For some reason, House Republicans removed the ANWR drilling portion of the budget:
House leaders late Wednesday abandoned an attempt to push through a hotly contested plan to open an Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil drilling, fearing it would jeopardize approval of a sweeping budget bill Thursday.
They also dropped from the budget document plans to allow states to authorize oil and gas drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts — regions currently under a drilling moratorium.
The actions were a stunning setback for those who have tried for years to open a coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, to oil development, and a victory for environmentalists, who have lobbied hard against the drilling provisions. President Bush has made drilling in the Alaska refuge his top energy priorities.
The House Rules Committee formalized the change late Wednesday by issuing the terms of the debate when the House takes up the budget package on Thursday.
The decision to drop the ANWR drilling language came after GOP moderates said they would oppose the budget if it was kept in the bill. The offshore drilling provision was also viewed as too contentious and a threat to the bill, especially in the Senate.
It will probably be put back in during the conference committee (I think), but I do not understand the opposition to drilling in ANWR. I am under no illusion that drilling in ANWR will solve all of our problems, and I am in favor of measures designed to decrease consumption, increase conservation, and get more out of what we already use, but for the life of me, I don’t get the need to protect a few square miles of a vast tundra as if someone was talking about inviting oil firms to put 1930’s era drilling rigs in the middle of Yellowstone Park.
Steve
I think ANWR is not a big deal, in either direction. The issue is more symbolic than anything, but try telling that to the base of either party.
We’ll see what happens from here; someone said the GOP moderates extracted a promise that this wouldn’t be put back in during conference committee, although I’m not sure whether that’s accurate.
Katinula
Personally, I’m against the drilling for several reasons. First my inner tree hugger, which I recognize isn’t all that rational. But more importantly, the GOP has been representing ANWR as a solution to the energy crisis. It is a bandaid on a gaping wound and will solve a whole lot of nothing. NO matter how much oil is really there, the amount we are able to extract in a timely manner won’t make a dent in our ridiculous daily oil consumption. The risks that exist, and they do exist–maybe not as they did in the past, don’t seem to me to be worth the benefits. All drilling will do is put off better fuel standards, conservation measures and the push on alternative fuels. THIS is what will hurt us in the future as opposed to helping us in the long run.
Marcos
I don’t get the need to protect a few square miles of a vast tundra as if someone was talking about inviting oil firms to put 1930’s era drilling rigs in the middle of Yellowstone Park.
Hehe, that was Arnie Vinick’s position during the live ‘West Wing’ debate episode. He really drove that point home well with the audience.
Slartibartfast
Really? Where?
Personally, I think anyone who actually believes something this stupid…can we get a list of names, addresses and phone numbers? I have a great quantity of money that a former despot needs to get transferred into the US.
Steve
It’s the same branch of the GOP that says tort reform is the key to affordable health care, I’m fairly certain.
Mr Furious
I think giant red swaths of the country believed that and worse over the last six years. You can’t get one paragraph in to any REpub talking points on ANWR without some bullshit about making ourselves independant (or less dependant) on Mid East oil. Which, of course, is total crap. ANWR is literally a drop in a bucket ten years down the road.
Katinula is right, it’s a bogus sop to the oil industry that will result in everybody acting like they are doing something about the problem, putting off more important and actually benificial action.
I am against drilling in ANWR on principal, but I don’t think it is as big a deal as some.
Mr Furious
Christ, they were using Katrina as an excuse to open up ANWR…
Slartibartfast
And I want their names and email addresses. I also want the email addresses of those people who thought The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa meant Iraq has nukes. This could be the next gold rush.
The question of whether the GOP has represented ANWR drilling as the panacea to our energy ills, though, is still unanswered.
The Heretik
The caribou clearly hired Jack Abramoff to lobby for them.
Joey
It would take years before we as consumers even saw any of the oil from ANWR drilling. By that time, peak oil will be remarkably close, if it hasn’t come to pass already, and oil will be on the verge of not being a viable energy resource due to cost implications. Drilling in the ANWR isn’t even a band aid. It’s a placebo to this whole problem. It does absolutely nothing to help us in any way whatsoever. And fuck people anyway. I like caribou more. :)
Katinula
“But more importantly, the GOP has been representing ANWR as a solution to the energy crisis.
Really? Where?
Personally, I think anyone who actually believes something this stupid…can we get a list of names, addresses and phone numbers? I have a great quantity of money that a former despot needs to get transferred into the US.”
I guess when the GOP stated that drilling in ANWR was a principle part of their energy platform. When a principle part of your energy platform solves absolutely nothing, I think its time to re-tool. The GOP has been working on this for approximately what…12 years (4 Bush and 8 Clinton). All drilling in ANWR will do is let a bunch of people go to their constituents and say ‘see, we’ve made major progress in reducing our dependance on foreign oil’ all the while, not accomplishing that, or anything else for that matter but making the need for alternative fuels and conservation less urgent.
Snail
Well, in response to Mr. Furious and Slartibartfast, here is a portion of a transcript from a 2001 Crossfire, featuring Ralph Nader arguing with that paragon of journalistic excellence, Bob Novak, with Novak citing a fascinating stat on oil reserves in ANWR:
NOVAK: Ralph Nader, I hate to correct you, because I have had a lot of respect for you, but we get our oil from Iraq right now, and there’s plenty of oil in the ANWR, it’s about the equivalent of Saudi Arabia, and I want to run a current…
NADER: Now, say that again?
NOVAK: Saudi Arabia. It really is!
NADER: Oh really?
NOVAK: Yes.
NADER: Saudi Arabia has over 250 billion barrels of reserves so far.
NOVAK: I want show you…
NADER: This is fiction!
—————————–
At least some on the right were peddling ANWR as the answer to all America’s energy needs.
Davebo
We need to get over this whole ANWR thing now. And both sides should be ashamed of the way they have “debated” the issue.
On the left. Get over yourself. With directional drilling we can drill wells from a small footprint that actually end up up to seven miles away (current record if I’m not mistaken).
On the right, yes ANWR’s oil would be great to have. But let’s not pay oil companies to go get it. Quit with the royalty forgiveness and tax incentives to develop ANWR. If oil companies can’t develop the fields at a profit without government subsidies then we shouldn’t be developing it in the first place.
Veeshir
The funny part? The section for drilling was set aside by Jimmy Carter.
Somehow lost in all of the discussion today about ANWR, is the fact that Congress and President Carter – with the images of angry and frustrated drivers waiting in the long lines at gas stations still fairly fresh in their memories — set aside the 1002 area for possible oil and gas exploration.
A Democratically controlled Congress for the short-memoried.
Actually, there’s another really funny part. Remember how Prudhoe Bay drilling was going to ruin the environment and kill off the caribou?
This herd was quite small (only about 5,000) when oil development first started in the mid-1970s (Cameron and Whitten 1979),
…snip…
By the late 1980s, growth of the Central Arctic Herd slowed, and the herd stabilized at about 23,000.
Of course that’s an anti-drilling piece so the obligatory dig with unnamed indications. The herd isn’t thinning but there are troubling “indications”.
There are now indications that caribou which spend more time in or near the oilfields are not faring as well as other members of the Central Arctic Herd which seldom encounter development (Cameron 1995
Never let the facts get in the way of feelings.
Katinula
Good point Veeshir…now how about addressing the larger point that those against the drilling have been hammering home?
Namely, we won’t be seeing the oil for some time, however much there is won’t put a dent in our consumption because of the rate of extraction and refining and the fact instead of focusing on real solutions to the problem (CAFE and alternative fuels) that this will allow people to think something has been done about our foreign oil dependence at the expense of actually doing something.
“Never let the facts get in the way of feelings”
Also, never let a chance for partisan blame-laying (a Democrat set the land aside) get in the way of intellectually discussing an issue that has pros and cons on both sides.
neil
Hey, yeah! Why -don’t- we hand over a unique wildlife refuge belonging to the people, over to the oil companies so that they can wring some oil out of it and sell it? It sure would help the economy, I mean, those oil companies are barely turning a profit now and could certainly use a large government handout.
Anyway, the GOP is so busy being the party of ideas that in the last six years, they have been unable to think of a single goddamn bit of energy policy worth turning their legislative majority towards enacting besides that special ANWR oil. Man, that must be some sweet, sweet crude.
neil
Re Katinula, I think it’s a sure sign that the GOP is in trouble that their main defense is becoming “This unpopular policy we pushed was the Democrats’ idea all along.” Now there’s some bold accountability! Not to mention strong party initiative. Turns out for the last 6 years, all Bush and the Republican Congress have been doing is following Clinton’s foreign policy and Jimmy Carter’s energy policy. Yup.
Veeshir
now how about addressing the larger point that those against the drilling have been hammering home?
Namely, we won’t be seeing the oil for some time, however much there is won’t put a dent in our consumption because of the rate of extraction and refining and the fact instead of focusing on real solutions to the problem (CAFE and alternative fuels) that this will allow people to think something has been done about our foreign oil dependence at the expense of actually doing something.
Okay, I’ll adress it using sarcasm.
Yeah, since it won’t immediately solve all our problems we should in no way shape or form ever decrease our dependence on imported oil.
How’s that? The more we produce internally, the less we have to import the less dependent we are on volatile parts of the world, Middle East and Venezuala for instance.
As for CAFE, now that’s funny. Do you realize the growth of the evil SUV is a direct result of CAFE? Trucks are in a different category so with the demise of the station wagon they needed something that was big but wouldn’t ruin the cars meeting the CAFE standards. Also, which would you rather be in in an accident, a 72 Chevy Nova or a 92 Chevy Nova?
As for alternative fuels, like what? Hydrogen? Do you know how we produce hydrogen? Oil and coal fired electrical generation. Oh, and water-power electrical generation like that in Niagara Falls, NY.
Pop quiz about Love Canal (google it if you don’t know about it)
Where is Love Canal?
Niagara Falls.
Niagara Falls has a lovely aroma on the US side. There are very many signs guarding various areas in and around the area declaring, “Warning, area of chemical contamination”. I know because I used to hang out there and I used to have a few of those signs.
Now, if you are advocating nukular power plants to produce the hydrogen, you might have something. But somehow I doubt it.
Alternative fuels have been being studied since the 70s and nobody has yet to solve the problems involved. I’m all in favor of figuring out alternate fuels, but to pretend we’re not spending a lot of money trying to find them is just ignorant.
In the meantime, how about we utilize those sources for the fuel we currently use?
Slartibartfast
“some on the right” doesn’t equal “GOP”. At least, not automatically. I do think that’s one of the more stupid things I’ve ever seen Novak say (disclaimer: I never watch whatever show he’s on), and I especially want the email address of anyone who believed it.
There are minor differences between a unique wildlife refuge and .01% of a unique wildlife refuge that bear examination. Just a suggestion.
Cyrus
I guess that’s the simplest reason for opposition to drilling in ANWR – the difference between this and 1930s rigs in Yellowstone is only one of degree, not of type. Using the least destructive and disruptive drilling rigs possible is still using destructive and disruptive drilling rigs. Drilling for oil in a remote and almost unknown gigantic federally-owned pristine wilderness is still drilling for oil in a gigantic federally-owned pristine wilderness.
It’s symbolic on both sides, really. As you’ve said, the benefit of drilling in ANWR is minimal, and while I don’t think the harm is minimal – obviously – it might not be as bad as similar efforts that turned out to be less controversial. I like how August J. Pollack put it.
Joey
It takes years to set up oil wells. By then, it probably won’t matter. It won’t make us any less dependent.
Steve S
ANWR is being pushed by Alaskans, largely because their current oil fields are going to be depleted in 10 years, and then after that nobody will have a reason to live in their state except to go fishing.
And to the idiot claiming the GOP has not tried to sell this as the solution to our energy problems. Please… Are you on crack?
Steve S
And one last thing.
The House has always supported ANWR. It’s the Senate which has been reluctant, but just recently narrowly squeeked in passage by like 52-48 vote.
The fact that the House is now backing off seems to indicate that the Republicans are running scared for 2006.
neil
For one thing, I seriously doubt that 0.01% figure, and the also-tossed-around 0.5% figure. It’s been several years since I paid attention to this but I recall the two statistical tricks played were a) not counting roads/support structures/clearcut areas, but just percentage of square meters which would be covered with oil wells; and b) it conjures up images of carving off a teeny-tiny piece of the refuge to drill on, rather than putting a web of roads connecting drills in various sites.
As for the emphasis, the relevant section is on Pages 51-52 of the 2004 Republican Party Platform, dealing with energy. Here are the bullet points, summarized:
* $2 billion over 10 years for clean coal research
* $1.7 billion over 5 years for hydrogen cars
* Drill in ANWR for 16 billion barrels of oil, which we’ve been trying to do for 10 years
* New natural gas exploration and a pipeline from Alaska
* Modernize the nation’s electricity grid
* Tax credit for wind power, biodiesel, ethanol
* New nuclear plants
There is basically only one action item on this list, a 10-year-old idea that has been rejected several times by the process; one might say that it has lost an up-or-down vote, or perhaps that the GOP should get over it.
Anderson
I thought the Alaskan oil was a “strategic reserve,” which meant that we were sitting on it against the day when the oil runs out and we have to keep a minimum of oil available while we’re switching over to the Next Big Thing.
What else does “strategic reserve” mean?
Slartibartfast
Given that I’m the only one that’s said anything remotely resembling this, I assume you’re talking to me. I didn’t actually say this, though, so I’m thinking you’re a bigger idiot than I am.
There are courses on reading comprehension; investment in one of these would probably worth your while.
Neil, the projected impact to ANWR drilling is about 2000 acres out of 19 million. I’d think that any legislation to allow drilling there could include restrictions on exactly where drilling, road-building and other things that might tend to impact the local ecology could be done.
Steve
To go back to a tangential topic, when Bush brought up Saddam and African uranium, was he really not trying to imply that Saddam was potentially a nuclear threat? If not that, then what was the point?
Katinula
Veeshir…aaahhh sarcasm. The last refuge of the truly intellectual discussion. I never said we shouldn’t reduce our dependance on foreign oil. I’m all for it. ANWR won’t do that. As for Love Canal, I’m an environmental consultant so yes, I do know all about it.
The fact that we don’t know which alternative fuels will work is exactly why we should be spending more money on this. Evenutally the oil, even in ANWR will run out. Why aren’t we working on a solution now?
As for fuel standards, I think tougher standards, a bit more responsible consumerism on the part of average Americans and a concerted effort by our government to force the auto industry to develop cars that meet the standards is whats needed. Not tax breaks for businesses who buy SUVs. One good thing is the tax breaks for those who buy hybrids…see I can give the GOP props when they do good.
The bottom line is that ANWR will solve absolutely zero of our energy problems. It isn’t enough oil by a long shot to significantly decrease our dependance just based on how much we can extract and refine. It will take us years to set up infrastructure to get at whats there. Peak oil is looming. Why risk it?
Kevin
Slartibartfast, you repeat the claims that: “the projected impact to ANWR drilling is about 2000 acres out of 19 million.” This is completely false and misleading.
ANWR is one of the few wild areas left in North America. The great president Carter fought hard to preserve this wilderness, and a large part of the rock and ice in the Brooks Range was declared wilderness, but the coastal plain, the reproductive heart of the wilderness, was declared the 1002 study area, with drilling to be decided later, IN ORDER to get the whole Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act passed.
To the west of Prudhoe, an equally large and wild area was declare the NPR, the National Petroleum Reserve. This entire area was presumed open to exploration, with some limits to be imposed around bird nesting habitats. The ANWR was presumed off-limits, unless drilling was voted in.
ANWR is our last hope to preserve wild Alaska. The drillers know that if they can defeat the conservationists here, they will prevail in other fights in the Missouri Breaks, the Front Range and in Wyoming.
The 2,000 acre lie is based on counting just the drilling pads themselves, and the square inches of the foot supports for the piplelines. It omits ice roads, gravel roads, gravel mines, helipads, pipelines, housing, and many other construction activities and infrastructure.
Drilling in ANWR would ruin it. Also the great part of ANWR (your 19 million acres) are the mountains of the Brooks range. The wildnerness area is 8 million and the costal plain is only 1.5 million acres. The entire area is expected to hold technically recoverable oil(excluding State and Native areas) of between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels.
And almost all of this projected recoverable oil lies in the western “undeformed” part of 1002. Which represent about a third of the total.
So the drilling would be concentrated in less than 500,000 acres and would cover much more than 2,000 acres. In fact, the ENTIRE area would be crossed and broken up by oil infrastructure and would no longer exist as a wilderness.
Which, yes, its a bad thing.
Veeshir
I thought the Alaskan oil was a “strategic reserve,”
Ummmm, no. If you had googled “Strategic Oil Reserver” you would have seen this as the first hit.
The Naval Petroleum Reserves operated three major oil fields located in California and Wyoming.
And this as the second link with this
The (Strategic Oil) reserve stores about 570 million barrels of crude oil in underground salt caverns at four sites along the Gulf of Mexico.
As for this The bottom line is that ANWR will solve absolutely zero of our energy problems
I absolutely agree with this. Although I’m not sure who this was directed to as I never made this claim. Perhaps a strawman was running through here? I said it will reduce dependency on unfriendly countries, which it most assuredly will. You see, if we produce X bbls of oil and import Y bbls of oil a year for a grand total of using Z bbls of oil a year, then increasing X will decrease Y. X+Y=Z, increase X then Y decreases. Math is cool because it works.
And no, sarcasm is not The last refuge of the truly intellectual discussion., it’s the best refuge for replying to truly inane comments.
Veeshir
Oh, and Kevin? Check my link about Carter setting aside this section of ANWR for oil exploration. It really is quite informative.
Slartibartfast
The whole thing? Ok, I’ll buy that 2000 acres may be a minimalist accounting; try doing something realistic in response, as opposed to performing the same trick. If it’s dishonest to screw with data to make your case, it’s equally dishonest to screw with it in opposition to that case.
The great president Carter just cracked me up. Neither here nor there, of course, but…well, I think SNL has perhaps overlooked this particular font of humor. Don’t get me wrong; in person he’s a nice enough old guy, but as president he did little enough in the way of intelligent things to be defeated by a Republican while the memory of Nixon was still rather fresh.
Katinula
Math is cool..you are right. I sure hope the Saudis get the message that we don’t need them anymore. Especially since x+y=z…and Y is, oh I don’t know, a trillion times bigger than x will ever be. We’ll teach them damn Saudis a lesson sooner or later.
It will decrease our imports yes, not our dependance. BIG difference.
Kevin
He saved ANWR at the time and up until now. That made him great.
Whatever he did with the bunny or with the tennis court I really don’t care about. or his teeth or his house-building…etc.
jg
Drilling in ANWR is a waste of time. The costs of getting there, creating the infrastructure (roads, housing, drills, pipelines) as astronomical. Its a base riling fantasy, just like flag burning and gay marriage. The dems are against it so the repubs are for it.
Davebo
I think we need to reach a basic understanding about our dependance on foreign oil here in the US. So let me try to make one thing clear.
We will always be dependant on foriegn oil. If every drop of oil consumed in the US were domestically produced, we would still be dependant on foriegn oil. Unless of course you believe that either democrats or republicans will nationalize US oil companies in the near future (that is, if we could even determine which companies were “US companies”).
The only advantage to producing all of our oil domestically is that it would prevent other nations from holding us hostage by refusing to sell us their oil. But there are far too many oil producing countries out there for this to be likely.
Oil will continue to be traded on a global commodities market, and the actions of foreign producers will still affect the price per barrel of all oil sold on Earth including any oil domestically produced.
Kevin
and YES “The whole thing?”
Once we go in there and build roads and pipelines and dump crap on the ground and spill oil and drilling wastes and shoot “problem” bears….even if we just do it here and here and here and there…the whole wilderness area is shot.
Kevin
er Veeshir….?
Is this the Carter link you’re talking about?
“ANWR Talking Points” “House Republican Conference”
Repthug talking points!!! That’s supposed to tell us anything? I have to assume all the points are lies or misrepresentations until proven otherwise.
Slartibartfast
Kevin, the great President Carter set aside part of ANWR specifically for oil exploration. Still think he’s the bees’ knees?
I think the rest of your assessment isn’t based on anything at all other than your feelings. Which, unless you’re a Jedi (or Sith Lord) in the making, don’t count for all that much.
Veeshir
Y is, oh I don’t know, a trillion times bigger than x will ever be
Huh?
If a trillion=2 then you are right on.
If you mean Y= (change in X) times a trillion, I guess that means the ANWR would produce .00001bbls/day.
I see math isn’t your strong suit.
Veeshir
I have to assume all the points are lies or misrepresentations until proven otherwise.
That’s the spirit. Never mind trying to prove they’re wrong, that’s so bourgeois.
jg
really? Feelings? There are no costs associated with drilling? It won’t cost billions to set up and extract? I’m, not too worried about envirnmental damage but are you saying there’d be none?
Veeshir
Once we go in there and build roads and pipelines and dump crap on the ground and spill oil and drilling wastes and shoot “problem” bears
I suggest you google Prudhoe Bay and look at the rules they labor under. It would really be quite informative and you would stop looking so silly.
Kevin
He was the best. Go check your history. It was Congress that deferred the decision. and my analysis is not just based on my feelings. Its based on the standards required to include areas in the wilderness system. Once we build a road there it can never be included.
see
“However, the ANCSA’s environmental protections had a shelf-life and would have expired by 1978 unless new legislation was passed. That led to a battle in the late 1970s over whether more Alaskan land should be preserved or opened up for development. President Jimmy Carter used the Antiquities Act in 1978 to designate 56 million acres of Alaskan land, thus forcing the eventual passing of new legislation in 1980.
The Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 doubled the protected area to 19.8 million acres and renamed it the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The legislation also permanently designated most of the original range as protected wilderness, creating millions of acres of new national parks and monuments throughout Alaska.
However, Congress deferred decision on a 1.5 million-acre area of coastal plain, the so-called 1002 Area, after the ANILCA section carving it out of the other protections. Whether for symbolic reasons or for the actual development at stake, this 1002 Area has become a battleground between environmentalists and oil interests since 1980. ”
http://www.newsaic.com/mwenvironment.html
don’t blame Carter, he did all he could.
Kimmitt
From the GOP platform:
Kevin
“Veeshir Said:
“That’s the spirit. Never mind trying to prove they’re wrong, that’s so bourgeois.”
why bother? pick the one you quoted. “Kevin, the great President Carter set aside part of ANWR specifically for oil exploration.”
That’s a lie. HE DID not do that. If he had his way the entire 1002 area would have been included.
jg
But only because we don’t import much from Saudi Arabia. 16 billion barrels is about 1 1/2 years of oil use in the US, plus 16 billion is the upper end of the estimate, most likely there’s less and we can only extract 1/2 in most cases. I’m not against it for environmental reason, purely practical. Its not worth it….yet.
Kevin
Again you talk out your ass:
“I suggest you google Prudhoe Bay and look at the rules they labor under. It would really be quite informative and you would stop looking so silly.”
The rules? Look at the reality. This area is now contaminated with industrial wastes. AND the same thing would happen in ANWR. Lying and violating the rules are the normal mode of conduct for polluters and exploiters.
You seem to have some snot dripping out of your nose. You look pretty stupid.
Mr Furious
I’ve got NO problem with that. In fact, I’ve come full circle on nuclear. It needs to be a big part of the future.
Kevin
err JG… 16bbl is the 5% (best case) recoverable oil amount, for the entire area. The best case for the non-deformed area is 10bbl and the worst case is 3.5bbl.
The US imported about 1.4 million bar/day from saudi arabia so far in 2005. (about 510 mbl/yr) The estimated development rate for ANWR oil is as follows:
Table 3. Example of Production Schedule Projection for 10.3 Billion Barrels Developed at 400 Million Barrels per Year for the ANWR Coastal Plain
Producing Rate for Each Year of Development (Mbbls/day)
Year
1 2 3 4 – — – — – – – -25 Total
1 25 — — — —– — 25
2 50 25 — — —– — 75
3 100 50 25 — —– — 175
4 91 100 50 25 —– — 266
5 82 91 100 50 —– — 348
6 74 82 91 100 —– — 422
– – – – – —– – —
65
– – – – —– 2 2
Source: Energy Information Administration, Reserves and Production Division.
This chart shows, that under current production estimates, we would never ever pump enough to replace Saudi oil in even one year no less 20.
MORE REPTHUG LIES!!
that’s why the talking points are no good.
jg
umm Kevin. You just used a lot more words and some numbers to say what I already said. LOL
Mr Furious
Cyrus-
You are right, Pollock nails it.
Kimmitt-
Nicely played.
jg-
I know that and you know that, but the clear implication is that Saudi Arabia = MidEast oil. Is it true we actually get most of our imported oil from Canada? That just isn’t as juicy for anybody’s rhetoric…
jg
I don’t know about Canada but we do get lots from Mexico and from south america. I think we get some from Bush’s buddy in Venzuela too. Only about 10% comes from the middle east right now. If we ever get Iraq on line who knows how much we’ll get from them or us or um whatever.
nyrev
I’m glad they decided to take it off the budget. The ANWR is an ecosystem. The “system” part of that means it’s very hard to just mess up a little of it without negatively affecting the whole thing. The idea of taking the first steps to destroy a pristine ecosystem just for a very temporary fix to our energy problems doesn’t sit well with people. And even if you don’t believe that there’s any intrinsic value in nature, we might want to spend a bit of time studying the projected impact of significantly increasing the release of hydrocarbons in one of the areas that is most likely to be sensitive to global climate change.
Plus it’s nice to see conservatives who are still willing to conserve things.
Mr Furious
“But there’s no such thing as climate change!”
Seriously, this is a very good point, I’ve not seen brought up anywhere.
Kevin
JG, Furious
more numbers LOL
Country Aug-05 Jul-05 YTD 2005 Aug-04 Jan – Aug 2004
MEXICO 1,614 1,497 1,565 1,588 1,597
CANADA 1,610 1,624 1,608 1,503 1,612
SAUDI ARABIA 1,444 1,499 1,512 1,755 1,464
VENEZUELA 1,299 1,327 1,325 1,194 1,317
NIGERIA 1,053 1,047 1,043 1,184 1,106
ANGOLA 585 219 423 341 303
IRAQ 369 615 534 800 667
ALGERIA 330 325 229 352 230
UNITED KINGDOM 321 259 243 174 251
ECUADOR 292 217 280 256 211
COLOMBIA 208 172 155 143 147
KUWAIT 199 272 198 191 227
GABON 162 124 126 65 128
BRAZIL 127 138 93 50 61
LIBYA 116 16 46 34 13
Kevin
jg Says:
umm Kevin. You just used a lot more words and some numbers to say what I already said. LOL
just a correction because you had added; “most likely there’s less and we can only extract 1/2 in most cases”
and the 16bbl is the maximun recoverable amount
Katinula
Veeshir, sorry you took my exaggeration to prove a point as being a factual assertion. The larger point remains and your little math equation does nothing to disprove it.
The oil contained in ANWR, taking into account the time for infrastructure construction, the amount we can extract and the refining capacity of the US, will never reduce our dependance on foreign oil. It might reduce our imports, but not by anything signficant.
BIRDZILLA
So how high do we have to pay for gas and how high should our utility bill go before they stop listening to the marlarley from the eco-freak idiots?
nyrev
How high do we have to pay for gas and how high should our utility bill go before we start seriously investigating alternate sources of energy?
Veeshir
will never reduce our dependance on foreign oil. It might reduce our imports,
Now that’s funny. You know, because sometimes we import non-foreign oil.
jg
I’ll see if I can help you out Veeshir.
He’s saying that having domestic oil reduces the amount that we need to import but doesn’t change the fact that we are still dependant on foreign sources. We’ll never find enough domestically to end our dependance, we’ll just import less.
Got it?
If we take in Iraqi oil and we own Iraq is it a domestic source or foreign?
Katinula
Thanks jg…I didn’t realize it was that subtle a point I was making.
Also, its “she’s” saying…no harm though.
Veeshir
He’s saying that having domestic oil reduces the amount that we need to import but doesn’t change the fact that we are still dependant on foreign sources.
Ummmm, no,
She said, will never reduce our dependance on foreign oil.
Unless “reduce” is a synonym for “still”.
“Will never reduce” not “still dependent”.
It’s even funnier now that you are actually defending that absurd statement.
I’ll give you an analogy.
My expenditures for a week are $150. Each week I make $50. In that week I must borrow $100. I am dependent on borrowing. Now, this week I make $75, now I am less dependent on borrowing because I only need to borrow $75.
Katinula
Veeshir…try to stay with me…
“will never reduce our dependance on foreign oil”. If you think that ANWR is going to make some drastic difference in the dependance we have on foreign oil, you are wrong.
I guess I could have more accurately said “will never make a significant reduction”. Kudos for the grammatical check….and yet…THE POINT REMAINS.
Veeshir
Saying that it “will never reduce our dependence” is stupid.
Try to stay with me, if we increase domestic production we will, inherently, reduce dependence on imported oil.
And yes, you should have said “will never make significant reduction”. While that point is debatable, it is not stupid.