Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 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:)
-
""estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels""
must be why they call it an "estimate"
-
Out of curiosity, what was the very first estimate of oil under Saudi Arabia?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Just a point of order here. An estimate is NOT a fact. It is a guess, scientific, but still a guess.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Oil spills from tankers are pretty rare these days.
N.J. targets vessel liability (http://www.nj.com/news/sunbeam/local/index.ssf?/base/news-4/1110273617232850.xml)
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.............
-
Originally posted by Toad
N.J. targets vessel liability (http://www.nj.com/news/sunbeam/local/index.ssf?/base/news-4/1110273617232850.xml)
Well, only a quarter million gallons or so.............
When was the last major oil spill? The Exxon Valdez maybe? (Prior to this one)
Major oil spills from super tankers dont happen that often Toad, especially when you consider how much oil is shipped via super tanker.
*edit* btw, I think raising the minimun insurance coverage for super tankers is a good idea. The oil companies should be paying every red cent of the clean up costs, not tax payers imo.
-
Originally posted by Toad
N.J. targets vessel liability (http://www.nj.com/news/sunbeam/local/index.ssf?/base/news-4/1110273617232850.xml)
Well, only a quarter million gallons or so.............
And it's just the Deleware river.......it's not like some arctic wastland was harmed or anything.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
*edit* btw, I think raising the minimun insurance coverage for super tankers is a good idea. The oil companies should be paying every red cent of the clean up costs, not tax payers imo.
oil co's don't pay anything, you pay at the pump for "their" clean up. the consumer/taxpayer pays for everything in the end.
there is no "government funding' it's all taxpayer funding.
there are no corp taxes, it's passed on to the comsumer.
-
With cleanup costs approaching $100 million in the Nov. 26 accident
$100 million isn't major money? A quarter million gallons in the river isn't a major spill?
OK.
Ship name Year Location Oil lost (tonnes)
Amoco Cadiz 1978 Off Brittany, France 223,000
Haven1991Genoa, Italy144,000
Torrey Canyon1967 Scilly Isles, UK 119,000
Urquiola1976La Coruña, Spain 100,000
Jakob Maersk 1975 Oporto
Portugal 88,000 Braer 1993 Shetland Islands, UK 85,000
Aegean Sea 1992 La Coruña, Spain 74,000
Nassia1994Black sea Turkey33,000
Sea Empress 1996 Milford Haven, UK 72,000
Erika1999Off Brittany, France20,000
Prestige2002 Off Cap Finistere, Spain 77,000
Source: ITOPF 2003
Now, your turn.
Because the drilling operations can disrupt things like caribou migrations. Pipelines can spring leaks etc.
The Alaska Pipeline was completed in 1977.
[/quote]Alaska's largest caribou herd, the Western Arctic Caribou herd, has grown to at least 490,000 animals, according to a survey recently completed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
This vast herd ranges over a 140,000 square-mile area bounded by the Arctic Ocean, the lower Yukon River and the trans-Alaska pipeline.[/quote]
How many huge oil spills have their been from the Alaska Pipeline?
I don't know... but I'm curious.
-
Originally posted by john9001
oil co's don't pay anything, you pay at the pump for "their" clean up. the consumer/taxpayer pays for everything in the end.
there is no "government funding' it's all taxpayer funding.
there are no corp taxes, it's passed on to the comsumer.
Give that man a cigar.
Exactly why Buisnesses and the Rich dont need to be taxed more.
It just gets passed on to the consumer.
Hell Even in my humble little buisness every time my costs go up I just pass it on
-
Originally posted by Toad
Out of curiosity, what was the very first estimate of oil under Saudi Arabia?
Dont know the answer to that. But this isnt the first estimate done. Even the oil companies dont disagree.
-
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.
Duh!! Obviously. And its not just the "enviros". We have war over there so we dont have it here. We do a lot of things "over there" so we dont suffer the effects.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
When was the last major oil spill? The Exxon Valdez maybe? (Prior to this one)
Major oil spills from super tankers dont happen that often Toad, especially when you consider how much oil is shipped via super tanker.
*edit* btw, I think raising the minimun insurance coverage for super tankers is a good idea. The oil companies should be paying every red cent of the clean up costs, not tax payers imo.
And be damned glad they dont happen often. Just google the economic repurcussions of a single spill.
-
ANWR is just smoke and mirrors. if want to pump domestic oil why not just uncap the wells in northern wyoming and pump away. there are many in the UP of michigan that are capped too. i would like to know why they are capped.
-
Originally posted by bigsky
ANWR is just smoke and mirrors. if want to pump domestic oil why not just uncap the wells in northern wyoming and pump away. there are many in the UP of michigan that are capped too. i would like to know why they are capped.
and Texas and Oklahoma too. The US has plenty of oil.......we are just gonna buy all the oil we can until it's gone, then we'll uncap those wells and pump away.
Those sorry Arabs will be back in the stone age again because they are too stupid to try to do anything to better there nations, other than sell oil.
-
Toad that is certainly more spills than I was aware of, but considering the sheer numbers of super tankers, and the amount of oil they transport yearly it is still a pretty safe way to transport the oil. (The Exxon Valdez isnt even in your list, it spilled crap loads of crude into a pristine wilderness, mid 80's)
Also Toad, it's been 18 years since I left Alaska. They may have found a solution to the caribous reluctance to cross the pipeline. I'm just not aware of it (as I stated earlier). If they have, whatever idea they came up with for the current pipeline could be applied to a new one as well.
From what I recall, even when the caribou werent crossing the pipeline they still migrated. They just used a new migration route. Caribou migration routes alter from year to year on a cycle. The caribou themselves are very hard on the land they migrate through. It takes something like 10 years for the land to recover from literally hundreds of thousands of animals passing over it. Concerns were also raised about whether or not a new migration route would have variances in it like the original one did.
The current pipeline isnt buried, is inspected on a routine basis and any required repairs are made immediately. So no...there hasnt been any major spills.
You're right john about the oil companies just passing the costs on to you and me, I am very tired atm and didn't consider that heh.
-
Originally posted by bigsky
ANWR is just smoke and mirrors. if want to pump domestic oil why not just uncap the wells in northern wyoming and pump away. there are many in the UP of michigan that are capped too. i would like to know why they are capped.
There are many wells capped in Colorado as well. In many cases it is not economically feasible to continue pumping from old wells.
-
Toad,
Thanks for bringing the point of caribou migrations to light. My Father-in-law works in the petroleum industry up there and told me that fact a while ago. The pipeline has not stopped their migrations and their population has grown since it was built.
As a mariner, the idea of stopping spills from ships is impossible. No amount of tanker construction safeguards will stop accidents. Double hull construction is only as effective as the quality of the ship's crew. Due to the actions of the Mate on watch, the Exxon Valdez would have still spilled a large amount of its oil even if it would have been double-hulled.
Holding companies liable is also a limited possibility. Most accidents happen on ships owned by single-ship companies. If brought to court, they can simply close up shop leaving the cost of the clean-up to the government. Even Exxon has limited its exposure by making each of its ships (now called Sea River Shipping) independent corporations.
Also the existance of countries that have low training standards and regulations (flags of convenience) are magnets to the ship owners wanting to maximize profit while limiting liability.
I have only heard of one large spill involving the Alaskan Pipeline. An angry local shot several holes in a section of it and caused a rather large spill. I believe it was in the 10,000 gallon range. I am not totally sure though. Still, drilling and shipping by pipeline, is much safer and more efficient than shipping.
-
I don't know if drilling in the ANWR is worth it or not.
I'm predisposed to think that it can be done without significant damage to the environment IF there is adequate oversight, which would include putting some of those opposed to it on the oversight board.
At least I think the risk wouldn't be too far out of line with that of shipping oil around the globe.
We'll see I guess.
-
Originally posted by bigsky
ANWR is just smoke and mirrors. if want to pump domestic oil why not just uncap the wells in northern wyoming and pump away. there are many in the UP of michigan that are capped too. i would like to know why they are capped.
Like I said before.
Use everyone elses first.
Lets say for instance life depended on crackers
And the Cracker supply was not infinate and at some point it will run out.
Now you have some crackers but someone else has alot more and is willing to part with them.
Whos crackers do you consume first?
If you consume all your crackers then you have no more.
Then your really screwed.
But if you consume all the other guys crackers first he may eventually run out or cut you off but you will still have some of your own.
Like it or not for better or worse this and most of the world and its industries are dependant on oil and its various byproducts in one form or another. Shut off the oil and everything comes to a sceeching halt and civilisation as we know it
Will cease to exist (Think Mad Max)
Think Im crazy? just think back to the oil shortage of the 70's and how nutty people were getting. And that was just a temporary shortage.
And alternative fuels on a large scale basis do not seem to be a viable option in the immediate future.
So for the moment we are stuck with what we have, and what other people have.
So before we cunsume all of ours we should comsume everyone elses and we will be in a much stronger position later when the watermelon really does hit the fan
-
Originally posted by Silat
"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:)
Pattern posting again Lew?
No on SS
No on Oil
-
Thanks for bringing the point of caribou migrations to light. My Father-in-law works in the petroleum industry up there and told me that fact a while ago. The pipeline has not stopped their migrations and their population has grown since it was built.
Dont think anyone said the migrations ever stopped :) I didnt bring up Alaska's caribou to be a focal point of this discussion. I was just using the caribou as one example of how another oil field could impact Alaska's environment.
This particular herd's growth is most likely attributable to excellent game management by the state of Alaska. They do an incredible job of managing the fish and game populations imo. But this is a topic for another thread ;)
Didnt know about that guy shooting holes in the pipeline. Thanks for the info.
-
I believe there's far more caribou now than there were when they built the pipeline. Something on the order of 40% +.
Good management? Of do pipelines increase the caribou survivability? ;)
-
What would Sigmund Freud have to say about a pipeline and an increase in the caribou population? Maybe I'm taking my dates to the wrong places.
"Hey babe, ever see the refineries by moonlight?" :cool:
-
Originally posted by Toad
I believe there's far more caribou now than there were when they built the pipeline. Something on the order of 40% +.
Good management? Of do pipelines increase the caribou survivability? ;)
Iirc caribou populations are also cyclic. Plus, in the mid 80's there was intensive wolf control operations performed by the state. (Read: hunting wolves from helicopters) Wolf populations had gotten to the point where they were having serious detrimental effects on the moose and caribou populations.
Concerns about the caribou being affected by the pipeline were about possible new migration route(s). Would the caribou still vary the route from year to year? If not, what kind of long term damage to the land could be expected?
Dang Toad, you are really working my tired brain tonight, I think I just about blew a brain fuse. :D
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Iirc caribou populations are also cyclic. Plus, in the mid 80's there was intensive wolf control operations performed by the state. (Read: hunting wolves from helicopters) Wolf populations had gotten to the point where they were having serious detrimental effects on the moose and caribou populations.
Concerns about the caribou being affected by the pipeline were about possible new migration route(s). Would the caribou still vary the route from year to year? If not, what kind of long term damage to the land could be expected?
Dang Toad, you are really working my tired brain tonight, I think I just about blew a brain fuse. :D
Who cares what routes they take to migrate? There are more of them now than before the pipeline. I remember hearing this on Rush a few years ago.
The Caribou actually thrive near the pipeline.
Also, the spotted owl ( I think) was said to only nest in a certain type of tree. Animal rights groups got construction projects shut down because of it. It was then discovered that the dumb owls would nest even in billboards.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
Pattern posting again Lew?
No on SS
No on Oil
Krusher you taking it personal? Sounds like you might be stalking me.
Try and discuss an issue instead of attacking the messenger.
-
The concern, as I understood it, was if pipelines would reduce the caribou population.
It would appear the one in place does not.
-
Who cares what routes they take to migrate? There are more of them now than before the pipeline. I remember hearing this on Rush a few years ago.
No one cares what route they take, as long as they continue to vary the route from year to year. If the herds didnt vary their routes each year there would be major (possibly permanent) effects on the land they travel.
The concern, as I understood it, was if pipelines would reduce the caribou population.
If the caribou had stopped migrating, the populations most likely would have dropped.
-
Sorry NUKE, but this:
"The US has plenty of oil.......we are just gonna buy all the oil we can until it's gone, then we'll uncap those wells and pump away.
Those sorry Arabs will be back in the stone age again because they are too stupid to try to do anything to better there nations, other than sell oil."
is just, plain wrong, my friend. The US will never be self sufficient of oil - never. You can pump all of the oil out of Alaska and still not make a dent in the oil deficit. And Saudi Arabia will be producing 40% of all the world's oil by 2015.
Some reading >> (http://www.tech-rep.org/energy.htm)
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Sorry NUKE, but this:
"The US has plenty of oil.......we are just gonna buy all the oil we can until it's gone, then we'll uncap those wells and pump away.
Those sorry Arabs will be back in the stone age again because they are too stupid to try to do anything to better there nations, other than sell oil."
is just, plain wrong, my friend. The US will never be self sufficient of oil - never. You can pump all of the oil out of Alaska and still not make a dent in the oil deficit. And Saudi Arabia will be producing 40% of all the world's oil by 2015.
Some reading >> (http://www.tech-rep.org/energy.htm)
didn't say self suffient. I know a few people that used to work in the oil business. They all have said that they have seen thousands of wells drilled, then capped off for later use. On guy told me that the US has a lot of oil just sitting, not being pumped.
-
"Production stops when the cost to produce is equal to, or greater than, the price."
Put that on a 3x5 card and carry it around in your shirt pocket for a day... :)
-
They gonna drill for the cheap stuff?
we got enough of the expensive crap to go around
-
You're still getting the cheap stuff, bunch. Hold onto your hat in about 18 months (and sell the SUV next summer). :eek:
-
Originally posted by Rolex
"Production stops when the cost to produce is equal to, or greater than, the price."
How long ago were the wells capped I wonder? Because oil is now $50 or higher a barrel, and OPEC apparently said $80/bbl is not impossible. Seems to me that should change the economics of whether or not to uncap some of these wells.
Here are some interesting tidbits from TR Reed's book "United States of Europe" regarding the economic strength of the European Union starting to overshadow the US. These are the percentages of power generation not related to fossil fuels:
France - 70% nuclear
Denmark - 40% wind
Norway - 90% hydroelectric (and Norway is an oil producer!)
In addition, the European states have priced expensive oil into their economies for many years with high taxation. By manipulating the tax rates, they can negate or minimize the effect of price shocks on the oil market, whereas the US economy gets hit with the effects of price jumps very rapidly (I know we've all seen that at the gas pump).
-
sounds like its time for the united states to get off the oil crackpipe and start thinking of some new ways to create energy....and actually doing it.
shouldnt be hard. we adopted the metric system didnt we?
oh, wait. bad example.
-
According to the National Enquirer, those thousands of capped wells [ :rolleyes: ] can't be uncapped because Elvis is alive and living in them and that's where the government and GM are secretly storing the carburetors that get 250 miles-per-gallon - and even more using tap water as fuel.
Really. I'm serious.
-
So THATS where you get your information, Rolex! ;)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
That's my point. :)
The same with ANWR.....just a wasteland pretty much.
Fool
-
Originally posted by oboe
By manipulating the tax rates, they can negate or minimize the effect of price shocks on the oil market
I don't think that has ever happened in any European country. It certainly would never happen here. The commies, the other left leaners, and the greens are so over represented in most goverments in Europe that they would sabotage any suchs attempts. One of the most important issues for the said groups is to ban private automobiles and all air traffic, or at least hinder their use with all means available. Economic growth or stability is very much secondary.
-
A lot of the environmentalist whiners don’t have a clue how little land is actually affected. I think they should fly across northern Alaska, west to east, and stare out the window as miles and miles of tundra go by. A four foot diameter pipe running across hundreds of miles of wilderness is not such a big deal.
(http://www.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/5/51/Alaska_Pipeline_Map.png)
(http://www.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/b/b7/Alaska_Pipeline.jpg)
(http://www.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/b/b0/Alaska_Pipeline_and_caribou.jpg)
eskimo