Author Topic: Oil in the ANWR (Read 932 times)

Silat · « **on:** March 10, 2005, 03:28:50 PM »

"According to the USGS report {
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm }, the mean estimated
amount of recoverable oil is in fact approximately equal to the amount of
oil the United States consumes in one year. As the report notes, the
"[t]echnically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area [the
1.5-million-acre coastal plain targeted for drilling] (excluding State and
Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels, with
a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels." According to the U.S. Department of
Energy's Energy Information Agency, {
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_supply_annual/psa_volume1/current/pdf/table_03.pdf }
the U.S. currently consumes about 20 million barrels of oil and petroleum
products per day, or about 7.3 billion barrels per year."

The facts are substantially different from what my President is stating.
Maybe he knows where the hidden cache of massive amounts of oil is hidden:)

john9001 · « **Reply #1 on:** March 10, 2005, 04:01:16 PM »

""estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels""

must be why they call it an "estimate"

Toad · « **Reply #2 on:** March 10, 2005, 04:55:30 PM »

Out of curiosity, what was the very first estimate of oil under Saudi Arabia?

NUKE · « **Reply #3 on:** March 10, 2005, 04:59:39 PM »

So, why not drill for the oil then?

Some said that they worried about the environment. I guess they would rather risk shipping billions of barrels across the world's oceans instead. No risk there.

Elfie · « **Reply #4 on:** March 10, 2005, 05:00:23 PM »

If I'm not mistaken there is more than one oil reserve in the ANWR. This was a big issue in Alaska when I was stationed there. There is another potentially huge oil reserve in Gates of the Artic National Park (kinda fuzzy on the name of the place after so many years, name might be incorrect).

I say go get the oil IF the oil companies doing the drilling can minimize the impact on the environment.

Elfie · « **Reply #5 on:** March 10, 2005, 05:02:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
So, why not drill for the oil then?

Some said that they worried about the environment. I guess they would rather risk shipping billions of barrels across the world's oceans instead. No risk there.

Because the drilling operations can disrupt things like caribou migrations. Pipelines can spring leaks etc.

Shipping oil in super tankers is pretty safe these days. The tankers have double hulls iirc. Oil spills from tankers are pretty rare these days.

Maverick · « **Reply #6 on:** March 10, 2005, 05:06:29 PM »

Just a point of order here. An estimate is NOT a fact. It is a guess, scientific, but still a guess.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #7 on:** March 10, 2005, 05:06:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elfie
Because the drilling operations can disrupt things like caribou migrations. Pipelines can spring leaks etc.

Shipping oil in super tankers is pretty safe these days. The tankers have double hulls iirc. Oil spills from tankers are pretty rare these days.

Yea but drilling is relativly low impact too. They can drill a well from miles away in the opposite direction now to minimize impact.

NUKE · « **Reply #8 on:** March 10, 2005, 05:08:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elfie
Because the drilling operations can disrupt things like caribou migrations. Pipelines can spring leaks etc.

Shipping oil in super tankers is pretty safe these days. The tankers have double hulls iirc. Oil spills from tankers are pretty rare these days.

It's just funny to me.....the hypocracy of the environmental groups protesting the drilling. It has to be drilled from somewhere and right now there is "precious" desert in the Middle East with many drills, pipelines, refineries and shipping for getting the oil to us.

I guess they only care about the local area, not the environment as a whole.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #9 on:** March 10, 2005, 05:12:03 PM »

Leave the oil up there alone for now untill we really do need it and use the money that would be used on exploration and drilling up there to work on developing alternative fuels

In the meantime heres a better idea.

Instead of letting them sue McDonalds for their lack of will to not over eat
Take all the morbidly obese people and boil them down for oil from their blubber like we used ta do with whales.

Kill several birds with one stone that way and you can almost bet the health insurance cos wont be complaining.

Buisness at your local Gym would boom, as well as all the weight loss Co's. Exercise equipment etc thus helping the economy
Less food would be consumed thus lowering the price of food

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #10 on:** March 10, 2005, 05:13:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
It's just funny to me.....the hypocracy of the environmental groups protesting the drilling. It has to be drilled from somewhere and right now there is "precious" desert in the Middle East with many drills, pipelines, refineries and shipping for getting the oil to us.

I guess they only care about the local area, not the environment as a whole.

LOL the only thing I can think of precious about that desert is the oil

NUKE · « **Reply #11 on:** March 10, 2005, 05:15:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
LOL the only thing I can think of precious about that desert is the oil

That's my point.

The same with ANWR.....just a wasteland pretty much.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #12 on:** March 10, 2005, 05:19:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
That's my point.

The same with ANWR.....just a wasteland pretty much.

but even then I say leave it alone untill we really DO need it.

Use up everyone elses first

Elfie · « **Reply #13 on:** March 10, 2005, 05:26:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Yea but drilling is relativly low impact too. They can drill a well from miles away in the opposite direction now to minimize impact.

Back in the mid '80's it was proposed to drill at an angle so the drill rigs wouldnt have to be in the Park.
Have to understand, the majority of Alaska is still a pristine wilderness. There WILL be at least some impact on the environment regardless.

Pipelines large enough to carry that much oil to a port will disrupt caribou migrations. Caribou wont walk under the pipeline that exists now. (The pipeline carries crude oil from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez iirc) They cant just heap dirt over parts of the pipeline so the caribou can cross since they dont know exactly where they will try to cross. Burying the pipeline isnt a good idea since any leaks would be harder to detect and repairs would take longer, resulting in more oil spilled.

There really isnt any good solution for this yet that I am aware of.

Toad · « **Reply #14 on:** March 10, 2005, 05:27:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elfie
Oil spills from tankers are pretty rare these days.

N.J. targets vessel liability

Quote

March 08, 2005

....The legislation, prompted by a Greek tanker's recent spill of 265,000 gallons of crude oil in the Delaware River, would raise the amount of insurance required for ships carrying hazardous substances.

The bill cleared the Assembly Environment/Solid Waste Committee unanimously Monday.

With cleanup costs approaching $100 million in the Nov. 26 accident, owners of the Athos I have reached their $45.5 million insurance cap. Officials at Tsakos Shipping have told many of the 700 claimants for damages to file with the National Pollution Funds Center....

Well, only a quarter million gallons or so.............