluttonous consumption, we could realize the same 5% advantage simply through conservation and never have to sink another well.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,999228,00.html

And, as I pointed out, that five percent change will do nothing to lower price or save the environment.

 

[Pastor]

Or we could reduce consumption by 5% - just by cutting out waste and inefficiency - and never have to drill ANWR at all. But that would be hard, and thus unAmerican.

Which would also do nothing to lower the price OR save the environment because China and India are increasing consumption at a higher rate.

ANWR's peak output is estimated at 1 million bbls per day. That's 5% of our national rate of consumption. Opening ANWR will do nothing to lower the price of oil or decrease the rate of Chinese or Indian consumption.

The low estimate is that ANWR pumps at that rate for six years. The high estimate, 12 years.

If we simply eliminated waste, inefficiency and gluttonous consumption, we could realize the same 5% advantage simply through conservation and never have to sink another well.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,999228,00.html

And, as I pointed out, that five percent change will do nothing to lower price or save the environment.

Actually, you didn't point out ****.

 

[jgmacg]

And, as I pointed out, that five percent change will do nothing to lower price or save the environment.

Neither will opening ANWR - which was my point.

 

[Armchair_QB]

Or we could reduce consumption by 5% - just by cutting out waste and inefficiency - and never have to drill ANWR at all. But that would be hard, and thus unAmerican.

Which would also do nothing to lower the price OR save the environment because China and India are increasing consumption at a higher rate.

ANWR's peak output is estimated at 1 million bbls per day. That's 5% of our national rate of consumption. Opening ANWR will do nothing to lower the price of oil or decrease the rate of Chinese or Indian consumption.

The low estimate is that ANWR pumps at that rate for six years. The high estimate, 12 years.

If we simply eliminated waste, inefficiency and gluttonous consumption, we could realize the same 5% advantage simply through conservation and never have to sink another well.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,999228,00.html

And, as I pointed out, that five percent change will do nothing to lower price or save the environment.

Actually, you didn't point out ****.

Guess you missed my original post doucherocket.