Chavez, Putin and ANWR: U.S. should drill ANWR now
The Heritage Foundation website features a great expose on the stupidity and/or hypocrisy of those who continue to oppose drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The whole post is worth a read but check out the map, below, showing where ANWR is and isn’t. This tiny slice of U.S. real estate (that tiny red square in the map) is not prime resort or agricultural land.
Green knuckleheads in Congress might want to think strategically, for once. Bleeding American pocketbooks dry by forcing us to buy oil from enemies like Venezuela (and so-called friends like Saudi Arabia) when domestic oil is literally sitting on America’s doorstep will doom America’s economy and its foreign policy. This, I believe, is actually the primary agenda of the big ANWR drilling opponents. Somebody needs to get this idea through John McCain’s noggin.
No, domestic oil isn’t per se cheaper than the foreign stuff, but releasing ANWR oil on the market would tend to drive down the global price of oil which would also lower it here.
More importantly, lower oil prices would take resources out of the hands of despots like Vlad Putin and Hugo Chavez and any number of oil-rich Islamic fundamentalist regimes — like Saudi Arabia. Taking $$ out of their pockets will likely save thousands of American lives. Lowering the price of oil would also allow many thousands more to keep their homes by avoiding bankruptcy. Drilling ANWR now is a national security imperative.
There’s really no serious alternative use for the ANWR drilling zone, anyway. It’s an arctic wasteland as shown in the Heritage Foundation Post.
21 comments
You know, Kurt, that you don’t have to be a green knucklehead to oppose drilling in ANWAR. You could be, for instance, the owner of huge amounts of oil, located in the earth, or in storage above the surface. You could be the lessor of oil wells in Texas, getting paid a royalty based on market value of the crude coming up from your leased areas. You could be someone who holds a lot of stock in oil companies. You could be the owner of refineries, and of a chain of gasoline stations. If you are any of these, you want oil to stay expensive, because you will be getting more money for it, per barrel or gallon, than you would if ANWAR comes on line and pushes the price down. Which I doubt that it will, by the way.
Oh. Those coastal plains are not wastelands. No more than are the estuaries, grass flats, swamps, and flood plains of the Texas coast. Please, turn off the hyperbole generator and look at this issue with the same clear-headedness you bring to your blogging about the YFZ debacle.
Kurt, here is a comment I posted at the Heritage Foundation cite. I would like to see some accurate answers to these questions.
Doran Williams, Lee County, Texas writes:
Your approach to this issue is essentially the same as the approach you condemn: Lots of pictures of cute animals, snowy scenes and desolate coastal plains. Lots of semi-hysterical language about the dire consequences of not drilling. Lots of invective against those who do not agree with you.
I hope those who read your post have the common sense you claim the opposition lacks. For instance, could you present some facts about the following:
1. Will disruption due to oil exploration, development and transport be limited to the 2000 acres? I think that not to be likely, as 2000 acres is not all that large, as you point out, and without fences and monitors, there will be little incentive for staying inside the boundaries with all the support and disposal ares that will be created by the drilling.
2. How will the crude get to market? A new pipeline? Offshore loading terminals? Are those areas included in the 2000 acres? If not, what is the total acreage involved.
3. How many companies will get leases on 2000 acres? Really, there is hardly enough room for two outfits to develop the place. Just look at your own photos from around Prudhoe Bay: One rig located in what is probably an area greatly in excess of 2000 acres. Ah! See there! You might say. Not all that much disruption or damage. Could very well be that you are correct, but really: Which company stands to benefit?
4. How long will it take for the crude to reach refiners, from the day ANWAR is opened? How long to reach consumers as gasoline?
5. What is reasonable maximum amount of crude that can be produced? Will it really have the effect of lowering gasoline prices as you suggest? If it does, all that OPEC, or Chavez have to do to keep the price up is lower their production.
6. For what period of time, at full production, will the crude from ANWAR be available?
7. Do you really consider those coastal plains to be a “barren wasteland”? That is a bit of hyperbole, isn’t it?
Why are we worrying which company stands to benefit? The U.S. economy does, regardless. The poor joe or jane at the pump does. “Drill here, drill now, pay less.”
It might be of interest to some who oppose drilling in that isolated, frozen wasteland (no hyperbole involved), that the “cute creatures” actually benefit from oil wells. They hug the area along existing pipelines in Alaska. They multiply faster. No surprise, they like the warmth the pipes generate. Who wouldn’t, on the north coast of Alaska?
Every day of delay in drilling is one day more we are paying 5$ and probably more a gallon. If it is a choice between paying electricity or groceries, as it is for millions of Americans, it is immoral not to drill.
Doran — Before I get into answering your questions, please answer one for me: what do you know about the 5th amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Where, constitutionally, does the burden of proof lie: on the company that wants to drill for oil on its property? Or on the government that wants to deprive oil companies of the right to drill? If you’ll answer that question, then I’ll get to yours.
Is this a hypthetical question? Does a “company” own that property, or is it owned by a government, state or federal?
Gravitas, I’m not “worrying” about which company stands to benefit, but I think it a worthwhile question to be addressed in the discussion. If there really is only 2000 acres involved, as The Heritage Foundation post stated, then there will probably be room for only one or two rigs. Maybe the rigs will be owned by a consortium. Who knows? I certainly would like to know. This is the oil industry we are dealing with here. They are slick, sometimes unsavory, operators. Does the company seeking permission have a bad history of spills, cleanups, etc?
There were some comments at The Heritage Foundation site, about uncapping wells in Texas and producing that oil. The reason that has not happened is that the people who own that oil, and/or the right to pump it, are waiting for higher prices.
I drive I-10 through West Texas, from Austin to Fort Stockton, about every two months or so. About a year ago, I noticed a significant number of new drilling pads going in, from about Junction west. Over the past years, those wells have been completed and there are pump jacks and/or pressure tanks all along there, for collecting the oil and gas. And more wells are being drilled. This is just stuff in view from the highway: I’m sure there is more exploration and production going on out of sight. People just don’t seem to understand that the domestic oil they think is available to offset imported oil is deeper than ever and cost like hell to produce. The oil companies will not drill for it, or produce it, unless they can get the nearly $110 a barrel they were getting when they started the drilling last year. If you want domestic oil, you are going to have to pay world oil prices for it. If you want cheap oil, it will not be domestic oil. The oil from ANWR will be priced and sold at world oil market prices. Accept that. Get used to it. Why would a company sell it below what the company can get on the world market? Because they are nice people and love us? Jeeez. If you want oil to go down in price, then we need to stop using so damn much of it and get something else in the R&D stream that will replace it.
You wrote: If it is a choice between paying electricity or groceries, as it is for millions of Americans, it is immoral not to drill. This is exactly the kind of semi-hyterical thinking that does absolutely no good. Are you saying that millions of Americans live in the dark, just so they can eat? REALLY!? Most Americans I know have learned a lot of energy consevations practices, like how to turn-off lights when they walk out of a room, how to wear sweaters in the winter rather than keep thermostats at
degrees, and how to limit the number of trips they make in their vehicles (although, I have to admit, that here in Central Texas there are thousands of knuckleheads who are still driving their doolies to the convenience store to buy cigaretts and beer, and go inside while their pickups keep running just so the cabs will be cool for them upon their return. Idiots. fucking idiots.)
The politicians and oil industry people who sold millions of Americans the bogus war in Iraq are the same ones trying to sell the bogus idea that oil from ANWR will be quick, plentiful and cheap. Apparently, there are millions of Americans so desperate for cheap gasoline that they are ready to swallow this load, also.
Kurt, what I meant was a request to you to clarify whether the proposed drilling site at ANWR is privately owned or owned by the government. I agree that there probably are different questions to ask and a different approach to dealing with the basic issue of drilling there, depending upon ownership. I’m too busy to answer hypotheticals, but will do my best with a real world fact situation.
I do not know who ultimately owns the ANWR mineral rights. But — to pinch a phrase from Texas CPS — ANWR is merely symbolic in this discussion.
Those who push what I call “extreme green” want to put the burden of proving a negative (that the drilling will not inflict harm on the environment) on the private owners. If the companies (or other individuals) own the mineral rights on a particular piece of property, then the burden under the 5th Amendment should be on the government to prove a positive: that drilling will harm the environment. This is just as true whether the government seeks to take property rights or people (like the FLDS children).
Your questions about ANWR give me the impression that you have bought into the “extreme green’s” reverse 5th Amendment logic. Would be happy to learn otherwise.
How peculiar. I pose questions that are reasonable and should be addressed (maybe they already have) by anyone wishing to make an informed, rather than emotional, decision about this, and that leads you to conclude that I bought into an extreme green position. Just out of curiousity, what questions could I pose that would not lead you to that conclusion?
ANWR certainly does have symbolic importance. I’ve read comments in the past by pro-drillers that it doesn’t matter if the oil is hard to get to, hard to ship, destructive of the local sea and land ecosystems, and costs like hell: By God, it is important to drill there just to put environmentalists in their places. Is that an extreme despoiler position you have bought into?
Let’s assume a few different ownership fact situations:
1. ANWR and the O, G, and M beneath it are owned by the Federal Government. Clearly, the owner can impose whatever conditions the owner wants to impose. If the lessee can’t abide them, the lessee can go elsewhere to drill.
2. ANWR and the O, G, and M beneath it are owned by a private entity, who wants to lease it for exploration and development. Again, the owner can impose, etc. etc.
3. For some reason, the surface and mineral estates have been severed. The owners of the mineral estate, in Texas, would have a dominant position. They can exploit the minerals, subject to reasonable regulations and payment of damages to the surface owner in some cases. I don’t know what the situation is with the mineral estate in Alaska or at federal law, whether it is dominant or not. Clearly, we can’t go any farther with this fact situation because we don’t know who owns what.
4. Both the surface and mineral estates are privately owned. If so, there might be a takings issue. I doubt this is the case, as this issue would have been in Court years ago.
I suspect that the Feds own the surface and mineral estates. I don’t even know if a lease has been granted, but from the tone of the debate, I think not. Again, if the feds have already leased ANWR, the case about takings would be in court already.
So, lets get back to what is really important about ANWR, that being the environmental effects of exploration and development of oil and gas there, AND whether the benefits of that activity out-weigh the reasonably predictable costs. Now, that isn’t too hard to do. Environmental Impact Statements have been around for at least three decades or more. Those EIS’ are not designed to “prove a negative” as you put. They are designed to identify and articulate the benefits and costs, so that a reasonable, usually political, decision can be made by whomever it is that makes them. Congress, in this case.
That is why my questions, which may have already been addressed, along with many more of which I am not familiar, are relevant. The reluctance of people like yourself, to even entertain asking and answering such questions, is unfortunate. We need a continuing discussion, but those like me who raise difficult questions, or, worse yet, arrive at conclusions that offend you, are labled as extremists.
I am not aware that drillers are expected to prove a negative. I think you are purposefully framing the issue that way to confuse your readers and to confound the opposition. Drillers are being asked to present a reasoned response that will indicate that the benefits of drilling and producing will outweigh the expected costs, including monetary as well as environmental. You would think that a reasonable approach if someone wanted to put a hog raising and butchering operation across the fence from your backyard, wouldn’t you.
It is typical of those wanting to dismiss valid arguments to typify them as “hyperbole” or “hysterical.” Sorry, that doesn’t cut it. Calling names does not make a valid argument. What I see here is a top dressing of greenery overlapping a conflicting interest in oil investments. Otherwise, why the excessive interest in who owns the rigs, or whether it might be a consortium?
In any case, arguments against drilling wore thin long ago. Now they are non-existent.
It is not which or how many oil companies we are dealing with (or which might be shut out of the deal), or how many miles of pipeline might be laid. It is the economic future of the most powerful nation on earth. So far, that is.
Excessive greenery is not helpful. Practicality is. Energy independence is. And public interest is. Again, drill now, drill here, and pay less.
I would welcome anyone who wants to build a hog raising and butchering facility to locate it “over my back fence” at ANWR.
I don’t mind a healthy discussion about the prospects of drilling in Alaska. I don’t mind hearing 2 different sides. I do object to language that is not consistent with this site.
Obviously, I don’t know all the answers. I only know that oil propels this society. That we have to not only drill, in order to stop sending the middle east our money and our lives, we have to develop all forms of energy. But just try and stop the flow of oil and see how our economy stops cold.
I, personally, don’t care if they drill 2,500 acres in Alaska. Funny thing - the Alaskans sure don’t care, and last time I checked it is in their backyard.
I sure wish we had all the answers. I sure wish we knew exactly cause and effect. I just believe that turning this country into a 3rd world country is not the answer.
No one seems to care about what is being done to the planet by the Saudi’s or any other oil country. Looking at some of the pix I see, they don’t give a flip how they destroy the environment. Wouldn’t it be better to have the drilling done by a country who cares?
Gravitas, can you provide a link, or a reference to any sort of study or data which supports your allegation that drilling in ANWR will lead to energy independence and cheaper oil. I will appreciate it.
J.T., hogs don’t grow within the Arctic Circle, unless confined, maybe. I doubt that you do either. My point is that we need to know the facts of this situation and the probable effects, just as you would want to know the intensity of the stink, if any, that might waft over your fence and into your kitchen. Why are you, and Gravitas, so prone to close your minds to facts. Maybe that is an unfair characterization, but from your remarks both of you seem not to care a whit about any adverse effects, just so you get cheaper gasoline.
(Kurt, did you notice on several blogs, when the YFZ thing was first unfolding, that very few persons were interested in facts about life at the YFZ Ranch? Instead, so many people bought right in to the CPS and media lies about child abuse, broken bones, pregnant teenagers, etc. Notice anything about this discussion that is similar?)
Bambi, please accept my apologies if it was my language which offended you. I take it that it was not the word “idiots” but the adjective I used to describe them. If you want this country to stop using the amount of oil we do, then you need to get squarely behind conservation efforts, mass transportation that is comfortable and safe and frequent, and government subsidies and rebates to individual homeowners for the installation of solar collectors. You need to change your own life-style, probably, just like I and everyone else need to.
And most of us are trying, Doran.
By the way, listen to glenn beck today (tv). Love the guy!
Bambii, if you have a TV on at your house, you are wasting your time, electrical energy, and your mind. Unless you are renting and watching really good movies, most of which are in black and white and made before the 70s.
By the way, and because you are sensitive to the sound of words, there is a village in Austria you need to know about. Here is the entry about it in Wikipedia:
The village is known to have existed as “Fucking” since at least 1070 and is named after a man from the 6th century called Focko. “-ing” is an old Germanic suffix indicating the people of the root word to which it is attached; thus Fucking means “(place of) Focko’s people.”[4] The village has a population of 104.
Fucking’s most famous feature is a traffic sign with its name on it, beside which tourists often stop to have their photograph taken. It is a commonly stolen street sign.[5] Significant public funds have been spent on replacing the stolen signs.[6]
In 2004, mainly due to the stolen signs, a vote was held on changing the village’s name, but the residents voted against doing so.[4] In August 2005, the road signs were replaced with theft-resistant signs welded to steel and secured in concrete to prevent further chances of the sign being stolen.[6]
There is a blogger on this site who spent a couple of years in Austria and probably knows all about the town.
However, that isn’t the intent that you used it. And saying it over and over doesn’t make it more palatable.
We have a little 2nd home in a little town and the stop signs all said “whoa”. One night in the dark there appeared about 6 high school students digging in the cold ground supervised by the mayor of the little town trying to replace the sign they had stolen. The mayor had gone to the neighboring town to the families and gathered up the boys and made them replace it. Anyway, they finally had to give up because so many were disappearing.
By the way, I agree with you on the movies. But I don’t think I am wasting any time with beck. Turn him on some time, you might enjoy. And then you wouldn’t have to be mad at everyone all the time.
Damnit! I’m not mad at anyone!!!!!
Funny!
I hope this all gets through the internets tubes, and I hope it is ok to cut and paste like this. Another investor’s view of ANWR. The original is at http://www.energyandcapital.com.
Will ANWR Oil Production Come Too Late?
By Keith Kohl | Monday, June 30th, 2008
There’s a new game being played in the media.
From what I understand, the rules are easy. Simply pick somebody (other than yourself, of course) to blame for oil prices. Then, you can watch as the blame is bounced around. Unfortunately, there’s no way to win the game since the blame goes back and forth repeatedly.
Let’s start with OPEC. After all, they do control a significant amount of global oil production. According to them, the speculators are responsible for running the price of oil up.
In the words of the Qatari Minister, “There is no shortage.”
That seems to be the daily mantra at OPEC.
They even expect oil prices to reach as high as $170 a barrel in 2008. Anyone else remember when they were comfortable last year when oil prices were an astounding $60 a barrel? Things are so good, Libya is considering a cut in production.
Shell’s chief exec, Jeroen Van der Veer, came out swinging lately, saying that speculators aren’t to blame. He’s finally starting to realize that cheap oil oil is getting scarce, so producers are forced to go farther and deeper than ever before.
But again, there are no clear winners.
Speculators obviously have their part in the price of oil. The amount they play, however, would invite a week-long argument. It’s also true that supplies are extremely tight. The fact is that global production has plateaued while demand continues to increase.
You can see where this is leading us, right?
But just because there’s a global crunch in the oil markets does not make every oil investment a safe one.
In fact, the last time I was this concerned over one of my reader’s investments, it was a few weeks ago. Back then, I was asked a simple question on how I felt about the Colorado Oil Shales.
Several of you were getting excited over the idea that drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was inevitable. Normally, I would be the first person to get back the idea of new domestic production.
This time was a bit different.
Drilling ANWR for Oil
In 2006, Alaska’s north slope pumped out an average of 724,000 barrels per day. After taking a quick look at the numbers from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), that means production there has dropped about 24% since 2002.
As you probably know, drilling for oil in ANWR isn’t allowed. In fact, the Congressional block on drilling ANWR has been renewed every year since it was first enacted in 1982.
Last month, the EIA completed a service report entitled Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Remember, we’re talking about a good deal of oil. The United States Geological Survey estimated that between 5 and 16 billion barrels of oil can be recovered from ANWR’s coastal plain.
Don’t let the big numbers grab all your attention, because it’s not the total reserves we’re interested in, but rather the production rates. Even if we take the EIA’s high estimate case, oil production peaks in 2028 at 1.45 million barrels per day.
Let’s think about that for a second…
Pretend that everyone opposed to drilling in ANWR suddenly had a change of heart tonight and Congress lifts the ban tomorrow morning. The problem is that the area would still take nearly a decade to develop. That means we wouldn’t see production until at least 2018!
There’s a few other problems to consider, too.
That extra million barrels per day may not have as much of an impact as you think. U.S. oil production has been falling for the last three decades while our consumption levels have gone through the roof.
ANWR: Too Little Too Late?
Okay, so ANWR may not be our peak oil savior. The good news is that ANWR production would be able to slightly decrease the amount of oil we import. Also consider that we imported about 13.4 million barrels per day last year (5.9 million b/d coming directly from OPEC).
Are we going to eventually open up ANWR to oil producers drillers within the next few years?
Absolutely.
Will production have a significant impact?
Not likely, but every little bit helps.
Until next time,
Keith Kohl
P.S. I know I sound rather skeptical about ANWR drilling. It’s true. I also know I’m not alone, either. Furthermore, I know that most of my readers have been profiting from better opportunities for years. And to be honest, it wouldn’t be fair if I didn’t give you the same chance as my other Energy and Capital readers. If you’re interested in finding out more about some of these booming oil plays, I’d recommend checking out the $20 Trillion Report.
2018 is better than 2019.
Meanwhile, we need to go nuclear. As many European countries have done for a good twenty years now. No disasters. (Thanks to being under slovenly Soviet control, Chernobyl does not count.)
And as for Congress renewing the ban at ANWR every year: that is among the dumber things they do on a regular basis, but it’s time to give it up.
Re black and white movies. I’d swear they had technicolor before 197o… At least I think that is what I used to watch in the fifties.
For the dems views read: http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/01/video-harry-reid-says-energy-makes-him-sick/
He is a real knucklehead!
Leave a Comment