Serious Thread About Drilling

[JSojourner]

I have some questions for people on all sides of the drilling debate.  I want to know what you think, but also, what the "experts" and various advocates think.  Submit whatever you find relevant.

1.    If drilling in ANWR and other protected areas (offshore or otherwise) is permitted, how much oil do experts say that will pump into the world economy?  Give the smallest and greatest estimates.

2.    How long would this fresh supply of fuel last?  I am sure supporters say one thing and detractors say another, but let's look at the range.

3.    When would the first barrel of oil removed from these areas be available on the market?

4.     Why are oil companies not drilling on land they already own, which they purchased with a view toward drilling and development?

5.     What are the problems presented by removing and converting shale oil from the ground?

6.      Are there currently shale oil sites that are sitting unused and undeveloped?  Or is the problem that many shale oil areas are also protected like ANWR?

7.      With regard to ANWR, are the Inuit and other indigenous people in that area of one mind in favor of -- or against -- drilling?

8.     How much would the price of gas go down with unrestricted drilling?

Add anything else you wish to this thread. 

[Person Man]

Yes. That's what I am primarily worried about. Finding alternative fuels may take only a similiar time and these reserves may only provide a small amount of relief that may divert us from long-term energy solvency.

[defe07]

Just use hemp as a source for alternative energy. It's been proven that it doesn't contaminate the air and can even be used as food (apparently). Plus the last thing we need to do is give China antoher foothold in the US.

[RouterJockey]

1.  I've heard estimates that ANWR could be another Prudhoe Bay (largest oilfield in North America - at it's peak was producing over a million barrels of oil per day).

2.  Prudhoe has been producing for over 30 years.  No reason to believe ANWR would be different.

3.  Estimates are it would take about 10 years to produce first oil.

4.  In AK, the companies lease, not own the land.  Once they lease the land, they do exploratory wells to see if they find oil and if it is viable for production.  If viable, is it commercially feasible to build the infrastructure to get to the oil?  Many satellite fields around Prudhoe Bay have been developed in exactly this way.  But, the further you get from the Prudhoe infrastructure, the more reserves you need to make it economically feasible.  One note here - exploration wells are only drilled in the winter so that ice roads can be built to prevent damage to the tundra.

5-6.  Can't speak to shale.

7.  The Gwichʼin, which live primarily in the Yukon Territory seem to be the ones opposing ANWR drilling for fear of damage to the caribou herds they depend on.  The more local natives (residents of the North Slope Borough in Alaska)  generally seem to be more supportive.

8.  Hard to say - I would have to think it could only help.  And more importantly, it would be a domestic source of oil - so that money would be going into our economy and providing jobs for (mostly) Americans.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

What's been highlighted here is the key point being ignored by the supporters of the drilling. Is that even if you go for ANWR - the oil being produced won't make ANY different to the gas prices today.

[dead0man]

Yeah, screw the gas prices of tomorrow!  We'll worry about that then.

[CultureKing]

I know there was some speculation about exploration off the coast of Washington but that idea was smacked down by the state and I think either the Feds. or the oil companies would have to do something pretty amazing to be able to get in there.

[RouterJockey]

What's been highlighted here is the key point being ignored by the supporters of the drilling. Is that even if you go for ANWR - the oil being produced won't make ANY different to the gas prices today.

You know - I really hate this argument.  Maybe, just maybe, if Clinton hadn't vetoed the ANWR drilling legislation some 10 years ago or so, we wouldn't be as bad off today.  Just because it doesn't have an immediate effect today, doesn't mean it's not worth doing.  People 10 years down the road from now might just be better off if we opened ANWR today.  Or, we can continue screwing the next generation because it doesn't have an immediate benefit for us today.

[AkSaber]

8.  Hard to say - I would have to think it could only help.  And more importantly, it would be a domestic source of oil - so that money would be going into our economy and providing jobs for (mostly) Americans.

Another Alaskan? Cool!!! Welcome aboard.

I agree with your statements. Increasing domestic production can only help the economy. And it's not like everything that runs on fossil fuel will magically be converted to run on corn and wood chips overnight. For the foreseeable future, fossil fuel will power our machines. But looking for more domestic sources of oil doesn't mean we shouldn't be researching for alternative energy sources. Hell, right now, we are not increasing domestically produced oil, and we aren't researching alternative fuels.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

What's been highlighted here is the key point being ignored by the supporters of the drilling. Is that even if you go for ANWR - the oil being produced won't make ANY different to the gas prices today.

You know - I really hate this argument.  Maybe, just maybe, if Clinton hadn't vetoed the ANWR drilling legislation some 10 years ago or so, we wouldn't be as bad off today.  Just because it doesn't have an immediate effect today, doesn't mean it's not worth doing.  People 10 years down the road from now might just be better off if we opened ANWR today.  Or, we can continue screwing the next generation because it doesn't have an immediate benefit for us today.

a) That's kind of a moot point now.

b) it's factually true

In spite of what you may think, I don't oppose drilling. I think you should go offshore FL and CA first. Then make sure every possible protection to the eco-system is made.

But the present popular support is a reaction the prices now. I think if people were completely honest say "OK it will take 10 years before we get oil outta there. But we need to think long term". The advocates are allowing the misinformation to continue. When if they argued their point with intellectual honesty, they shouldn't need to resort to the sensationalism.

[King]

LOLZ I DRILLED YO MAMA LAST NIGHT IT WAS ALL HARDCOREZ.

ROLFCOPTER!!!

[2952-0-0]

We're entering the first phase of the oil withdrawal regime that the ecosystem is forcing upon us. For now some are kicking and screaming and looking under their couch for a few more grams of coke. Eventually they'll realize there's no more coke available.

[RouterJockey]

What's been highlighted here is the key point being ignored by the supporters of the drilling. Is that even if you go for ANWR - the oil being produced won't make ANY different to the gas prices today.

You know - I really hate this argument.  Maybe, just maybe, if Clinton hadn't vetoed the ANWR drilling legislation some 10 years ago or so, we wouldn't be as bad off today.  Just because it doesn't have an immediate effect today, doesn't mean it's not worth doing.  People 10 years down the road from now might just be better off if we opened ANWR today.  Or, we can continue screwing the next generation because it doesn't have an immediate benefit for us today.

a) That's kind of a moot point now.

b) it's factually true

In spite of what you may think, I don't oppose drilling. I think you should go offshore FL and CA first. Then make sure every possible protection to the eco-system is made.

But the present popular support is a reaction the prices now. I think if people were completely honest say "OK it will take 10 years before we get oil outta there. But we need to think long term". The advocates are allowing the misinformation to continue. When if they argued their point with intellectual honesty, they shouldn't need to resort to the sensationalism.

I don't understand why ANWR is such a "sacred cow".  People would rather drill off the coasts of CA and FL?  CA and FL both have beautiful beaches that people (thousands if not millions) actually visit.  ANWR is a place that, at best, a few hundred people visit in a year.  There is not much there, and no roads to get you there.

I think increased drilling would certainly help our current situation; however, I'm not so naive to believe it would be a cure-all panacea.  I think increased production should be viewed as a bridge - something to get us by for the next 10-30 years until we can develop viable alternative sources of energy.  I would love to see our country get off it's dependence on foreign oil.

[Хahar 🤔]

What's been highlighted here is the key point being ignored by the supporters of the drilling. Is that even if you go for ANWR - the oil being produced won't make ANY different to the gas prices today.

You know - I really hate this argument.  Maybe, just maybe, if Clinton hadn't vetoed the ANWR drilling legislation some 10 years ago or so, we wouldn't be as bad off today.  Just because it doesn't have an immediate effect today, doesn't mean it's not worth doing.  People 10 years down the road from now might just be better off if we opened ANWR today.  Or, we can continue screwing the next generation because it doesn't have an immediate benefit for us today.

a) That's kind of a moot point now.

b) it's factually true

In spite of what you may think, I don't oppose drilling. I think you should go offshore FL and CA first. Then make sure every possible protection to the eco-system is made.

But the present popular support is a reaction the prices now. I think if people were completely honest say "OK it will take 10 years before we get oil outta there. But we need to think long term". The advocates are allowing the misinformation to continue. When if they argued their point with intellectual honesty, they shouldn't need to resort to the sensationalism.

I don't understand why ANWR is such a "sacred cow".  People would rather drill off the coasts of CA and FL?  CA and FL both have beautiful beaches that people (thousands if not millions) actually visit.  ANWR is a place that, at best, a few hundred people visit in a year.  There is not much there, and no roads to get you there.

I think increased drilling would certainly help our current situation; however, I'm not so naive to believe it would be a cure-all panacea.  I think increased production should be viewed as a bridge - something to get us by for the next 10-30 years until we can develop viable alternative sources of energy.  I would love to see our country get off it's dependence on foreign oil.

Where did you get the idea that we supported drilling on our beautiful coast (do whatever the hell you want with Florida)?

Ever wondered what the "W" in "ANWR" stands for? There is most certainly something there. Something that doesn't need roads.

[RouterJockey]

Where did you get the idea that we supported drilling on our beautiful coast (do whatever the hell you want with Florida)?

Some on this board have suggested offshore drilling, including CA.  McCain also has come out in support of offshore drilling.

Ever wondered what the "W" in "ANWR" stands for? There is most certainly something there. Something that doesn't need roads.

No need to wonder - I fully understand the W stands for Wildlife.  Yes there is wildlife - there is wildlife all over Alaska - including the streets and neighborhoods of Anchorage.  Alaska has in the neighborhood of 600,000 square miles of land - only a small portion (maybe 10%, probably less) that is developed.  ANWR is approximately the size of the state of South Carolina.  The amount of development in ANWR would be equivalent to building one single airport in the entire state of South Carolina.

As for impact on wildlife, I can say from personal experience that wildlife is alive and thriving in the Prudhoe Bay area.  Caribou pass through Prudhoe by the thousands and are undeterred by the existence of humans and the oil infrastructure.  Even musk oxen, which were virtually extinct in Alaska a few decades ago, routinely pass through the Prudhoe oil fields.