Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/28/2005 2:14:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/28/2005 1:35:55 PM EDT by Mr45auto]
What ever happened with this anyhow. Did they ever figure out if it'll be explored or not? I'd think with gas approachin $3/gal this would become more attractive even to the greenies.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 2:20:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/28/2005 2:21:37 AM EDT by raven]
About 10-11 years ago Congress tried to open it but Clinton said he'd veto any attempt to do so. It would take a minimum of 10-11 years to get ANWR explored, drilled, and hooked up to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline (assuming there's even oil there, the environmentalists won't even allow surveys so no one knows for sure how much oil's in ANWR). So if the liberals had just gotten out of the way, that oil could have been making it to market today, providing jobs, adding to the oil supply and pushing down prices, and making money for not just the State of Alaska but the federal government as well.

But NOOOOOOOOO, we had so save the most desolate place in north America for the weenie environmentalists' sake.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 2:21:54 AM EDT
I know it was in some legislation in the last few months but I never heard what became of it.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 2:23:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mr45auto:
I know it was in some legislation in the last few months but I never heard what became of it.



It was tucked into a spending bill that was passed. The first progress made on ANWR in my lifetime.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 2:24:43 AM EDT
So when are they gonna get busy?????
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 2:26:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mr45auto:
So when are they gonna get busy?????



Odds are much more in favor of ANWR staying closed than it is of being opened.

There's a region to the west and south-west of the oilfields called the National Petroleum Reserve that was explicitly set aside for exploration and development. The environmentalists are trying to stop any development of that as well.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 2:29:18 AM EDT
FWIW...

we most likely would have sold a large percentage of it to the South Koreans and the Japs anyhow.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 2:31:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/28/2005 2:32:20 AM EDT by Mr45auto]
Geeze, I'm sure it's all Bush/Cheney and their big oil buddies. They just want to be uber rich, it's all about the money. Halliburton, Cheney, Bush, .........

Just kidding, I'm sure that's what the lib asshats are all chanting up there. Lets just drill the sumbitch and get going with it. Hell they should build a refinery in eastern Oregon. No hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, whatever and the local economy could use the stimulus.

We need a solid domestic source of oil. If we get enough to make a big dent in what the middle east sells us you can bet prices will plummet.

There also needs to be legislation forbidding the export of domestic oil production.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 2:59:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By osprey21:
FWIW...

we most likely would have sold a large percentage of it to the South Koreans and the Japs anyhow.



So? Oil is traded globally. It's a global pool that seeks out markets where it commands the highest price.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 3:32:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By osprey21:
FWIW...

we most likely would have sold a large percentage of it to the South Koreans and the Japs anyhow.



So? Oil is traded globally. It's a global pool that seeks out markets where it commands the highest price.


So.. that's exactly my point, too many people believe ANWAR oil would be strickly for America's use.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 3:35:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By osprey21:

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By osprey21:
FWIW...

we most likely would have sold a large percentage of it to the South Koreans and the Japs anyhow.



So? Oil is traded globally. It's a global pool that seeks out markets where it commands the highest price.


So.. that's exactly my point, too many people believe ANWAR oil would be strickly for America's use.



It would. Americans would be hired to extract it, American companies would pay taxes on it to the American government and to the State of Alaska.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 8:10:53 AM EDT
If you think drilling in ANWR would change the price of gas you are wrong. The middle east spills more oil than ANWR can viably produce at the current market value. It would be like me making beer in my basement and telling Budweiser to lower their prices. Drilling in ANWR is about making rich people more money not saving you and I money at the pump. Increasing the national mpg average by 2 mpg would save more oil than ANWR can produce.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 8:13:44 AM EDT
jeep,
That all depends on the type of crude coming out of ANWR. If it's sour crude, I agree. However, if it's light sweet crude it would lower the price.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 9:08:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jeep2919:
If you think drilling in ANWR would change the price of gas you are wrong. The middle east spills more oil than ANWR can viably produce at the current market value. It would be like me making beer in my basement and telling Budweiser to lower their prices. Drilling in ANWR is about making rich people more money not saving you and I money at the pump. Increasing the national mpg average by 2 mpg would save more oil than ANWR can produce.



jeep2919 is correct.

The ANWR is not the panacea that everyone believes. I used to think it was, but my wife (who is a freelance writer) was tasked with doing research and a paper on the ANWR.

I was shocked. It could supply maybe 3 million barrels a day - a drop in the bucket. And at current consumption levels might last 10 months.

There are also areas that are of legitimate environmental concern. I'm no enviro-weenie, but the ANWR is a last ditch effort with very little yield.

Be sure to research yourself, don't take my or anyone else's word as gospel.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 9:53:41 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 10:12:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TodaysTomSawyer:

Originally Posted By jeep2919:
If you think drilling in ANWR would change the price of gas you are wrong. The middle east spills more oil than ANWR can viably produce at the current market value. It would be like me making beer in my basement and telling Budweiser to lower their prices. Drilling in ANWR is about making rich people more money not saving you and I money at the pump. Increasing the national mpg average by 2 mpg would save more oil than ANWR can produce.



jeep2919 is correct.

The ANWR is not the panacea that everyone believes. I used to think it was, but my wife (who is a freelance writer) was tasked with doing research and a paper on the ANWR.

I was shocked. It could supply maybe 3 million barrels a day - a drop in the bucket. And at current consumption levels might last 10 months.

There are also areas that are of legitimate environmental concern. I'm no enviro-weenie, but the ANWR is a last ditch effort with very little yield.

Be sure to research yourself, don't take my or anyone else's word as gospel.



Exactly.

Even the most optimistic projections by Congress suggest that at best, ANWAR would lower our dependence on foreign oil a few percentage points (something liek 67% to 65%), and it would take about 10 years to get to that point. It literally woudl be a drop in the bucket, and woudl do nothing to substantially change either prices, or our dependence on foreign oil.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 10:30:56 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 10:42:52 AM EDT
Who cares how much oil it will or will not replace? If someone can make money on it, then let's drill it.

BTW, we are perfectly capable of drilling and producing oil there without causing any harm whatsoever to the environment. Just stick some environmental isolation requirements in the contracts, and it will be handled.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 11:57:54 AM EDT
<pedant>

It's ANWR, NOT ANWAR. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

</pedant>
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 11:58:58 AM EDT
Top Top