Goodbye ANWR, Hello Nukes

The American Enterprise Online ^ | 3/6/05 | William Tucker

[biblewonk]

Ofcourse I do but that wasn't the discussion. Only the possibility.

[delacoert]

Only the possibility.

Like I said - dream world.

[biblewonk]

Economically viable for about another 2 cents per kwhr retail.

[jrawk]

And which of these can be produced for the going rate of $50 a barrel?

I believe the article pointed out a distinction in saying Cheap Oil. Middle East Oil is cheap because it pumps itself. Expenses low enough you can profit at the $30 level where even running a pumpjack in texas puts you in a losing proposition.

Sure we can rely on all those sources, but we won't be buying our oil at prices less than what they are today.

-- lates
-- jrawk

[delacoert]

Nice number.

Because of the cost involved in dealing with the technical difficulties of building, servicing and transmitting the power from windmill farms, the cost per kW-hr is potentially 2 to 3.5 times the cost from fossil-fuel/nuclear plants.

[No.6]

Why is everyone, whether here or among the massmedia, so convinced it has to be one thing and not the other.

Why no nukes but yes windmills, or yes nukes and no windmills?

Why not yes to nukes and yes to windmills and yes to biodiesel and everything else that works?

A single-pronged approach to energy is why we're at the point where we have to have this discussion in the first place. Attack from all angles and we'll be OK.

I even like the idea of local generation, not as a replacement for big energy plants, but as a supplement. I don't see anything wrong with redundant supplies of energy, and several things right (such as not being entirely vulnerable in the event some terrorist strikes a big energy plant).

[delacoert]

I agree with you.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Another reason new refineries are not being built is the threat that existing refineries bring to the marketplace as they grow larger, even if they're in another state.
When Pennsoil wanted to build a new plant in Arizona, Chevron made it clear that they believed this state was their property, via pipeline from California. In so many words, they promised to sell their Arizona bbls at just below Pennsoils' breakeven cost and this put a huge question mark in the economics of the project.

[JustAnAmerican]

Well now I am confused. After doing quite a bit of research, after hearing a few things on the local radio station this morning, I found the following.

Oil from Alaska flows through the Alaskan pipeline to Valdez port. It then leaves from Valdez to ports in California(for refinement). From here I understand that the bulk(That which is not used locally) is shipped overseas.

The reason for this is that (mostly due to environ wackos or maybe terrain), California has absolutely zero pipelines that connect to the Main Pipeline network in this country.

So as far as the Oil companies are concerned it is cost prohibitive to ship any product out of California to other states using over the road haulers or shipping through the Panama Canal to link up with the main network of US pipelines. What about my knowledge is lackinig here?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

With the exception of California pipelines into Arizona, you are correct.

[JustAnAmerican]

"With the exception of California pipelines into Arizona, you are correct."

Thanks, sure wish the energy department would update their info once in a while.

Energy Info

[thackney]

all of the oil in the Alaska Pipeline is sold to users outside the United States

Not true, nearly ALL the Alaskan Oil is sold to the US. Very little, but a little of Alaskan oil is exported out of the US. ~5.5%

CRS Report for Congress, Alaska Oil Exports

Protests against Alaska oil exports

www.ANWR.org Flyer on Exports

[thackney]

The reason for this is that (mostly due to environ wackos or maybe terrain), California has absolutely zero pipelines that connect to the Main Pipeline network in this country.

The primary method of movement of petroleum products to local distribution terminal in the state is through pipelines, the majority of which are owned by the Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline Company.

Northern and Southern California are not connected by any petroleum product pipeline. Product movement between the two regions is accomplished through the use of marine vessels and tanker trucks.

San Diego County receives about 92 percent of its gasoline from a pipeline that runs from the Los Angeles refining center to distribution terminals located in Mission Valley and San Diego Harbor. The rest of the gasoline (about 8 percent) is delivered to the area by tanker trucks.

There are no refineries located in San Diego County.

The shipping cost by pipeline from the Los Angeles refineries to the San Diego terminals is about 1 cent more per gallon than the cost to ship to the Los Angeles area terminals from the same refineries.

Shipping gasoline to the San Diego region by tanker truck costs from 2 to 4 cents per gallon. (Noted prices out of date)

[shield]

Yep...President Bush said we'd come to these gas prices without his energy policy being passed....and here we are folks.

[Dog Gone]

Some of the by-products of the refining process (primarily petroluem coke) from Alaskan crude are exported overseas. But we're using the gasoline from the refining process right here in the USA.