|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
Adam
F L I N T O I D
|
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080312/OPINION01/803120388/1007/OPINION
U.S. pays price for untapped oil
Drilling lessens foreign dependency more than tax hikes and ethanol
Mark J. Perry
With oil prices hitting record levels above $100 a barrel, the economy in either a slowdown or recession, and with Venezuela threatening to end oil exports to the United States and Nigeria's oil production held hostage to internal strife, the case for tapping more domestic oil is getting stronger every day.
Unfortunately, Congress continues to resist the idea, preferring to hold substantial domestic energy resources on Alaska's North Slope and the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf off-limits to production.
Congress also worries about environmental damage from oil drilling, despite the oil industry's excellent safety record. Instead of encouraging the industry to invest in domestic oil production, which would help the economy and generate jobs, Congress is considering legislation that would require the manufacturing sector, including oil companies, to pay billions of dollars in additional taxes to support the development of renewable energy resources. And politicians prefer to replace oil with ethanol, having mandated a five-fold increase in its use, even though ethanol has gone from a cure-all to a serious problem in the eyes of many experts, and is now being blamed for pushing up food prices, straining water supplies and worsening global warming.
Advertisement
At the time that bold leadership is needed to block our backsliding into foreign oil dependency, a few key lawmakers in the House are balking at accepting a plan to develop more oil and natural gas on federal lands and offshore. The political impasse couldn't have come at a worse moment. Currently, the United States uses about 21 million barrels of oil a day, but produces fewer than 5 million barrels. Meanwhile, the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that the demand for oil will grow 19 percent by 2030.
If we carelessly assume that cheaper oil imports will be available forever, we will soon be as vulnerable to supply disruptions as we were a decade ago. We are importing two-thirds of the oil we use, and analysts say we could be importing 75 percent by 2020. Do we then want to go back to OPEC pleading for oil? Do we want to make it even more difficult for U.S. oil companies to compete with national oil companies of foreign governments, which hold more than two-thirds of the world's oil reserves?
Finally, a punitive tax on U.S. oil companies -- which Congress rejected last December but is reconsidering -- would do nothing to boost our nation's energy security. Since 1992, the industry has invested $1.25 trillion in oil and natural gas development. The money has gone into myriad energy projects, including research, exploration, technology advancement and refinery capacity expansion. Moreover, the top 27 producing oil companies paid more than $81 billion in income taxes in 2006 -- an 82 percent increase in two years, according to the Energy Information Administration. Stripping the companies of earnings they could use to reinvest in oil and gas development would cripple efforts to provide stable and affordable energy supplies.
On pragmatic grounds, and because we need to recognize that increasing domestic oil and gas production would help counteract threats from OPEC countries and send a calming message to markets, Congress should lift the barriers to oil production on Alaska's North Slope and the Outer Continental Shelf. The North Slope alone could provide 36 billion barrels of oil and 137 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, which could help meet U.S. energy needs beyond 2050, according to the Department of Energy. That would require opening the National Petroleum Reserve and a small part of the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve to oil production. The drilling "footprint" would be less than the size of Detroit Metro Airport in an area of Alaska that is about half the size of Michigan.
When it comes to energy policy, there is a lot is at stake: the future of our economy, and the future of our energy and national security. Fortunately, it is not too late for Congress to act in this session to allow greater development of our own energy resources.
Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. [/url] |
|
|
Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:28 am |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
Sometimes Adam, You really hit it on the head.
All of you's people. Who blame Bush for the oil prices, and the War and the USA's creditability. Here it is in a nutshell!
We have become dependant on Foriegn oil! When we do like we have to do and extend beyond our own borders to protect american intrests (NAMELY FORIEGN OIL). We as a Nation Loose creditability. And whomever is in charge takes the Flack for it!
Granholm won't let them drill in the Great Lakes, but her family in Canada can! They didn't want the Alaskan Pipeline because environmental WACKOS claimed it would hinder the raccoon antelope and their population would decline. When exactly the oppisite happened. It hasn't hindered migration and the heards are thriving better than expected because of the natural heater of the pipeline helping them survive.
Another piece of the puzzle is also the lack of new oil refineries. Compaines in the US are refusing to upgrade or build new. Because of environmental regulations. Now, I'm not saying the regulations are wrong! I'm saying that buying from countries that don't hold thier businesses to the same standards to protect thier environment that we do gives foriegn companies an advantage over US businesses that have to abide by those rules. |
|
|
|
Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:55 pm |
|
|
Public D
F L I N T O I D
|
"Congress also worries about environmental damage from oil drilling, despite the oil industry's excellent safety record."
Do we need to read further to know this is dressed up bull? Worse, bull dressed up in pseudo-patriotism and post-9/11 fear mongering.
Take a bow, Mr. Perry! I defy any one to find anything that he's ever written where the main intent was not to provoke reaction to his misogynistic audacity first, get and stay in the good graces of CNBC producers second, and lastly, if at all, convey any useful or reliable fact, perspective or conviction for his pat 'controversy' of the month.
Anybody who thinks this brand of band aid advocacy is addressing our real energy problems – and not just another way for the oil companies to survive and thrive for another 10 years – is utterly missing the bigger picture or knowingly shilling for big oil. Professor Perry, again, is doing both.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/
http://adbusters.org/the_magazine/75/Economic_Indoctrination.html |
|
|
|
Wed Mar 12, 2008 2:39 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
Arctic Refuge drilling controversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge MapThe question of whether or not to allow drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has been a political football for every sitting American president since Jimmy Carter. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is just east of Prudhoe Bay in Alaska's "North Slope," which is North America's largest oil field. Currently, the Prudhoe bay area accounts for 17% of U.S. domestic oil production.[1] In 1987 and again in 1998 studies released by the U.S. Geological Survey have estimated significant deposits of crude oil exist within the land designated as the "1002 area" of ANWR, as well.[2][3][3]
Oil interest in the region goes back to the late 1960s. Since the 1979 energy crisis, the question of whether or not to drill for oil has become a hot-button issue for various groups. Traditionally, Alaskan residents, trade unions, and business interests have supported drilling in the refuge, while environmental groups and many within the Democratic Party have traditionally opposed it. Among native Alaskan tribes, support is mixed.
In the 1990s and 2000s, votes about the status of the refuge occurred repeatedly in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, but as of 2007 efforts to allow drilling have always been ultimately thwarted by filibusters, amendments, or vetoes.
The small village of Kaktovik, located in area 1002, was originally cited as one of the reasons for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. When sixty-eight villagers responded to a 2000 survey, 78% strongly agreed or agreed that "The coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should be open to oil and gas exploration." [4]
In May 2006, a resolution was passed in the village of Kaktovik calling Shell "a hostile and dangerous force" which authorized the mayor to take legal and other actions necessary to "defend the community".[5] The resolution also calls on all North Slope communities to oppose Shell's offshore leases until the company becomes more respectful of the people.[citation needed] Mayor Sonsalla says Shell has failed to work with the villagers on how the company would protect bowhead whales which are part of Native culture, subsistence life, and diet.[6]
Canada and the U.S. signed the Agreement on the Conservation of the Porcupine Caribou Herd treaty which was designed to protect the herd and its habitat from damage or disruptions in migration routes. Canada's Ivvavik National Park and Vuntut National Park borders the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Energy Bill authorized drilling in ANWR, but a filibuster by Senate Democrats kept the measure from coming to a vote. In 1995, Republicans prepared to take up the battle again and included a provision for ANWR in the federal budget. President Bill Clinton vetoed the entire budget and expressed his intention to veto any other bill that would open ANWR to drilling.
The 1998 U.S. Geological Survey report did little to end the controversy. It estimated that there was significant oil in ANWR and that most of the oil would be found in the western part of the "1002 Area". This differed from the 1987 USGS report which estimated that less oil would be found there and that it would be in the southern and eastern parts.[3]
Beyond that reserves existed, however, little was agreed upon by both sides of the debate. Supporters of the drilling claimed there were as many as 16 billion barrels of oil to be recovered, but this number was at the extreme high side of the report and represented only a 5 percent probability of technically recoverable oil across the entire assessment area, which included land outside ANWR. Opponents of drilling pointed out that the USGS report actually estimated 7.668 billion barrels of oil to be recovered.[3] but the Arctic Refuge provision was later removed by the House-Senate conference committee. The Senate passed Arctic Refuge drilling on March 16, 2005 as part of the federal budget resolution for fiscal year 2006.[7] That Arctic Refuge provision was removed during the reconciliation process, due to Democrats in the House of Representatives who signed a letter stating they would oppose any version of the budget that had Arctic Refuge drilling in it.[8]
On December 15, 2005, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) attached an Arctic Refuge drilling amendment to the annual defense appropriations bill. A group of Democratic Senators led a successful filibustering of the bill on December 21, 2005, and the language was subsequently removed from the bill.[9]
Estimates of oil reserves
A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5% probability) barrels (0.9 to 2.5 km³) of technically recoverable oil exists in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 area, with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (1.7 km³). In addition, in the entire assessment area, which covers not only land under Federal jurisdiction, but also Native lands and adjacent State waters within three miles, technically recoverable oil is estimated to be at least 5.7 billion (95%) and as much as 16.0 billion (5%) barrels (0.7 to 1.9 km³), with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels (1.2 km³). Economically recoverable oil within the Federal lands assuming a market price of $40/barrel (constant 1996 dollars - the highest price included in the USGS study) is estimated to be between 3.4 billion (95%) and 10.4 billion (5%) barrels (0.5 to 1.7 km³), with a mean value of 6.8 billion barrels (1.1 km³).[3]
The 10.4 billion barrel figure was used in publications by the U.S. Department of the Interior while it was headed by Gale Norton, a proponent of drilling in the Arctic Refuge.[10]
The U.S. consumes about 20 million barrels daily. If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil reserves were used to supply 5% of the U.S. daily consumption -- most is imported from Canada (19%), Mexico (15%), Saudi Arabia (11.5%), Nigeria (10.5%) and Venezuela (10.5%)[11] -- the reserves, using the low figure of 4.3 billion barrels, would last approximately 4300 days, or almost 12 years. Using the high estimate, the reserves would last approximately 11800 days, or 32 years. If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was used to meet 100% of U.S. demand, it would last for 215 days under the low estimate, and 525 days or just 1.4 years if it contained 10.4 billion barrels.
[ |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:25 am |
|
|
Adam Ford
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Public D schreef:
Take a bow, Mr. Perry! I defy any one to find anything that he's ever written where the main intent was not to provoke reaction to his misogynistic audacity first, get and stay in the good graces of CNBC producers second, and lastly, if at all, convey any useful or reliable fact, perspective or conviction for his pat 'controversy' of the month.
Some of us do believe in things like economics and geological studies. I'm not sure how to respond to your "liberal reasoning" but I do think believing in things like economics and geological studies makes more sense in the near term instead of just sitting back and watching our economy crash and burn. |
|
|
|
Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:40 pm |
|
|
squash
F L I N T O I D
|
Who stands to gain the most by drilling in ANWR? You and I? The Alaskans?
I'll bet VP Cheney is for it. He and his boys at Halliburton stand to line their pockets with more billions insuring their progeny elite status for generations to come.
Will it get us gas for under $3.00 per? If so for how long? 20 years, 50 years? Will it lower our Consumer bill?
Do you really think that drilling in Alaska is going to save our economy? Especially for average working Americans.
Here's the answer to all of our energy problems. Use less. The hippies had it right. Spend time visiting instead of driving 25 miles to go to Olive Garden. Grow your own food or buy from locals. Dispose of your boats, jet skis, ATVs, RVs SUVs and 1 body 1 vehicle mentality. Otherwise be ready to pay. The days of vacation homes for the middle class are coming to an end.
If this is unacceptable then by all means slash burn and drill. If you think that dotting the landscape with oil drilling operations has no adverse impact on the environment your dreaming. We will have turned the Great Lakes into 5 giant, pollutted carp ponds so we might as well jack up Alaska. As for the oil industry's stellar safety record think of Prince William Sound. |
|
|
|
Thu Mar 13, 2008 6:11 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Will it get us gas for under $3.00 per? If so for how long? 20 years, 50 years? Will it lower our Consumer bill?
Well it damn sure might and give us a cushion while advances in new energy technology take hold.
quote:
Here's the answer to all of our energy problems. Use less. The hippies had it right. Spend time visiting instead of driving 25 miles to go to Olive Garden. Grow your own food or buy from locals. Dispose of your boats, jet skis, ATVs, RVs SUVs and 1 body 1 vehicle mentality. Otherwise be ready to pay. The days of vacation homes for the middle class are coming to an end.
Right on man. Lets see everyone get rid of anything that makes em happy and makes going to work worthwhile. Screw work. It aint fair man someones got something someone else dont have. Screw the man, stick it to him ,get high have a good time. Screw work, make love not war, flower power baby.
You telling us we cant or wont find the technology we need to keep us the greatest country in the world. Jeez punch a few holes in some tundra already. 
|
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Thu Mar 13, 2008 6:37 pm |
|
|
squash
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
It aint fair man someones got something someone else dont have.
My Harley splits your eardrums? Screw you it makes me happy. My outboard leaks oil? Screw you it makes me happy. My Hummer gets 7 miles per gallon? Screw you I've got social security.
(now go ahead and enlighten me on how surprisingly fuel efficient the old Hummer is)
quote:
Screw work
Looks to me like that hippie's putting in a pretty honest days work. |
|
|
|
Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:25 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
Im still trying to figure out what Mrs hippie is doing in the photo. Is that some kind of doobie roller by chance? As long as you are not footing the bill to keep the Hummer fueled up what concern is it of yours anyway? 
quote:
We will have turned the Great Lakes into 5 giant, pollutted carp ponds
You obviously have not fished any of the great lakes in like 40 years.  |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:09 pm |
|
|
squash
F L I N T O I D
|
| Fished Tawas for whitefish. The pier is strewn with goby. Asian carp will be here soon and eating everything in sight. |
|
|
|
Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:32 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
I have to agree with your assesment on fuel costs changing the way folks spend their leisure time. We saw a drop in "flatlanders" coming up here last summer (much to the delight im sure of some left leaning folks who feel its not fair for some to be able to escape the urban sprawl while those less fortunate are trapped) and I am sure their will be fewer this year. On the other hand their seemed to be just as many snowmobiliers as ever this winter.  |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:43 am |
|
|
squash
F L I N T O I D
|
What effects might Asian carp have on the Great Lakes?
Asian Carp are a significant threat to the Great Lakes because they are large, extremely prolific, and consume vast amounts of food. They can weigh up to 100 pounds, and can grow to a length of more than four feet. They are well-suited to the climate of the Great Lakes region, which is similar to their native Asian habitats.
Researchers expect that Asian carp would disrupt the food chain that supports the native fish of the Great Lakes. Due to their large size, ravenous appetites, and rapid rate of reproduction, these fish could pose a significant risk to the Great Lakes Ecosystem.
Eventually, they could become a dominant species in the Great Lakes.
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/invasive/asiancarp/
Unlike global warming this threat is in your backyard. Maybe you'll believe it when 100 lb carp have devoured the perch, walleye and trout population. No worries though we have at least a 10 year cushion, let's just wait for the technology. If we're lucky we'll be dead by the time it happens. Forget the next generation we were happy. |
|
|
|
Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:45 am |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
What does carp have to do with drilling for oil and hippies?
quote:
Despite the fact that Asian carp can grow to more than 50 pounds in the Mississippi River, the researchers found that these species typically eat zooplankton smaller than 200 microns in length.
quote:
“If Asian carp populations are able to take off in Lake Michigan, the impact will likely be even more detrimental,” said Chick. “The lake is a less productive system, and its zooplankton populations have already been depleted by zebra mussels.”
So if the diet of the asian carp is zooplankton which has already been depleted how will they thrive with out proper nutrition?
quote:
Unlike global warming this threat is in your backyard. Maybe you'll believe it when 100 lb carp have
devoured the perch, walleye and trout population.
You might want to rethink that statement since none of those mentioned are on the carps diet. Ever actually seen a carp? Downturned mouth like a sucker, bottom feeding fish. |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:00 am |
|
|
squash
F L I N T O I D
|
You got me on that one, but it does not change the fact that they are a significant threat that has the potential to wipe out those populations. Zooplankton being the base of the food chain.
We don't have a good record of environmental stewardship and I have reservations about letting Halliburton loose on ANWR just so we can have a cushion. The Great Lakes are an example of this. We heve stood by as they have become so polluted that pregnant women are advised not to eat Greta Lakes fish due to high levels of mercury, invasive species like the zebra mussel have thrived and now reports of pharmaceuticals being present in the water. As for the hippie comment I was suggesting that a shift in lifestyle may be a more resposible choice than drilling away in Alaska. But you knew this. |
|
|
|
Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:29 am |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
| Actually I believe the great lakes are getting cleaner as we speak. Allowing them to become in the polutted state they once were is a crime and I am all for cleaning them up. I would imagine you would be hard pressed to find any business or industry getting away with doing it nowdays. |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:50 am |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
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
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
