Society Issues Talk

Einstein · Guest

Todays politicians like to quote a 10 year rule.

They constantly say this line:

Environment Florida spokeswoman Holly Binns told the Media General
news group that offshore drilling has no immediate impact on prices.

"It would take anywhere from seven to 10 years to bring those
resources to shore — to have any measurable impact on supply,” Binns
said, advocating renewable energy sources.

---

Obama told reporters that offshore drilling wouldn't bring relief to
consumers for five years — other Democrats say 10 years — at the
soonest.

---

Back in 1995, when President Clinton vetoed legislation to permit
drilling in ANWR, environmentalists argued that it would do no good
for the U.S. to permit drilling in the Alaskan refuge because
Americans wouldn't see any oil for 10 years.

---

"We are kidding ourselves if we think we can drill our way out of
these problems," House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-
Wis., said during the bill mark-up session.

---

Randall Luthi, who heads the Interior Department's Minerals Management
Service that operates the federal offshore energy leasing program, is
a proponent of expanding offshore oil and gas production including in
some areas now off limits.

However, he says, "It will be 5 to 10 years or longer for actual
production" even if leases are made available today.

---

1989: “Well, let me just explain to you…if you approved drilling in
the Arctic slope today…it wouldn’t come online for 10 to 12 years.” —
Rep. George Miller (D-CA)

---

“You cannot get that oil out of ANWR quickly; it takes 10 to 15 years
of extensive drilling to do that.” — Rep. Phil Sharp (D-IN) Lemmesee

---

1995: “For one thing, [they] assume that oil prices will be more than
$30 a barrel in the year 2000. What are the chances of that? Right now
the price of West Texas intermediate crude is $19.00 a barrel.” —
Bruce Babbitt, Bill Clinton’s Interior Secretary.

---

2000: “[ANWR] would take 10 years to come on line and provide only a
few month’s worth of energy supply for this country.” — Rep. Earl
Blumenauer (D-OR)

---

2005: “It will open [ANWR] to oil and gas drilling all for the sake
of a 6-month supply of oil that will not even be available for 10
years.” — Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

---

2005: “Drilling in ANWR will do little to reduce our current
dependence on foreign oil because it will take more than 10 years,
yes, more than 10 years to process what little oil may be there.” Rep.
Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)

---

2008: "It is well known on both sides that it will take eight to 10
years before any oil could be produced in ANWR."— Senator Jeff
Bingaman (D-NM)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now lets start breaking down the many arguments.

1) Ten Years!
Prudoe Bay oil required a pipeline across alaska, the whole length of
it, and to make oil fields in a difficult environment far from any
existing infrastructure. It took 4 years to get it to full capacity.
Yes a mere 4 years.

There is oil throughout the United States which can be tapped rather
quickly. Once oil is found it costs about $500,000 to drill it up.
This represents a crew of roughly 10 people working 24 hours a day at
high income ranges. So this means probably less than 1/2 a year (It is
hard to get exact statistics, but the TV show about oil drilling is
pretty cool on the topic)

So therefore with an existing pipeline, with quick infrastructure
growth it's not to hard to tap the oil. I project 2 years to get ANWR
oil. They do not need to get oil to a far distance in this case, they
just need to connect to the existing oil pipes.

2) There is not enough oil
We import roughly 1.6 million barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia per a
day. ANWR is said to have 10 billion barrels. That would mean 17 years
of not importing from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, after Canada, is our
biggest source of oil by appearances at this time.

However a simple note shows that Prudoe Bay was estimated to have only
2/3's of the Oil that has been drilled and is still known to exist.
Another simple note also applies. Why only drill ANWR? Why not
offshore, ANWR, the Bakken oil formation, and shale oil? The United
States has more oil than OPEC combined when we use just those four
sources. We do not even need to use any existing tapped oil sources to
beat those oil producers.

3) Environmental damages.
a) The only significant oil disaster from Alaska oil was Exxon Valdez.
Omitting that there has been no impact from the pipelines on the
different animals, no leaks, no issues what so ever. None, Nil, Nul,
Nilch, Nada, and Nothing. Exxon Valdez was a drunk captain of a ship
and a company not following shipping oil laws.

b) If Texas was never drilled for oil and was now being drilled with
strict limits on how many wells they could place, they would use
horizontal drilling to help increase the flow. This new drilling
technique allows us to use 1% of the land we used to use. Yes 1%!

4) No change in cost for the next few years:
Futures trading is about what the price will be 1 to 2 years out. An
imminent source in that range being available would collapse prices in
the future trading. People could not try to 'prop up prices' since
they would take a beating the size of King Kong to a 1st grader. It's
just not right, well ok... maybe in this case we can laugh at the
victims of such stupidity if they tried to prop the prices up.

5) It affects the world!
Well if you wish to think that, then ok go ahead. But I ask you
this... Why does ANY NATION ON EARTH EXCLUDING THE UNITED STATES drill
instantly the moment they find oil? Why is China drilling offshore
AMERICAN oil and America wont? Why are we sending billions to Saudi
Arabia and other OPEC thugs when we could instead undercut them and
laugh? Why not keep the money in a more responsible nation at that?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Republican Precinct Committeeman
Debate me, and I respond with enthusiasm, flame me and be ridiculed,
troll me and starve.
President Barack? Just say NObama!

Tartarus · Guest

On Jul 16, 10:59 am, Einstein <michae...@gmail.com> wrote:

Einstein · Guest

Reducing 17% of our imports for 17 years would actually do a lot to
reduce the prices. Just there is an agenda to keep you from realizing
it. Do the math yourself, do the research. It's government getting
rich on our gas costs at this moment.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

And to the first poster, did I say just ANWR? No I did not. But I
noted it's close to a oil pipeline, can be done economically, and with
little environmental impact if any at all. I also noted that such
fields have been under-noted in size as well. Historically all fields
have out-performed estimates except a very small percentage. While
individual oil wells have not had luck, this does not stand for
fields.

ANWR is one piece of a many parted puzzle. Put it together to find
savings for our economy, savings for ourselves, and less OPEC greed.

Thom · Guest

"Guy Caruso, who heads the federal Energy Information Administration, said
consumers would see little savings at the pump.

"Einstein" <michaelhh@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2213bc1d-be24-4f47-bbf1-5063ceeec8df@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

Todays politicians like to quote a 10 year rule.

They constantly say this line:

Environment Florida spokeswoman Holly Binns told the Media General
news group that offshore drilling has no immediate impact on prices.

"It would take anywhere from seven to 10 years to bring those
resources to shore — to have any measurable impact on supply,” Binns
said, advocating renewable energy sources.

---

Obama told reporters that offshore drilling wouldn't bring relief to
consumers for five years — other Democrats say 10 years — at the
soonest.

---

Back in 1995, when President Clinton vetoed legislation to permit
drilling in ANWR, environmentalists argued that it would do no good
for the U.S. to permit drilling in the Alaskan refuge because
Americans wouldn't see any oil for 10 years.

---

"We are kidding ourselves if we think we can drill our way out of
these problems," House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-
Wis., said during the bill mark-up session.

---

Randall Luthi, who heads the Interior Department's Minerals Management
Service that operates the federal offshore energy leasing program, is
a proponent of expanding offshore oil and gas production including in
some areas now off limits.

However, he says, "It will be 5 to 10 years or longer for actual
production" even if leases are made available today.

---

1989: “Well, let me just explain to you…if you approved drilling in
the Arctic slope today…it wouldn’t come online for 10 to 12 years.” —
Rep. George Miller (D-CA)

---

“You cannot get that oil out of ANWR quickly; it takes 10 to 15 years
of extensive drilling to do that.” — Rep. Phil Sharp (D-IN) Lemmesee

---

1995: “For one thing, [they] assume that oil prices will be more than
$30 a barrel in the year 2000. What are the chances of that? Right now
the price of West Texas intermediate crude is $19.00 a barrel.” —
Bruce Babbitt, Bill Clinton’s Interior Secretary.

---

2000: “[ANWR] would take 10 years to come on line and provide only a
few month’s worth of energy supply for this country.” — Rep. Earl
Blumenauer (D-OR)

---

2005: “It will open [ANWR] to oil and gas drilling all for the sake
of a 6-month supply of oil that will not even be available for 10
years.” — Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

---

2005: “Drilling in ANWR will do little to reduce our current
dependence on foreign oil because it will take more than 10 years,
yes, more than 10 years to process what little oil may be there.” Rep.
Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)

---

2008: "It is well known on both sides that it will take eight to 10
years before any oil could be produced in ANWR."— Senator Jeff
Bingaman (D-NM)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now lets start breaking down the many arguments.

1) Ten Years!
Prudoe Bay oil required a pipeline across alaska, the whole length of
it, and to make oil fields in a difficult environment far from any
existing infrastructure. It took 4 years to get it to full capacity.
Yes a mere 4 years.

There is oil throughout the United States which can be tapped rather
quickly. Once oil is found it costs about $500,000 to drill it up.
This represents a crew of roughly 10 people working 24 hours a day at
high income ranges. So this means probably less than 1/2 a year (It is
hard to get exact statistics, but the TV show about oil drilling is
pretty cool on the topic)

So therefore with an existing pipeline, with quick infrastructure
growth it's not to hard to tap the oil. I project 2 years to get ANWR
oil. They do not need to get oil to a far distance in this case, they
just need to connect to the existing oil pipes.

2) There is not enough oil
We import roughly 1.6 million barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia per a
day. ANWR is said to have 10 billion barrels. That would mean 17 years
of not importing from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, after Canada, is our
biggest source of oil by appearances at this time.

However a simple note shows that Prudoe Bay was estimated to have only
2/3's of the Oil that has been drilled and is still known to exist.
Another simple note also applies. Why only drill ANWR? Why not
offshore, ANWR, the Bakken oil formation, and shale oil? The United
States has more oil than OPEC combined when we use just those four
sources. We do not even need to use any existing tapped oil sources to
beat those oil producers.

3) Environmental damages.
a) The only significant oil disaster from Alaska oil was Exxon Valdez.
Omitting that there has been no impact from the pipelines on the
different animals, no leaks, no issues what so ever. None, Nil, Nul,
Nilch, Nada, and Nothing. Exxon Valdez was a drunk captain of a ship
and a company not following shipping oil laws.

b) If Texas was never drilled for oil and was now being drilled with
strict limits on how many wells they could place, they would use
horizontal drilling to help increase the flow. This new drilling
technique allows us to use 1% of the land we used to use. Yes 1%!

4) No change in cost for the next few years:
Futures trading is about what the price will be 1 to 2 years out. An
imminent source in that range being available would collapse prices in
the future trading. People could not try to 'prop up prices' since
they would take a beating the size of King Kong to a 1st grader. It's
just not right, well ok... maybe in this case we can laugh at the
victims of such stupidity if they tried to prop the prices up.

5) It affects the world!
Well if you wish to think that, then ok go ahead. But I ask you
this... Why does ANY NATION ON EARTH EXCLUDING THE UNITED STATES drill
instantly the moment they find oil? Why is China drilling offshore
AMERICAN oil and America wont? Why are we sending billions to Saudi
Arabia and other OPEC thugs when we could instead undercut them and
laugh? Why not keep the money in a more responsible nation at that?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Republican Precinct Committeeman
Debate me, and I respond with enthusiasm, flame me and be ridiculed,
troll me and starve.
President Barack? Just say NObama!

lorad · Guest

On Jul 16, 12:01 pm, Einstein <michae...@gmail.com> wrote:

SgtMinor · Guest

Einstein wrote:

<snip>