Certain subjects are immune to logic?

[micondie]

Originally Posted by tim3058

Not knowing much about ANWR I searched it on Ixquick. Just to educate myself about the facts. The Dept. of Energy has a report out on ANWR, it was the first link on ixquick http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicer...af(2008)03.pdf

Page #9 has a graph worth looking at, ANWR is at least an appreciable increase in domestic production. Below the graph the DOE concludes:

The opening of ANWR to oil and gas development includes the following impacts:
• reducing world oil prices,
• reducing the U.S. dependence on imported foreign oil,
• improving the U.S. balance of trade,
•extending the life of TAPS [current alaskan pipeline] for oil, and
•increasing U.S. jobs.

I would assume the DOE has the best available facts at their disposal. Others may just have discovered this report before I did.

A few thoughts on the DOE impacts:
1. reducing world oil prices=increased oil consumption. Is this a positive consequence?
2. reducing US dependence on foreign oil?? I think the increase in consumption would more than offset the increased supply from ANWR.
3. Improve balance of trade??? see 2 above
4. extend life of TAPS?? the pipeline will be needed as long as Alaska is producing oil.
5. Increase US jobs??? many more jobs can result from investing in alternative energy sources, a variety of jobs across the country that will impact the whole economy.

Just my $.02

[thatguitarguy]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I found the DOE data, which is SUPPOSED to be objective (guitarguy: the new administration hasn't come out with any refuting data have they???).

I'm not a member of the Obama administration, but if I were, I wouldn't waste any time or money unnecessarily refuting data, legitimate or otherwise, because it's all a moot point. The fact was, is, and remains that ANWR is a National Wildlife Refuge and nobody has to take bribes to keep it that way. Drilling can't take place unless laws are changed.

Originally Posted by bestclimb

I suppose none of those convictions were overturned

Regardless of who initiated the report Stevens did not create the data in it.

Suppose what you will, but I was talking about facts, not supposition. But while you're supposing, do you suppose that OJ didn't kill his wife because he wasn't found guilty? The fact is that Ted Stevens was charged with 7 felonies and found guilty by a jury of his peers on all 7 counts and had those convictions overturned on a legal technicality. That doesn't mean that he didn't commit those felonies - it just means that he got away with it.

While you're supposing, suppose that in a "drill baby, drill" friendly environment - with a failed oilman as president, and a former CEO of Haliburton as his co-president sidekick - that a man who did take oil money bribes, had in place people who he knew would write a favorable pro-drilling assessment. Suppose that the data was already collected by the people who stand to make billions of dollars by drilling, and only had to be compiled into a favorable report. Suppose that the lobbyists who paid bribes to Ted Stevens put together the report, and only had to present it to the proper people to have their names affixed to it. Suppose, suppose, suppose. Or if you want to get back to talking about facts instead of supposition, look at the fact that this document has a disclaimer that it does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the DOE.

From the title page of the document in question:



"This report was prepared by the Energy Information Administration, the independent statistical and analytical agency within the Department of Energy. The information contained herein should be attributed to the Energy Information Administration and should not be construed as advocating or reflecting any policy position of the Department of Energy or any other organization. Service Reports are prepared by the Energy Information Administration upon special request and are based on assumptions specified by the requester."

...based on assumptions specified by the requester. There you go.

[micondie]

I think that last line says it all!

[SentraSE-R]

Agreed. Bush Administration decisions were all politically biased, and tainted. No other administration came close to Bush's corruption in my 34 year federal career. None.

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

Bush Administration decisions were all politically biased, and tainted.

...I hate to say it, but IMHO, ALL administration decisions have and will always be politically biased, tainted and partisian.

...there are no really good decisions, simply "...less bad..." ones.

...and, *that's* why I vote for "NONE OF THE ABOVE" whenever possible (ha,ha).

[rmay635703]

I guess the thing I find most laughable at ANWR or even gulf drilling is that there are billions of barrells of proven crude in capped small oil wells throughout the US's heartland. Kansas through Nebraska up into the dakotas, even pensylvania.

My great uncle worked on a farm in Kansas that also had an oil well, the well on that farm along with many others were forcibly closed during the Nixon through Reagon eras when whole deeds were nullified during the many land deed changes made in the 70's and early 80's. My uncle could never understand why they were closing oil wells during the middle of a fuel shortage. Another odditity was that before the well was closed they were having trouble finding someone to pickup and store their oil, getting the "all the tanks are full" How could they be full during a shortage?

These wells although small and usually family owned were proven and functional and had to be capped because the mineral rights were removed from the deed. Many times these deeds ran in families almost 100yrs and they were taken away & nullfied. Afterall you only own the right to be on the surface of the land, not whats underneith.

Add to this the number of small capped wells that were purchased outright by oil companies for the purpose of removing competition and you get the picture.

If we really WANTED to produce our own oil we do have a rather large amount easily accessible in small pockets throughout the US, the wells individually would produce much less than a large well but together would produce much more than ANWR ever could. And at that for many more years.

Also uncapping a formerly productive well is much simpler than drilling new I should hope?

Then we have the natural gas issue, no-one has ever refuted the findings of massive frozen deposites of natural gas in the gulf of mexico, its on the surface of the ocean floor so it would be easy to remove (no drilling) and all estimates place it at a larger size than the whole of the middle east (it afterall regenerates when removed from the oil underneith), sadly we also don't mention that one either except once on PBS then never again.

Nice how that works?

[Christ]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

I guess the thing I find most laughable at ANWR or even gulf drilling is that there are billions of barrells of proven crude in capped small oil wells throughout the US's heartland. Kansas through Nebraska up into the dakotas, even pensylvania.

My great uncle worked on a farm in Kansas that also had an oil well, the well on that farm along with many others were forcibly closed during the Nixon through Reagon eras when whole deeds were nullified during the many land deed changes made in the 70's and early 80's. My uncle could never understand why they were closing oil wells during the middle of a fuel shortage. Another odditity was that before the well was closed they were having trouble finding someone to pickup and store their oil, getting the "all the tanks are full" How could they be full during a shortage?

These wells although small and usually family owned were proven and functional and had to be capped because the mineral rights were removed from the deed. Many times these deeds ran in families almost 100yrs and they were taken away & nullfied. Afterall you only own the right to be on the surface of the land, not whats underneith.

Add to this the number of small capped wells that were purchased outright by oil companies for the purpose of removing competition and you get the picture.

If we really WANTED to produce our own oil we do have a rather large amount easily accessible in small pockets throughout the US, the wells individually would produce much less than a large well but together would produce much more than ANWR ever could. And at that for many more years.

Also uncapping a formerly productive well is much simpler than drilling new I should hope?

Then we have the natural gas issue, no-one has ever refuted the findings of massive frozen deposites of natural gas in the gulf of mexico, its on the surface of the ocean floor so it would be easy to remove (no drilling) and all estimates place it at a larger size than the whole of the middle east (it afterall regenerates when removed from the oil underneith), sadly we also don't mention that one either except once on PBS then never again.

Nice how that works?

http://ecomodder.com/forum/163982-post36.html

That's my conspiracy theory, no matter who believes it.

[SentraSE-R]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...I hate to say it, but IMHO, ALL administration decisions have and will always be politically biased, tainted and partisian.

...there are no really good decisions, simply "...less bad..." ones.

...and, *that's* why I vote for "NONE OF THE ABOVE" whenever possible (ha,ha).

Did I not get my point across? I was a federal regulator for 34 years. Bush politicized - actually, polarized - government policies far more than any other administration, bar none. Don't try to justify his meddling by saying everyone else did it. That's not true, and smears everyone with Bush's brush.

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I'll let y'all in on a little well-kept secret:
Oil is a finite resource, human population is expanding exponentially, and energy use per capita is also expanding. Do the math.

Speaking of the math, populations tend to grow (or decline or whatever) based on some variation of a logistic function. Exponential population growth is a paradox assuming a finite world. If we're approaching this rationally that is..

[Frank Lee]

Thanks for sharing... but we're too "smart" for bottlenecks right? At least, so far....