Alert,,, WMD has been Found in ALaska

[Sundowner]

If new Alaskan oil could replace 40 percent of production there wouldn’t even be a debate. The key consideration is economically recoverable.......

Great Point Charon. Its evident that economic recoverablilty of the oil is a factor that tends to make long term extraction estimates 'fuzzy'.

regards,
Sun

[Elfie]

When I was stationed in Alaska there was information about a potential oil field north of the artic circle that suppossedly held more reserves than the Prudhoe Bay field. No idea how that all worked out though.

Alaskans tend to be very protective of the environment. After all, many of them make their living from either commercial fishing or guiding for fishermen and hunters.

[Rolex]

None of this really matters. I have a Newsweek magazine from 1952 hidden away somewhere that says scientists predict the world will run out of oil by 1975. It's in Newsweek, so it must be true.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Rolex
None of this really matters. I have a Newsweek magazine from 1952 hidden away somewhere that says scientists predict the world will run out of oil by 1975. It's in Newsweek, so it must be true.

It's a fossil fuel, It will be depleted.   Those are the facts.

Karaya

[moot]

50 years or so should be enough to see internal petrol combustion easily replaced.

IMO the challenge'll be replacing the pleasure of a vibrating, screaming power plant.

[Rolex]

Karaya...

I was being facetious.

I am not now, though. Obviously you are not aware that what you just said is no longer considered to be a fact. The mechanism by which we thought oil was created is no longer considered to be valid. Previously depleted fields are repooling with oil which has caused scientists to even back away from even using the term 'fossil' fuel anymore.

Anyway, oil ain't what we thought was 10 years ago.

[capt. apathy]

how, again, do we reduce our dependence on foreign oil by using up our own supplies?

if you let somebody get to it they'll pump and sell it.  then that much more oil that we control is gone and we lose even more leverage.

we need to leave as much of ours as possible in the ground.  use foreign oil as much as possible so that the % of the world oil supply that we control grows.  

also it's much better to have slightly higher prices now, (which have the added benefit of driving research and investing in alternate and more efficient systems) as our position grows stronger.  

 to refuse to think any farther than our next tank of gas, is just idiotic.  we could go after this oil, and keep our prices down a bit in the short run.  we'd save some very temporary cash. at the cost of diminishing reserves and less interest and advancement in alternates and high-efficiency systems.  

but our savings would only last until we had nothing to fall back on when they put a serious squeeze on us and we have nothing to replace foreign supplies with, no other technology to replace our hunger for oil, and no choice but to take it in the shorts and pay whatever they demand.

drilling it and capping would be a good plan, if it would be left there until there was a real need.  but to really expect eh oil companies to invest the money and then just let it sit until we have a genuine need is a bit naive.  they'll just fabricate an excuse to continually jack up the price at the pump until we let them start pumping.  myself I don't see a lot of difference between getting screwed by a rich Texan or a rich Arab.  the only way I see to stop them both is to use the law to keep the reserves where they are.  if we have to say we're doing it to protect nature in order to pull it off, then fine, "lets do it for nature".

anybody with a clue knows we will eventually drill for that oil.  this isn't about the environment, thats just a handy tool to keep it where it is.

when we really need that oil it'll be pumped.   the dedication to cause of your average environmentalist fades fairly quickly when he reaches for the switch and the lights don't come on (we saw this in action during the Enron energy crisis when the opposition to permits to kill new power facilities fell to almost nothing after the first few rounds of rolling black-outs.)

but to drill now would be stupid.   the idea that our fearless leader has been putting forth for the last 4 years, that somehow using up our own oil will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, just doesn't add up to anyone who's eyes are open.

[lazs2]

rolex... agreed... I have a time magazine that claims a new ice age befor the year 2000... My point was that you can't see a dozen years into the future so far as what it will cost to extract oil or how much reserve there is.

I also agree with apathy in that we can't really reduce dependancy on oil if w can't supply most of our own cheaply... My point is that it will take a while to get going.  we need to explore and get the mechanism for delivery in place for when the next bigf squeeze starts...  Sorta like nukes.... you don't have to use em for em to be effective.

The EPA is the biggest bunch of anti constitutional and human rights violaters we have right now... they are total power mad nazis whos whole existance is based on junk science and socialist rheteric.

lazs

[Charon]

The EPA has been totally out of control. I have covered some of their policy since the early 90s and they would be setting drinking water standards for things like low levels of radium based on data from Hiroshima. I'm talking levels low enough that it competes with eating the occasional banana from a risk factor. Maybe they were right, maybe they were wrong, but the real science just wasn't there. The result was huge water bills with no real scientific justification. They would set the standards so low that it was questionable that you would be able to actually measure for compliance with current technologies. And once a decision was made, that was it. Wrong, right or questionable it was cut in stone. That was the Carol Browner EPA and was one of the sore spots, along with his blanket support of ethanol, for me when AL Gore ran for president.

They do some of the same stuff with gasoline and diesel (though it's more at the retail end than the production end). Generally, though they are fairly restrained except for some new Wetlands regulation that is way too broad. The big problem here is that they have set some standards and requirements but lack the manpower/budget for enforcement. There is money there, billions set aside for such things in principal, but in usage it is kept accumulating to play accounting games with the agency in general (and congress uses the standing balance to make the deficit look lower and doesn’t want to authorize the expenditure of the funds). So most of the enforcement is passed off to the states which typically in even worse shape from a budget standpoint. You actually have the case of the industry being angry about lack of enforcement since most of the established players have gotten with the program (at considerable cost) yet some have not or are only partially complying.

The EPA has gotten better, at least some departments, realizing with petroleum that there is a huge ripple effect for the economy. But, just wait for the new diesel sulfur regs to hit in a couple of years (which Bush supports, BTW). I don’t think anybody, even honchos in the oil industry, know what’s going to happen to supply with that. But that was a case of the automakers solution for emissions reduction winning out over the oil industry, and requiring almost laboratory-grade diesel which really, really compliactes how you distribute fuel.

Charon

[Dune]

Just as an FYI, as I heard it explained.

We won't ever run out of oil.  The problem is that it will cease to be economically feasible to extract it.  The example used was a room full of peanuts.  Eventually it would be so hard to find any that haven't been eaten that there wouldn't be any point to looking.

[Rolex]

It's kind of interesting that the thing that limits our advancement and adoption of technology is rarely the technology itself - it's people and their bad intentions.

People at the EPA with fuzzy-headed, agenda-based science; people in the oil industry who are certainly going to do everything in their power to stop alternatives to oil.

The safety record of the nuclear power industry (Russia excluded) has been extraordinary. How many people have died or been injured in the U.S. from a nuclear power accident in the last 40 years? The technology is pretty sound, but the U.S. can't build any plants and can't even improve the technology because it isn't worth the investment if you can't build it.

Freeing up most of the oil used for electrical power generation would help the country greatly.

We're willing to accept over 1,600,000 people dying in auto accidents in the last 40 years in exchange for the convenience of cars, but we can't accept an industry that has killed no one in the last 40 years for the convenience of electricity?

Ah yes, I forgot... some people are stilled scared out of their wits from the movie "The China Syndrome."

[rpm]

Then there's that pesky Three Mile Island thingy. Nuclear power has had incidents in the US that were covered up in it's early days. Having said that, I still believe it is a very viable solution to our energy needs. But if you ever DO have an accident, it could be destructive for generations. Quite the paradox.

[john9001]

Three Mile Island was sabotage, the "cover up" was covering up the sabotage so the greenie weenies would not be afraid. No one was hurt there and the other reactors on the island are still running, only the damaged one is shut down.

i know one of the engineers involved in the clean up , so i know the "real" details of what happened, not the "offical" reports.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by john9001
Three Mile Island was sabotage, the "cover up" was covering up the sabotage so the greenie weenies would not be afraid. No one was hurt there and the other reactors on the island are still running, only the damaged one is shut down.

i know one of the engineers involved in the clean up , so i know the "real" details of what happened, not the "offical" reports.

lmao.... care to share?

[lazs2]

it is gratifying to see that others see through the junk science of the EPA.  

EPA does things like set salinity limits of wastewater that are lower than those for drinking water...  When I explained that the treatment (if even possible) to get to that level would raise everones sewer bill to as much as $150 a month for this dubious "improvement" in wastewater.....I was told by a representative  that $150 a month was not too much to pay to protect the environment.   Under their plan.... If you pumped water out of the ground and then let it just spill back onto the land you would be in violation and a gross polluter.

lazs