Published: Saturday, Nov. 30 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
Alaska, their people receive money for the oil. So what is our good leaders
doing with the money with ours from public land. Then to think about the
hazardous wast that gets dumped on public land. Why are we paying for education
or even have taxes.
Lets look at ANWR with facts.The mean estimates of reserves in ANWR
are about 10 billion of recoverable oil.Sounds like a huge amount.
However, we use about 18.5 million barrels per day. The world uses about 90
million barrels per day.So, if we look at ANWR in relation to US and
world consumption....ANWR contains about 500 days of US consumption and
about 110 days of world consumption.Yes, every little bit helps, but
to think that ANWR will solve all (or even much) of our energy needs is naive.
The US should do all it can to make sure other nations don't have leverage
over our economy. We have seen the impact of that before. But statements
hoping ANWR drilling will impact the price of oil in any significant way at the
pump, unfortunately are benefits you will never see. Even with the
most generous estimates, ANWR will impact global supply in around One percent.
That is not enough to move the dial when it comes to consumer prices. If that
is your end goal, ANWR just doesn't provide enough impact.We
should be being creative in was to leverage our resources. We should be
exploring all out options - including coastal drilling. Demand growth though,
left unchecked, will out strip our ability to produce - it is a loosing battle -
and will be reflected in cost at the pump. Curbing the demand curve is the only
way to meaningfully impact price, if that is your motivating factor - and that
can only be achieved through efficiency and alternatives.It is far
more economically viable to impact demand or improve efficiency by 1 percent
than it is to increase supply the same.
Drilling ANWR would be a disgrace; it would just continue to feed the addiction.
Our national addiction to cheap gas is keeping us from developing mass transit,
which would make us independent of foreign energy sources and save our air
quality at the same time.
As long as Obama is in the White House, no intelligent decision on energy will
ever be made. He would rather buy oil from our enemies and ship it across oceans
than buy it from our neighbor via he Keystone pipeline or drill for it on our
public lands. He prefers Solyndra and algae to real solutions. After billions of
taxpayer dollars squandered on loan guarantees and tax subsidies to promote
electric cars and batteries, Obama's goal of one million electric cars is
not even close to being achieved.
Mountain.... see.... that is the problem. There is a pipeline NOW that does
what Keystone XL promises. This is all part of the story telling that is going
on. People talk about honesty, but if you simply look at the existing pipelines
- this connection is available and alive today.All Keystone does is
creates a shortcut. That is all. It is not providing any routes that
doesn't exist today. Stop believing the hype, do a little research, and
see what really is at stake here. This is about Enbridge and Transcan... has
nothing to do with Obama.This is about pipelines trying to get a
competitive advantage over rail, or existing pipelines. This is not about
adding any new capability.
Where are you getting your facts?The United States imports only 40
percent of its oil (not 60 percent). Our greatest trading partners are Canada
and Mexico, not the Middle-East. Trading with our neighbors helps all of our
economies. Besides, what happens if we drill in Alaska? What is to
stop that oil from being traded to China? Unless Kelsey supports
nationalizing our oil, then there's no guarantee that new oil drilled will
even stay here in the United States.Lastly, oil is traded as a
commodity. Meaning, supply and demand doesn't necessarily even apply here.
Remember in 07 when gas prices doubled? Supply had actually doubled and demand
had deceased. So why did gas prices double? Speculation. The high
gas prices we see today isn't the result of low supply and high demand, but
increased greed by those in charge. Why only charge $2 per gallon when you can
As of 2011, the oil and gas industry have over 6000 permits to drill on public
lands that it has yet to use, according to Bureau of Land Management data.I wonder how many have lived near a refinery or drilling sites. They
are a blight and a hazard wherever they are located. A neighborhood in Arkansas
is still suffering from the effects of a disastrous oil spill. The U.S. still
has much it can do in the way of conservation.
Another letter filled with misrepresentations, outright fibs, and just plain
nonsense.Straight from the talking points of conservative hate
Why?Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will not do anything
to alleviate the problems of the American people with the supply and price of
oil products. It will allow the mega oil corporations to solidify
their hold on the oil resources of the world. It will make a few dozen more
millionaires and enrich the wealth of hundreds more. If drilling in
ANWR costs more than oil from other sources, it will be allowed to sit idle. If
drilling ANWR costs less that other sources it will be exported to the world
market. This is true for any oil drilling in America. The only way
for Americans to benefit from oil drilling in America is if we stop allowing the
export of oil and break the strangle hold that the energy corporation have on
There is more coal in the world than oil. The United States has more coal than
any other nation.
We need to consume all the oil as rapidly as possible to prevent future
generations from having any.
I understand the point of this letter, but the world has changed in the last
couple of years. The game has changed with shale oil. Light sweet crude is
becoming abundant. US domestic production has increased by one million barrels
a day in the last year. It will continue to increase. Someone pointed out that
40% of our oil is imported. A few years back it was more like 60%. I guess you could open up the ANWR but then the people who might drill and
develop the infrastructure would be wanting to invest in putting a pipeline from
North Dakota to Houston.I like the Keystone Pipeline. We should
invest in the infrastructure, or else we'll end up like . . . Pakistan.
Given that a Canadian company is doing it for us, we are dumb to turn it away.
The heavy crude will be used in US refineries to balance out all the light stuff
that will be coming in. Then the rest of it will be sold to foreign refineries
to balance all the light stuff that is going to be available when light sweet
crude from Nigeria stops coming to the US because of our own light sweet crude.
Domestic oil production has increased steadily except in talking points.
We cannot produce enough petroleum domestically to modify world prices.
The only lies, talking points, and misconceptions here are from the
anti-drilling crowd. First, the impossible "statistic" that 10 billion
barrels is not much oil. The fact is, ANWR's daily production of 1.5 to 2
million barrels per day would be more than we import from any Middle Eastern
country.Second, about "feeding the addiction." It's
more accurate to say "feeding the need." We've needed ANWR's
oil and its economic benefits for decades (as the letter pointed out), and
because of Bill Clinton's veto in the 90's we don't have it
today. There is NO ALTERNATIVE to oil and gas, and all the wishing in the world
won't change that.Third, ANWR is projected to create 750,000
jobs in all 50 states. No other measure we could take could generate so many
good-paying jobs. It's not about millionaires. Check your 401K to see
which oil companies YOU own.Fourth, ANWR is not about world
consumption or world prices at all. That's a straw man. It's about
American security and economy, and the benefits there are undeniable.
@Sensible Scientist - where did you come up with those numbers.... " create
750,000 jobs in all 50 states"?ANWR... is going to create jobs
in North Carolina? In Utah? Care to elaborate? Currently there are only
about 130,000 people total working field jobs in E&P. Where are there 750K
coming from?On your fourth point - I completely disagree.
Preserving our own resources is far more strategic, not depleting them. Other
Alaska production is already on the decline. The more of our own reserves we
burn, the more we become dependent on foreign capacity long term. On the other
hand, if we deplete global reserves while preserving our own... in the long term
we are far better off."There is NO ALTERNATIVE to oil and gas,
and all the wishing in the world won't change that." Now that is just
a silly statement. Oil and gas are the most economical right now, but claiming
they are our only option...that is pure fiction.
I'm going to go ahead and say UtahBlueDevil is a lot more accurate than
anything being claimed by "sensible scientist". SS's claims
don't sound very sensible or scientific.
Oil from Alaska cannot be exported without permission from Congress. Only once
has this been granted from 1996-2000 when Congress allowed a maximum of 5% to be
exported to alleviate oil gluts in California refineries. Flow rates are so low
now through TAPS that the issue is mute. 59 out of 60 Alaska State Legislators
support exploration in the 10-02. Every Governor, Senator, Representative we
have had has supported development. Every Mayor of Kaktovik and every Mayor of
the North Slope Borough has supported development. Partisanship simply
doesn't play a part in this debate in Alaska. You cannot produce nor
consume all the oil from one place all at once. TAPS can only deliver a maximum
of 2.1mbpd and at that rate USGS 10-02 predictions would last 50 plus years.
Why argue about Keystone when we could be producing it ourselves and keeping the
money too! Indeed our pipeline ALREADY EXISTS!
The lies and distortions in this article and by several posters are numerous.
If you want to convince Americans to open ANWR you'll need to start to use
facts and honesty.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments