Global cooling

mac · Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 9:13 pm Post subject:

If we had any discipline we would open a new thread when we want to change the subject. Apparently talk radio and Murkowski have revved up the raw meat boys, and they have another thing to hate on Obama for. You can always try getting a few facts from a credible source: http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2015/0126/Arctic-National-Wildlife-Refuge-101-three-questions-on-where-things-stand-video

Basic facts. The coastal strip in question is 1.5 million acres. The entire ANWR is 19 million acres, of which only 8 million is designated as wilderness. Lots of land. There is perhaps 10 billion barrels there--assessments vary--which represents a little less than 9% of the undiscovered oil in the United States. If we want hyperbole, the enviros would say "Is nothing sacred." The oil companies want to lease land when the price is low so they can pay the least possible in royalties.

I suspect there is a game within the game. The land currently has a level of protection as a refuge, and additional protections established in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. Under that legislation, oil drilling cannot proceed without Congressional authorization. While the oilies might have the votes in Congress, they don't have the votes to override a veto. After all the bluster is over, Obama will have a chit to play--if the Tea Baggers ever learn how to play, much less play nice.

mrgybe · Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5180

isobars · Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935

Obviously, the news item on ANWR stated that ALASKA, not ANWR, was 4 X the size of CA. 2,100 acres is what percentage of 663,000 square miles? (No, YOU GUYS look it up: I don't waste my time on umpteenth decimal places.)

swchandler · Joined: 08 Nov 1993 Posts: 10588

For a 2% change in what we import yearly for foreign oil, drilling in ANWR is hardly a big deal right now. In a period when imported oil is so cheap, why develop long range North American sources of oil? Instead, why not conserve for the future?

GURGLETROUSERS · Joined: 30 Dec 2009 Posts: 2643

Concerning Isobars continuing attempt (probably for the next 5,000 posts) to create controversy at my expense, and to fantasize by a denial of continuing increase in world population. I simply cite -

'Arguing with an ignorant person who thinks they're informed is a futile exercise.'

To use one of his petulant and egotistical phrases. 'I have better things to do with my time!'. (As, I expect, have most others.)

boggsman1 · Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9120 Location: at a computer

boggsman1 · Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9120 Location: at a computer

I assumed the Area being protected would be an area that would be wildcatted. I doubt the entire footprint of drilling ANWR would be 2000 acres....sounds crazy and Im glad it aint happening....we dont need it. We are swimming in crude!

KGB-NP · Joined: 25 Jul 2001 Posts: 2856

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart-graph/deaths-terawatt-hour-energy

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

mrgybe · Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5180

Since Boggsy and SWC have obviously given this topic a great deal of thought, perhaps they could give us some insight into the supply and price situation 10 years from now? A few words on the stability of the Middle East at that time would be particularly informative. Thanks so much for sharing your expertise.

boggsman1 · Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9120 Location: at a computer

You are quite welcome Mr Gybe...I'm always happy to help, whether it be global commodity markets, Apple, weather, sailing the Gorge , the NFL, or any other topics you need help with. The combination of efficiency, and new supply all over the globe, add alternatives and better technology and the Middle East and Russia are in a tough spot. I would not be surprised if the new crude range for the next decade is 30-50.