Response to 2 -The estimates for the entire 1002 area (Coastal Plain), within this area, USGS 1998 estimates that there are between 15.6 and 42.3 billion barrels of oil in place, with a mean of 27.8 billion barrels. USGS derives the 5.7-to-16.0 billion barrel range as being recoverable using the technology of the mid-1990s. Anti-development groups often criticize use of technically recoverable resource numbers, rather than the narrower concept of economically recoverable resources. But a closer look confirms that use of the technically recoverable numbers does not overstate the resource base. Technically recoverable volumes cited in the USGS assessment are very conservative. Remember that USGS estimates assume only current technology. In this case, the agency assumes only about 37% of the oil in place can eventually be recovered. Estimated recovery from Prudhoe Bay was initially estimated to be about 35%, but the application of new technology since that time has progressed steadily, and recovery is now expected to exceed 65%. Similar experience with ANWR could raise eventual recovery well beyond the USGS estimate. For example, 65% recovery would imply a range of 10 to 27 billion barrels, with a mean of 18 billion barrels. Finally your comment about the geological structure of ANWR is something you derived from pure fantasy and isn’t the way to go about backing your anti-development view.
Response to 3 –Your third point was what I call irrelevant to the debate. Don’t forget that Clinton administration officials like Sandy Berger were owners of Exxon stock. He didn’t sell that stock even though he was told twice to do so and yet people criticized Karl Rove when he was merely waiting for the paperwork to go through. Then you have Al Gore also an owner of Exxon stock and having numerous dealing with Occidental Petroleum. Barbara Boxer, a democratic senator in California is a Halliburton stockowner. She also owns stock in various other energy firms. Just because Bush was in the oil industry at one time doesn’t provide you with an argument against drilling in ANWR. Take me for example, I do not own any stock in any energy company and like the majority of people I support drilling in ANWR. So you made an invalid point in response and my response makes a note of that. I did that without even bringing the polar opposite, which would be the environmentalist groups and the money they pump into the coffers of people who just happen to oppose drilling in ANWR.
Response to 4 -OPIC is a taxpayer-backed attempt to spur private sector growth in developing nations. Since it was founded in 1971, OPIC has turned a profit every year, although occasionally congress appropriates foreign aid funds to expand OPIC’s presence. It currently has reserves of over $3 billion, held in U.S. bonds. The financing arm, which was first commissioned in the mid 1980’s by Reagan and expanded tenfold by Clinton, provides both direct loans and, for loans above $10 million, loan guarantees. Loans are distributed through investment funds. These funds are established by an act of congress and directed by private managers. OPIC provides a loan guarantee for half of the fund, with the rest of the money coming from the private sector. Thus, private banks and investment groups provide the money, but should the loan go bad, the United States will compensate half of the bill. For banks, it is the equivalent of a K-Mart clearance sale. Twice the loan, half the risk. Loans are generally U.S. Government rates plus 2.5 to 5 percent; in other words, market rates. So to sum it up you have once again fabricated an erroneous story and that is clear due to the fact the OPIC doesn’t invest in ‘environmental reforms’ and you said 'Russian OPIC' when Russia is one of the countries OPIC targets to spur investment.
First technically recoverable and economically recoverable are two different numbers. Let's take a look at your numbers. First start at the 1998 USGS assessment:
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 0 and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 1.2 BBO.
Hmm, don't see the very high reserve numbers you gave. Later on the report estimates only 5.4 BBO of economically available oil (given $30/bbl - 1996 dollars).
While Prudhoe itself went from an original estimate of available reserve of 9 BBO (1968) and 35% recovery to an estimated total recovery of 13 BBO (2001) and 70% total recovery, it is very impossible future technological gains will see similar improvements. The biggest gain so far resulted from the introduction of gas injection technology. This is old enough, and common enough technology, to be included in the USGS report. Therefore, I would NOT expect the amount of technically available oil to increase significantly.
Assuming 1 million Barrels per day of production (same as Prudhoe), the best the ANWR will do is replace about 20% of today's 5.2 million barrel/day OPEC importation. This number will go down as the amount of easily obtained oil is harvested and more expensive, and slower recovery methods have to be implemented.
I am totally shaking my head as to why you think there is no difference between being an executive member or board member than a common shareholder. Being on the BoD, or owning preferrential stock (such as Cheney) gives you a lot more say than just owning common stock.
As to only one democratic senator owning Halliburton stock, just because the devil does it, it means it is okay to ignore the argument? All of the Senators, Republican btw - but that is irrelevent, from Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma, have received large amounts of Soft PAC money from Oil companies and have extensive personal stakes as well.
Okay, I looked at OPIC and you are right, it makes and guarantees loans though some of the investments are environmentally based. And if it has turned a profit, then that is a very good thing. I was thinking it was a money pit.
State Department January 1994 Dispatch
-- Paine Webber's Russia Country Fund is the first U.S. Government-sponsored private investment fund. It is expected to generate about $300 million of investment in Russia. OPIC is contributing $50 million toward a $75 to $100-million private investment fund sponsored by Paine Webber to provide equity investment to new businesses in Russia, with particular emphasis on energy and environmental projects. Final discussions are underway concerning the Russian Government's contribution of an additional $25 million to the fund which would then make it the first joint Russian-American investment fund.Back to your original argument, yes, OPIC is only marginally responsible for environmental issues. However, the Gore-Chernomyrdin commission did make several other environmental agreements, mostly through the Commodity Import program.