Posted on 02/28/2002 12:54:45 AM PST by kattracks
The energy bill coming up in the Senate this week offers the chance for at least one major improvement in energy policy, the exploration for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
The issue has prompted environmentalists to generate too many scare stories. The beauty of the refuge and the welfare of the wildlife using it would be no more threatened by oil exploration and production than they are in the two dozen other wildlife refuges where oil and gas have long been produced.
The importance of the refuge is not that its oil will replace imports - there simply isn't enough there. The importance is the influence on the world price that such a large field (some estimates say 16 billion barrels, rivaling the giant Prudhoe Bay field nearby) would have. There is only one world market for crude oil, and the last barrel produced sets the price for all of them. In other words, it's an essential insurance that makes price increases caused by OPEC's production shenanigans (the real oil threat to the U.S. economy) far less likely.
Proponents of drilling will offer an amendment along the lines of what the House approved in the bill it passed last year. Sen. John Kerry has promised a filibuster against it. With the aim of winning votes to defeat Kerry, the Bush administration may propose a smaller exploration area than what is in the House bill (500,000 acres vs. 1.5 million; the entire refuge is 19.6 million acres, almost the size of Maine).
This is a good example of yielding on a non-essential in the service of the larger point, and gives the drillers a chance to bring out an important fact: Modern production methods have less impact on the environment than ever. Slant drilling techniques can reach huge underground areas from one point. If there is oil there (you never know unless you look) all the needed production platforms would occupy an area smaller than Logan Airport.
Even production in Oklahoma costs more than production in Arabia. Labor costs more here. And yes, there are environmental controls. Altogether it adds up to the fact that our cost of production is higher.
The significance is that if prices drop, domestic wells will shut down and exploration will cease. If prices go up, then marginal wells become profitable and exploration is increased. It's simple economics.
Still waiting for your definition of "pristine" and explanation why land must remain in this "pristine" state....
pris·tine (prstn, pr-stn)
adj.
1. Remaining in a pure state; uncorrupted by civilization.
2. Remaining free from dirt or decay; clean: pristine mountain snow.
Turn the question around. Why must all land be corrupted and dirtied?
You and the author of the article are both correct, the last barrel pumped sets the price for all the rest. But since the cost of production for ANWR oil is so high, if the price of oil drops any lower it won't be worth drilling.
Are the jobs here now?
There is no reason that increasing the fuel economy of vehicles has to reduce the percentage of domestic labor being used to build them. That was the case in the 1970's, when Detroit only built large cars and shoppers had to go to Japanese brands to find efficient cars. The situation is totally different now. US car makers are just as capable of making efficient cars as anyone. Furthermore, even the US automakers have a lot of work done off-shore, while 'foreign' companies such as Toyota produce many cars in US plants.
I am behind any American initiative that will help get the Middle Eastern oil monkey off our back.
I'll also get a big boat to pull, so that the SUV can be justified.
It sounds like you want the government to solve the problem for you, but you don't want to take any personal responsibility.
Hmmm, so let me see if I understand. Allowing oil drilling is bad because it will lower prices, which will decrease oil drilling. By contrast, prohibiting oil drilling will raise prices, which will increase oil drilling.
We must prohibit new oil drilling so that there will be more oil drilling.
Does that about cover it? "Simple" economics, indeed.
Do you want more oil drilling, or not? It's not clear.
["pristine"] 1. Remaining in a pure state; uncorrupted by civilization.
Ok, let's take this definition since it seems the most relevant to this context. Why is it important for all of the land called ANWR, this frozen tundra, to remain "uncorrupted by civilization"? To rephrase the question, why is it important for humans and human tools to keep off of this frozen tundra?
Turn the question around. Why must all land be corrupted and dirtied?
That is not a proper way to "turn the question around". I merely questioned why all land must remain "pristine"; the logical inverse of this is not "all land must be corrupted". (Let's leave aside "dirtied" for a second, because it's not clear how one can "dirty" land given that land is made of dirt.)
No one ever said "all land must be corrupted"; that is certainly not what I said.
What I said was this - and I'll ask again: Why must the frozen tundra referred to as "ANWR" remain free from humans and human artifacts?
Just wondering,
Something occurs to me. If the cost of production for ANWR oil is "so high" then no one will drill there, and you'll be happy. If drilling there causes the price of oil to drop so low that it "won't be worth drilling", then once again, no one will drill there, and you'll be happy.
If you are wary of drilling in ANWR, and if you believe your own economic analysis, you'll have no problem opening it up to potential drilling. After all if you believe that what you say is true, then you also believe no one will want to drill there anyway. (And if someone does still want to drill there, then your claims of "costs too high" are apparently not true, eh?)
The market has a funny way of working things out like this. If left alone, of course.
I think the logical solution is to forestall drilling until the output of the rest of the world has dropped enough to make prices higher on a sustained basis. Once the Arabs have pumped their cheap oil and other cheap sources are goine, then is the time to turn to more expensive sources like ANWR.
I find it very puzzelling that the the enviro freaks and all their Hollywood friends are so concerned about saving this unappealing wilderness, but care nothing about destroying the beautiful beaches of upper Long Island or Nantucket for their own use. When these idiots start tearing down the mini-mansions that are rapidly covering those pristine beaches and restore them to their natural state, I will begin to take seriously their claims of solicitude for the ANWR. They always want to pass laws to control other people, as long as it does not directly effect them.
No that isn't what you said or asked. Re-read your own post. Nor is what I said.
In response to a question of why oil spills are more tolerable in the Persian Gulf than on the Alaskan North Slope, I simply pointed out that the Gulf is already trashed so there is less harm in continuing to trash it. The Alaskan North Slope has been much less trashed, so let's hold off in trashing it if we can and for as long as we can.
Drilling techniques have improved dramatically in the last decaeds, and I'm sure that they will continue to improve. In a few more decades I expect we'll be able to get the oil and keep the place pristine, or at least less trashed than the Persian Gulf.
The environmental movement is about control. It is a cult, designed to replace religion. You know, all morality is relevant, except that which effects the environment. Of course the rules don't apply to the elite, or friends of the elite. You should have figured this out, by now.
See post #23 - there are animals living in this area.
I see that you are a young medical student. It is a little scarey to me that you still believe that the environmental movement is about saving the environment. You have been brainwashed by liberal professors and teachers.
I'm not against drilling in ANWR, but you might know that if you had continued to read the entire thread instead of following your "knee-jerk" response to call me brainwashed enviro freak.
Take your rants some place else.
I will not cry because I know you do not mean that. parsy the green.
But I can well afford my lifestyle, and make no apologies.
When the big oil companies get the necessary incentives to take a serious look into alternative fuel sources we will be on our way to getting the Middle East Oil Monkey off of our collective backs. Until such time, I certainly can't ride a bike to meet with my clients.
But again, why in the world would/should the government need to artificially constrict the market in this way? If your economic analysis is correct then no one will want to drill there in the first place, and nothing will change.
Do you actually believe your own economic analysis?
Once the Arabs have pumped their cheap oil and other cheap sources are goine, then is the time to turn to more expensive sources like ANWR.
Maybe I misunderstand. It is not my understanding that the government will be forcing some company or group to drill in ANWR. Instead, they will "open it up". AGAIN, if you are correct about this "too expensive" jazz, then no one will actually want to drill there. Consequently no one will drill there. And the point is moot.
So why not open it up and see what happens?
[Why must the frozen tundra referred to as "ANWR" remain free from humans and human artifacts?] No that isn't what you said or asked. Re-read your own post. Nor is what I said.
You can't be serious.
Earlier (post #33 for example), I asked "why land must remain in this "pristine" state", pending your definition of "pristine", of course.
Then (post #41) you gave me a relevant definition of pristine, which was "Remaining in a pure state; uncorrupted by civilization." Thus by asking "why land must remain in this "pristine" state", it is evident that (by your own definition) I was asking why land must remain "in a pure state, uncorrupted by civilization".
From this point on, it's just rephrasing. What is "civilization"? Civilization is humans, and our artifacts. That is what "civilization" is.
So that turns out to be indeed what I've been asking: why must this frozen tundra remain free ("pure") from "civilization" (we humans are our artifacts)?
I'm only using your definition of "pristine", after all.
Nor is what I said.
Come on.
You expressed disdain for the idea that we should drill (which you referred to as "spilling oil" for some reason) in a "pristine" part of the US. It was reasonable for me to conclude that you want such parts of the US to remain "pristine". Henceforth I explored your definition of "pristine", which turned out to be "free from civilization", and so on. Now I'm still asking you why it is important for this frozen tundra to remain in this "pristine" state, and not only can you not answer, but you're pretending that you never said any such thing. Which is disingenuous, at best.
In response to a question of why oil spills are more tolerable in the Persian Gulf than on the Alaskan North Slope, I simply pointed out that the Gulf is already trashed so there is less harm in continuing to trash it.
"Trashed"? Who mentioned anything about "trashing" anything? We just want to drill there. The footprint is small, everything is brought off the ice, they can do slant drilling, etc, etc, etc. "Trashing" is not the issue at all.
Drilling and "trashing" are not the same. Does land look prettier when there is oil underneath it that you cannot see? If you think that "drilling" is the same as "trashing", then obviously you hold the view that for land to become Not Pristine is the same thing as land Being Trashed. If this is the case then you are using "trashing land" as a synonym for "making land not pristine", or (according to your own definition) Placing Humans And/or Human Artifacts Onto A Piece of Land.
Which just brings me back to the original question: why must this land remain "pristine"? Why must this land remain free from humans and/or human artifacts? I still await your answer.
The Alaskan North Slope has been much less trashed, so let's hold off in trashing it if we can and for as long as we can.
I'll go you one better: let's not "trash" it at all. Instead, let's just drill for the oil underneath it. Ok?
In a few more decades I expect we'll be able to get the oil and keep the place pristine,
1. This is impossible according to your definition of "pristine", which entails keeping the land free from civilization.
2. You still haven't explained why anyone should care one iota whether this land remains "pristine".
For crying out loud, can't you even defend your own sentiment here? Write a poem to "pristine land", romanticize it, gimme something. Just because the word "pristine" sounds nice doesn't mean that It Is Important For All Land To Remain Pristine, does it?
Seriously: What is so all-fired important about Pristine Land? Explain your wistful romantic feelings about Pristine Land, and why it is so great, so that I might understand. If you can.
And what necessary incentives are those? Aside from government intervention, the only incentice that is likely is dramatically higher gas prices. Drilling in ANWR will not increase gas prices, possibly it will do the reverse or at least reduce increases.
Meantime, you complain that we are buying too much oil from the Gulf while personally consuming as much as possible.
Again, I am not against oil drilling. We need oil to run the economy and fuel All4one's SUV. We will inevitably drill for all the oil on the planet that can possibly be extracted. The question is how and when.
If the alternative is between buying cheap oil from Arabia, or drilling for expensive in one of our wildlife refuges, I am all for buying the cheap foreign oil now and saving our own oil for later.
Despite what proponents have stated, oil drilling is messy. Roads are built, pipelines are run, spills happen. We are getting better at it and will continue to.
There is no rush. We have plenty of oil. The price of oil is not high, historically speaking. It is sound policy to retain domestic reserves for the future and exploit foreign reserves first.
If you look at estimates of the economically recoverable reserve in ANWR, you wil notice that the quantity is toed to the oil price. If we want to get he most oil out of ANWR, the price has to be high enough to make that economical. There is no point in opening it up to drilling only to find that once the infrastructure has been put in place and all that money expended, there is not enough to make it worthwhile. By waiting, we ensure sustained demand for what has been called "America's last oil reserve."
Admittedly, this is true. Something about any politically-correct buzzword that seems to be repeated over and over again by people wishing to short-circuit arguments and the thought process seems to get to me. Al Gore says "pristine". His supporters say "pristine". Editorials say "pristine". Suddenly there is a consensus that "Pristine Is Good", and yet nobody's really saying anything of substance.
I had the same feeling about the phrase "Doesn't Rise To The Level Of Impeachment", for example. Ditto for "We Must Put Social Security Into A Lockbox". Such catchphrases are more like verbal viruses than anything else. They do not betray that any deep thought or analysis is actually going on underneath them. That's why I was so interested in getting you to define it. And perhaps why you've had such a hard time explaining why Pristine Is Good.
After all, repetition of buzzwords can often be very convincing. Look how many people bought the idea that "It Was Just About Sex" even when it was also about missile technology going to the Chinese. Or the idea that "Every Vote Should Count" even though the person saying this was tossing out all the military ballots he could.
Now here we have the word "Pristine" which, when pressed, you have explained to me means nothing other than Free From Humans. Suddenly it is not so obvious that Pristine Is Good. (What's wrong with humans and human civilization?) Suddenly some thought and explanation is required. Explanation which still has not been forthcoming, by the way.
We will inevitably drill for all the oil on the planet that can possibly be extracted. The question is how and when.
Fair enough, but why do you think the market is unsuited to answer this question?
If the alternative is between buying cheap oil from Arabia, or drilling for expensive in one of our wildlife refuges,
But for about the fourth time, this cannot really be the alternative. If it is really "too expensive" to get ANWR oil then no one will do it. And if they do do it, then it wasn't "too expensive" to begin with, and you are wrong to say this.
So why not open ANWR up, and see what happens? Either no one will drill (and you'll be happy), or someone will drill (thus proving you wrong about "too expensive" and rendering your concern here moot.)
Do you understand what I'm saying here? Because I've made this same comment at least three times now and it's not clear that it's sunk in.
There is no rush. We have plenty of oil.
And the foreign policy implications do not concern you? But, see, they concern the rest of us. And meanwhile our federal government has land with oil underneath it. Why not go get it? You haven't offered a convincing reason not to (other than the word "pristine").
If we want to get he most oil out of ANWR, the price has to be high enough to make that economical. There is no point in opening it up to drilling only to find that once the infrastructure has been put in place and all that money expended, there is not enough to make it worthwhile.
There is not point in not opening it up, if you are correct that "there is not enough to make it worthwhile". Why protect something that (you assert) is Not Worth Getting in the first place? I still don't understand this.
IF IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE THEN NO ONE WILL GO GET IT, SO "PROTECTING" IT IS POINTLESS!
Do you understand this?
If your choice in life is to achieve a higher spiritual state by rigorous self-discipline and self-denial as your name infers, great. But there is no need to expect others to follow suit, because wanting everyone to be the same is called SOCIALISM.
Isn't great to be an American, and be able to make these diverse choices.
You are right. I was guessing you were being honest. You got me.
But seriously. There are many good reason to avoid buying oil from the Arabs. Anyone who feels that way can easily reduce their consumption by 10% and institute a personal boycott.
No, because I believe we should do both.
I simply believe we should conserve the ANWR oil, "America's last oil reserve," until we really need it and then drill it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.