Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Raider179 on January 23, 2005, 02:19:10 AM
-
hehe just kidding but seriously we are about to get us some more black gold
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/21/alaska.oil.ap/index.html
-
I love this story.
Step one: the voice of the people says 'Let's protect Mother Nature.
Step two: 'Let's do it' says the federal government, and makes the land a federal sanctuary.
Step three: 'Let's do it' says the government and starts oil drilling in this NOW FEDERAL land . :D
-
Horay! Alaskan Oil feeds the West Coast. Maybe 100LL will go back under $2 now.
-
not likely. ANWAR's oil reserves are a drop in the bucket. The only economic effect that will be felt will be the fattening of texan wallets.
-
Just FYI, the NPR-A is not ANWAR, apparently. From the link:
"The NPRA, which was created in 1923 specifically to have access to oil if needed, is not to be confused with the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge farther to the east, which has been the focus of intense debate in Congress over oil development."
-
Environmentalists are stuck in the 50's where oil exploration is concerned. Modern drilling has a very low environmental impact. Companies today go to great legnths to minimalize the effects of drilling. Most modern locations, you would never know a rig had been there at all.
-
I never voted to make all of Alaska off limits for drilling and neither did the people of Alaska.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Dinger
not likely. ANWAR's oil reserves are a drop in the bucket. The only economic effect that will be felt will be the fattening of texan wallets.
But how much would the ANWR reserve estimates reduce US reliance on international oil imports?
Specifically, PERSIAN GULF oil imports?
Lets do the math..
Persian Gulf Oil and Gas Exports Fact Sheet
U.S. gross oil imports from the Persian Gulf rose during 2003 to 2.5 million bbl/d (almost all of which was crude), from 2.3 million bbl/d in 2002. The vast majority of Persian Gulf oil imported by the United States came from Saudi Arabia (71%), with significant amounts also coming from Iraq (19%), Kuwait (9%), and small amounts (less than 1% total) from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/pgulf.html
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998, Including Economic Analysis
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).
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
Persion gulf oil imports/day = 2.5Mbbl/d
Total USGS AMWR reserve estimate: mean value of 7.7 billion barrels
Assume 20 years to deplete total mean ANWR oil reserve estimate (7.7B bbl / 20 years = 385M bbl/y)
Production per day from AMWR oil reserve estimate over 20 years ( 385M bbl/y /365days) =1.054M bbl/d
Percentage of daily PERSION GULF oil imports that could be replaced by AMWR reserves (1.054M bbl/d / 2.5M bbl/d *100) =42% reduction of reliance on PERSION GULF imports!
Note:
I hope my arithmetric operands are in order here, it's pretty late. If any gross errors in calculation are evident and forthcomming I'll be glad to skulk back over to my lurkers corner in shame.
:D
Also there are these 3 great reasons for developing ANWR oil reserves besides reduction of reliance on imported oil:
1. cheaper than iraq
2. pisses off treehuggers
3. we've got enough wildlife already
:aok:rofl
Regards
Sun <---bleery-eyed
-
Open every US oil well and don't buy another drop from outside sources.
When crude hits ten cents a barrel cap them again and go back to imported oil.
-
If new Alaskan oil could replace 40 percent of production there wouldn’t even be a debate. The key consideration is economically recoverable. We can get oil from shale if the market makes the cost of doing so favorable. It doesn’t so all of those resources become paper resources in practical usage.
The USGS estimated:
This new assessment concludes that the volume of technically recoverable, undiscovered oil beneath Federal lands in NPRA ranges between 5.9 and 13.2 billion barrels (95% and 5% probabilities), with a mean (expected) value of 9.3 billion barrels. Most of the oil is estimated to occur in the northern third of NPRA, to be distributed among several plays, and to occur in accumulations of moderate size. It is unlikely that a Prudhoe Bay-size accumulation occurs in NPRA.
Over a range of market prices between $22 and $30 per barrel, between 1.3 and 5.6 billion barrels of oil are estimated to be economically recoverable, [edit: this is well above what OPEC can accept and still make a profit - it practically gushes out of the ground in many areas like Saudi Arabia] on the basis of the mean estimate of technically recoverable oil volumes. Estimates of technically recoverable, undiscovered nonassociated natural gas resources for the same area range between 39.1 and 83.2 trillion cubic feet (95% and 5% probabilities), with a mean (expected) value of 59.7 trillion cubic feet. The economic viability of these natural gas resources will depend on the availability of a pipeline to transport the gas to market.
The amounts of oil and gas estimated for the NPRA area are significantly greater than USGS estimates made in 1980. The increase in estimated oil resources is largely the result of the recognition of new plays based on oil accumulations recently discovered just east of NPRA. Increased gas estimates result from improved understanding of thermal maturity, reservoir development, and timing of trap development relative to hydrocarbon generation.
The amount of technically recoverable oil estimated for NPRA is similar to that estimated for the ANWR study area. However, economic analysis—which takes into consideration differences in accumulation sizes, the number of accumulations of various size, and proximity of those accumulations to infrastructure—shows that for market prices below $35 per barrel, a larger volume of oil will be economic in the ANWR area.
The effect of oil from ANWR on US oil imports and OPEC’s ability to influence prices is limited by the timing of production. If development started today, it would take about twelve years for production to reach 1 million barrels per day (mbd); in another six years production would peak at about 1.3 mbd, and five years later, production would drop below 1 mbd (mean case) (8). For the 5 percent best case scenario, production would reach 1 mbd in eight years, peak at 1.9 mbd in 22 years, and drop below 1 mbd in another seven years. These long lead times imply that production from the ANWR will not contribute significantly to US supply for more than a decade.
This schedule of production from the ANWR will have relatively little effect on prices. Prices in the world oil market are determined by a combination of geological, institutional, and economic factors (9). Increased production from the ANWR will reduce prices by reducing capacity utilization by OPEC and that its share of the world oil market. The actual effect on capacity utilization will depend on OPEC’s degree of foresight. If OPEC correctly anticipates production from the ANWR, which would not be difficult given its long lead times, OPEC could slow additions to capacity very modestly such that its utilization rate (and its effect on price) would be unchanged relative to a scenario in which no oil is produced from the ANWR. The effect on price in this case would be negligible. In the unlikely case that OPEC acts with no foresight, an extra 1 to 2 mbd of production from the ANWR would reduce capacity utilization by at most 2 to 3 percent (In their base case, the US Department of Energy forecasts that OPEC will produce 62.4 mbd of the world’s demand of 122.4 mbd in 2020). Regardless of OPEC behavior, the 1 to 2 mbd from the ANWR would reduce OPEC’s share of the world oil market by 2 to 3 percent. Such a change would be virtually undetectable given the large fluctuations in crude oil prices. http://www.oilanalytics.org/policy/dejavu.html
The result of ANWR drilling would likely not be a reduction in imports, but the shutting down of current domestic production that is even less cost effective. In fact, wells that when shut down would be hydrologically impossible to restart - so much for making every drop count. Similarly, the proposed higher mileage requirements that were shot down a few years ago were estimated to have roughly the same impact as ANWR drilling, but no one seemed to lose any sleep over that. Since we do not have a national oil industry in the US or a regulated market, there is no incentive to use this oil to artificially lower prices or artificially replace imported oil, which is far more economical. It doesn’t just squirt out of the ground like it does in the Middle East, for example. It might provide some pressure towards lowering prices, but not significant given the actual impact on world markets.
Confusing the issue, the oil companies spend a lot of money spreading the myth, because even though it would have relatively little impact on domestic oil supplies and the price at the pump, E&P (exploration and production) is where the corporate money is and the oil companies will do quite well. Especially true since E&P in the Middle East and other areas strongly favors the local national oil companies. To make the sell they like to use older USGS data and any data very selectively to spin the benefits. Sadly, we are no longer, (and haven’t been for a while) a significant producer of world oil. We are also spoiling what wilderness we have at a rapid rate. Since I’m not a CEO or significant shareholder in a major oil company, an Alaskan getting tax bribes, a member of the appropriately funded “think tank” or a politician looking for a check, at least for me, the benefit doesn’t outweigh the potential damage. If it really, really did then my opinion would be different :)
Charon
-
since you also don't live in or even visit Alaska then you telling them what lands they need to prohibit exploration on seems a little busybody to me.
It is their land let em do as they wish. Modern exploration and spill prevention is pretty darn good.
While the recoverable oil in Alaska is nowhere near as easy to get as the middle east.... we need to get started. To predict how much is there or how long it will take to get it out of the ground and to market or even how much that will cost is mental masterbation especialy if you are trying to predict the tech of a dozen years from now or even 5 years from now.
It is allways easy to say things are impossible or not worth it but there is very little evidence that this is the case in Alaska. It gets easier every year.l
Now... I don't even mind finding it and getting the supply lines open and then capping it all up... And then... Use all the middle east oil till we use it up or it gets expensive.
To sit on our hands and do nothing seems stupid.
lazs
-
I think if and when it makes economic sense for Big Oil to expand exploration and production in Alaska, then it will, opposition be damned. It just won't matter.
But for now, its pretty hard to compete with oil that practically gushes out of the ground, even when its half a world away in a polically unstable region.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Environmentalists are stuck in the 50's where oil exploration is concerned. Modern drilling has a very low environmental impact. Companies today go to great legnths to minimalize the effects of drilling. Most modern locations, you would never know a rig had been there at all.
:aok
Yup RPM nailed it with sound logic. Modern day drilling equipment can be miles away from were they are actully drilling. They have the ability to actually drill sideways underground.
Not to mention they are so regulated and inspected they can't get away with much.
-
since you also don't live in or even visit Alaska then you telling them what lands they need to prohibit exploration on seems a little busybody to me.
Actually it's all of our land unless it's on private property. Mine as much as somebody living in the state. If the returns were greater -- much greater -- it would make more sense. The spin about “reducing dependence on foreign oil” or “lowering gasoline prices” would have some truth. But, that’s not reality. The multi-national major oil companies shut down wells in the US every day that are just not profitable enough. Foreign oil is cheaper, that’s why we import so much (in addition to the fact that we really have little choice). The Alaskan's like it cause the oil companies write big checks to keep them happy. Where’s my check?
Now, if there was regulation in place guaranteeing that the damage to a dwindling environment -- a national treasure of its own -- would be applied in such a way that we would benefit directly from giving up that resource... that's something to discuss. Something like, “We’ll let you drill for the oil but it must be used in the US market and applied at cost plus 10 percent…” but that will never happen. They are not in this to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, or reduce gasoline prices, they are in it to add a zero here or there on the next quarterly report.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
Now, if there was regulation in place guaranteeing that the damage to a dwindling environment -- a national treasure of its own -- would be applied in such a way that we would benefit directly from giving up that resource... that's something to discuss. Something like, “We’ll let you drill for the oil but it must be used in the US market and applied at cost plus 10 percent…” but that will never happen. They are not in this to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, or reduce gasoline prices, they are in it to add a zero here or there on the next quarterly report.
Charon
See:
Environmental Protection Agency
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
Originally posted by rpm
Environmentalists are stuck in the 50's where oil exploration is concerned. Modern drilling has a very low environmental impact. Companies today go to great legnths to minimalize the effects of drilling. Most modern locations, you would never know a rig had been there at all.
I agree with RPM here. Most environmentalists are woefully ignorant of modern technology, and of how corporate mentality has evolved since the 50s.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
lmao.... care to share?
no, i don't , it would take too much typing to explain in detail what happened and you still would not belive me. And i do not have a "offical" source so i can not "prove" anything.
-
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.
I used to work for the Water Quality Association which represented people like Culligan International. Water softener discharge was always a big issue in parts of California for that very reaon. The association filed a number of suits to get bans overturned, though, as I remember, most of those were against local communities. Our association PE was ex EPA, and he gave me an early education on how the agency works.
Charon
-
Originally posted by john9001
no, i don't , it would take too much typing to explain in detail what happened and you still would not belive me. And i do not have a "offical" source so i can not "prove" anything.
then why bother posting at all.
-
You misread my last post. I was not talking about any cover-up at TMI. I was referring to the SL-1 reactor in Idaho that exploded in 1961. linkage (http://www.radiationworks.com/sl1reactor.htm)
-
I would like to ban certain "types" of water softeners in my community (ones that don't recover the brine). the reason being that the EPA is making it impossible for me to do anything else. The city gets the blame while the 3 hippie professional students that wield the power of life or death over as many as 60 communities are never brought to task.
When people see how much the EPA is really costing them there will be a big shakeup.... It will be reminicent of the way the IRS gets a little nicer and whenever a flat tax is on the table or how the DMV gets more polite whenever privatization is mentioned.
lazs
-
I would like to ban certain "types" of water softeners in my community (ones that don't recover the brine). the reason being that the EPA is making it impossible for me to do anything else. The city gets the blame while the 3 hippie professional students that wield the power of life or death over as many as 60 communities are never brought to task.
I can certainly understand that. Is it just the EPA in California or do you have a state Water board that runs its own agenda in addition to the feds? I know where air quality is concerned CARB tends to be out in front of the feds.
Charon
-
Lazs, I figured you'd be more up in arms over the MTBE fiasco. The EPA caused more contamination and has done more long term damage to the environment than the reactor accident at TMI by forcing the use of MTBE in gasoline.
The EPA is a friend of business, not citizens. Try filing a complaint sometime and just see the wall of red tape and deaf ears that you will encounter while the polluter keeps doing business as usual.
-
Originally posted by 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.
This is my current understanding of the oil situation as well Dune.
-
Lazs, I figured you'd be more up in arms over the MTBE fiasco. The EPA caused more contamination and has done more long term damage to the environment than the reactor accident at TMI by forcing the use of MTBE in gasoline.
There are a lot of people you can point a finger at for that one, from EPA to the ethanol mfgs to the oil industry.
In a nutshell, the oil industry asked to be allowed to meet a goal using it's own solutions but ended up being told HOW to meet the goal. The ethanol industry pushed and won an "oxygenate" mandate from EPA (with the assumption that ethanol would be a primary oxygenate). Oxygenates were a solution to a problem that was largely disappearing through the use of oxygen sensors in cars. It is useful, however, in limited CO non-attainment areas ("wintertime" reformulated gasolines).
However, ethanol is very hard to work with since you can't ship it blended (or alone) in standard pipelines. The oil industry promoted MTBE as an effective alternative. However, if given the choice they could have met the ozone/smog standards without an oxygenate. Now, there are problems with MTBE (though the extent beyond taste and odor have not been established).
About par for the course where Washington is concerned. Since the marginal to negative clean air benefits of oxygenates are getting established and publicly understood , the ethanol lobby is now pushing the "foreign oil" angle, which aslo has a hard time adding up.
Charon
-
ugh, dbl post
-
I was very much against mtbe when it came out. I even attended a very large protest at the capital and did the letter writing thing.
The EPA is willing to accept any science no matter how fraudulent so long as it gives them more control and grows their power.
The EPA controls the water quality control board, parts of fish and game, and carb. They will soon be in every single aspect of our daily lives and making everything they touch turn to ****.
lazs
-
For the unfamiliar, the MTBE problem is that it is a hydrocarbon that is water soluble - therefore when this is added to gasoline, if a gas storage tank leaks the MTBE mixes with the groundwater and contaminates it. And I believe the ratio is such that a very very small quantity of MTBE can contaminates very very large amounts of water. Since its water soluble, cleanup of the groundwater is impossible, or at least prohibitively expensive?
Did I describe the gist of the problem?
-
Originally posted by genozaur
I love this story.
Step one: the voice of the people says 'Let's protect Mother Nature.
Step two: 'Let's do it' says the federal government, and makes the land a federal sanctuary.
Step three: 'Let's do it' says the government and starts oil drilling in this NOW FEDERAL land . :D
On October 18, 1867, when the US federal government purchased Alaska from the Czar, Alaska was completely owned by the US federal government.
58% of Alaska is presently owned federally, 29% is owned by the State of Alaska.