I will believe the Saudis don't see any upcoming problems with Ghawar when they cancel one of their projects due to low oil prices. If they continue to be full steam ahead with increasing their capacity then I think they are aware that Ghawar may not be as robust in 5 years time as they would like us to believe.
Yes, we need the oil, and nobody goes there anyway
10%
[ 3 ]
Yes, it will rape the land but we need the oil
13%
[ 4 ]
No, if ANWR opens up, all the national parks are at risk
3%
[ 1 ]
No, this is one of the last great wildernesses
31%
[ 9 ]
No, bring on peak oil
27%
[ 8 ]
Total Votes : 29
Author
Message
nero Light Sweet Crude
Joined: May 22, 2004 Posts: 1428 Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2004 4:58 pm Post subject: THE ANWR (Artic National Wildlife Refuge) Thread (merged)
ANWR (Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge) has become a political football in America. Some support opening this wilderness area to drilling for oil since it is estimated that there is another elephant somewhere in there. Others feel that it is the thin edge of the wedge and if they open this wilderness area there's nothing to stop them from drilling in Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon.
I think we should leave it closed. There's not enough oil there to make a difference, even if the rosiest estimates are correct.
However, I think we will drill ANWR, when TSHTF. If gas prices get too high, the political pressure will be intense to drill anywhere and everywhere.
And maybe ANWR won't be worth saving by then, anyway. The Inuit are reporting that global warming is becoming very obvious in the Artic. Summers are longer, ice is thinner, and the animals that depend on thick ice are starving. Nowhere on Earth is truly untouched.
My feeling on this isn't covered by any of the choices.
Here's the logic: If we really need it now, then our children will need it a hell of a lot more.
If we don't need it, we don't need it.
It's also true that the amount of oil likely to be there (estimated at anywhere from 3 billion barrels to 16 billion) isn't really that much in the overall scheme of things. On the other hand, 3-16 billion WILL be a lot of oil in 50 years or so, when we've better learned how to temper our usage.
As to "clean" methods of claiming the oil, if we have clean methods now, it seems likely our methods in 50 years will be even cleaner. _________________ http://www.openspeech.org - please visit and post!
Don't forget about the National Petroleum Reserve. ANWR is to the east of where they are currently drilling. The NPR is to the west.
Why is it that ANWR is always brought up and nobody really mentions the NPR?
Here is a summary of what is available in ANWR: link
The USGS estimated:
-a 95 percent probability that at least 5.7 billion barrels of technically recoverable undiscovered oil are in the ANWR coastal plain,
-a 5 percent probability that at least 16 billion barrels of technically recoverable undiscovered oil are in the ANWR coastal plain, and
-a mean or expected value of 10.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable undiscovered oil in the ANWR coastal plain.
-80 percent of the technically recoverable oil is commercially developable at an oil price of $25 per barrel (1998 dollars)
In the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska (West of Prudhoe Bay),
there is between 5.9 and 13.2 billion barrels of oil (BBO) of technically recoverable oil and between 39.1 and 83.2 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of natural gas on federal lands within NRPA
As part of the assessment, the USGS looked not only at the resources within NPRA but also at how these figures compared to estimates for oil and gas in the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). As Table 2 shows, the technically recoverable resources available in NPRA and ANWR are similar in quantity. "The similarities between these estimates may be misleading, however, because of differences in accumulation sizes (the ANWR study are is estimated to contain more acculumations in larger size classes) and differences in assessment area (the NPRA study area is more than 12 times larger than the ANWR study area)." At market prices of less than $35 per barrel, the larger accumulations and proximity to existing infrastructure make the resources within ANWR more economically recoverable than those in NPRA. But these differences are moot when the market prices goes above $35 per barrel. http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/npra.html
With oil now significantly above $35 per barrel, I wonder how long it will be before we start hearing about Alaska again.
The limitation on Alaska drilling is the Alaska pipeline. It can push about 2.2 million bpd south to the loading terminals. At present, they are sending 1 million bpd through it.
So even if we start drilling in ANWR and NPR, then we only fill the pipeline again to maximum capacity for about 25 years if we assume that each field produces at about the middle of both of their estimates.
Joined: May 23, 2004 Posts: 276 Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:55 am Post subject:
I picked the last option, not because I agree with it, but because it's the closest. ANWR's daily output will not make a scrap of difference in the grand scheme of things, even if you're an optimist.
Maybe in 50 years when all the critters are extinct and oil is valued, but not now while the critters are still there and oil is burned for fun. _________________ The purpose of human life revolves around an endless need to extract ever increasing amounts of carbon out of the ground and then release it into the atmosphere.
Joined: May 17, 2004 Posts: 1969 Location: Democratic People's Republic of Washington
Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2004 1:33 am Post subject:
Coolman wrote:
I know I am protesting if they drill in ANEW, how dare they want to touch nature, i rather suffer Peak Oil then have them drill in ANWR.
So says the man who is sitting behind a computer while on-line, in a home with modern electrical power, access to running water, access to many forms of entertainment, speed of transportation, a sterile hospital, a steady job, 57 channels on the TV, corporate owned radio stations, bulk-volume discount warehouses, superstores, convenience stores, a (somewhat) quality education, consumable goods, and a wide variety of foods from all over the world.
It seems that you wish to have all the conveniences of modern industrial life, but do not wish to live with the consequences that such a lifestyle inflicts on nature. You protest drilling in ANWR, while using modern forms of petroleum based transportation, eating products fertilized by petroleum based fertilizers, and drinking from a non-biodegradable plastic bottle. I know this, you are on-line with a computer, and the computer that you are using is NOT made of any biodegradable materials. There is a word for doing something that you do not want others to also do: Hypocrisy. Are you a vegetarian who wears leather shoes? Even if your shoes are made of vinyl and artificial rubber, they are still not biodegradable, and you are worried about the environment. That is a little hypocritical, and very senile. I think your stance could be summarized in this following paragraph.
I enjoy the ease of life offered by this consumer era, yet I do not want any other developing countries to become industrialized, and I am not willing to live with the consequences that modern life takes on the environment. I only buy consumable goods that break and get thrown in the garbage, and I do not recycle. Yet I am concerned that there are no places left on earth that are untouched by man's reach, and there is too much non-biodegradable garbage on, and orbiting the planet.
If you do not like the impact that modern life makes upon the natural environment, but continue to enjoy it, and wish for it to continue, then you are living in a fantasy world. The modern way of life simply cannot be sustained without exploitation of the natural environment. Even a completely agrarian society would have some impact on the environment. There are simply not enough resources on earth for a population of 6.4 billion people to attain and maintain a 1st world standard of living, and in the long term, there are not enough resources for the amount of people living in 1st world conditions, (myself included in this category), to continue to do so on such a wide spread basis.
Here is a topic on this very subject of resource requirements of civilization, and I advise that you take the test to inform yourself of the current situation: http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic1073.html . I myself am guilty of a resource consuming lifestyle. For every person on earth to enjoy my lifestyle, there would need to be the equivalent to 5.6 earths' worth of resources.
Therefore my stance on this issue is this: Since we have already looted, plundered and raped the earth to suit man, and Peak Oil will cause this modern society to come to a painful halt, we might as well drill in ANWR. We have collectively already done much more damage to the natural state of the planet with our industrial society than even several hundred wells in ANWR could ever accomplish, so why not finish the job of complete exploitation of the natural resource known as petroleum. The fact is that mankind cannot have a victory over nature forever. We will eventually deplete the petroleum reserves to a point where it can no longer sustain our modern lifestyle, and when this point comes, it will usher in the collapse of mankind's most complex society ever.
Nature will be damaged for some duration due to mankind's activities on this planet, but it will eventually recover to the state of natural existence that it once was. The process of natural reclamation may take hundreds, thousands, or millions* of years depending on how severe the damage is, but it will eventually recover to a completely natural and unadulterated state. We may have won the battle, but mother nature will win the war.
*=It will only take millions of years in certain areas, such as radioactive wastelands, and only over the whole planet if we manage to unleash the power of the sun here on earth with nuclear war _________________ Here Lies the United States Of America.
Joined: May 22, 2004 Posts: 1428 Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2004 1:48 am Post subject:
Buster wrote:
My feeling on this isn't covered by any of the choices. Here's the logic: If we really need it now, then our children will need it a hell of a lot more. If we don't need it, we don't need it.
One problem with saving it for when our children need it more is that it is an enormous waste of resources. Without sufficient oil the Trans Alaska pipeline will be shutdown.
One of the reasons why some companies wish to open ANWR is that if the pipeline is kept open longer they can pump a larger fraction of their existing fields. This analysis is of course moot when the prices spike because of peak oil, then almost any pipeline tariff will be acceptable.
K-semler - you may as well throw up the white flag and surrender with that additude. Perhaps you already have. ANWR is more a symbolic than practical item. By saying "we might as well finish the job", as your reason you are showing a lack of concern for the precarious state of our societies and our planet. As far as over-indulging in a convenient, high consumption life-style, I personally would rather work on curbing that step by step than rape the remaining wild-life. Many things we have are simply unneccesary and cost a lot of energy. It might be an uphill battle but it's better than giving up (which is what I consider running for the bunker to be).
K_semlar, first of all, I would love to live off the land, believe me, but I lack the training cause I was born into a society that does not require it, and I don't drive a car, I ride a bike everywere, I hate cars and refuse to get one. I feel depressed almost everytime I use electricity, such as this computer, so don't tell me how I am. Peak Oil is the best thing that could happen to the world in my eyes.
One of the reasons why some companies wish to open ANWR is that if the pipeline is kept open longer they can pump a larger fraction of their existing fields. This analysis is of course moot when the prices spike because of peak oil, then almost any pipeline tariff will be acceptable.
Certainly worth taking into consideration, which I did not. I gather the pipeline is the only reasonable means known of transporting even moderate quantities of oil out of the North Slope? _________________ http://www.openspeech.org - please visit and post!
Joined: May 17, 2004 Posts: 1969 Location: Democratic People's Republic of Washington
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 8:03 pm Post subject:
hymalaia wrote:
K-semler - you may as well throw up the white flag and surrender with that attitude. Perhaps you already have. ANWR is more a symbolic than practical item. By saying "we might as well finish the job", as your reason you are showing a lack of concern for the precarious state of our societies and our planet. As far as over-indulging in a convenient, high consumption life-style, I personally would rather work on curbing that step by step than rape the remaining wild-life. Many things we have are simply unnecessary and cost a lot of energy. It might be an uphill battle but it's better than giving up (which is what I consider running for the bunker to be). So no, don't drill.
Surrender is not an option; to surrender would only hasten the almost unavoidable collapse. Which attitude is it that you are speaking of that I might as well surrender with? If it is the attitude that a collapse of catastrophic levels is almost unavoidable, and it is better to get it over with sooner than to drag it out, then you have presumed correct in my attitude. Which is more humane, to die by slowly getting your heart carved out with a spoon, or to die in less than a second with one shot directly into the brain? I would choose the shot to the brain over having my still beating heart dug out of my chest with a spoon any day of the week.
You are correct in stating that ANWR has very little practicality, as it is only estimated to contain 5.7 GBPH with a 95% probably of extraction. Considering that the world demand is now 80 MBPD, this one oil well would power modern society for only 71 days, 6 hours at current demand levels. This would be a negligible increase in the amount of oil available to power modern society, so I see no harm in exploiting that resource, considering the direction our modern industrial civilization is heading in anyhow.
I do partially agree with you though. I fell that we should only exploit this reserve when we are in such a situation where it requires it. Until there is a shortfall in production meeting demand for crude oil, we should not tap into that reserve. This would serve as an emergency source that would serve as a stop-gap measure to briefly sustain world demand. This would delay the down slide somewhat, and further delay the necessity of extracting crude oil out of the federal emergency oil reserve. Also, keeping this reserve off line until demand required the exploitation of the resource would serve as a final warning to the world that the oil age is about to come to a screeching halt.
Coolman wrote:
K_semler, first of all, I would love to live off the land, believe me, but I lack the training cause I was born into a society that does not require it, and I don't drive a car, I ride a bike everywhere, I hate cars and refuse to get one. I feel depressed almost every time I use electricity, such as this computer, so don't tell me how I am. Peak Oil is the best thing that could happen to the world in my eyes.
I was incorrect in my assumptions about you in my previous statement then, and I apologize for the incorrect criticism of your viewpoint. If you feel guilty for using electricity from a non-renewable source, then you have the option of alternative energy. Ready made resources is a very good site for attaining all of your post-peak equipment, and it could also be used for attaining a sustainable lifestyle now during the oil age if you so wish. The prices may be somewhat expensive, but these are quality products that are designed for many years of reliability, and therefore there will be a higher cost associated with these products.
I disagree with you stating that peak oil is the best thing that could happen. The best course of action that would have had the least impact upon the environment, and would return the entire earth back to nature with human nowhere in the picture is the extinction of the human race. I do not think it is necessary to carry it to this extreme, but in case you are interested in VHMENT, I would advise you visit this site: link _________________ Here Lies the United States Of America.
For cripes' sake let's put to rest the whole "there's not enough there to make a difference" fallacy. We're drilling all over the world in lots of areas a lot smaller than ANWR right now, thousands of small oil fields and a few really giant ones make up our total 80mbl/day appettite. Every one of those small fields contributes importantly to the total world production. ANWR most definitely absolutely is important. Just because it's not as big as Ghawar doesn't mean it's worthless. We're drilling right now in smaller reserviors all over the world. I guess they're all too small to make a difference also. I see it as the USA's "ultimate" strategic reserve. We will need it and use it.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 24, 25, 26Next
Page 1 of 26
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
