Bush wins another one for his buddies in the oil Industry

No, in fact it does not address my question at all. Unless I missed it, that does not even attempt to forecast the impact of a 1% increase in supply on crude oil prices - which I am guessing is miniscule.

 

I advocate neither in the next 50 years. At the moment, hydrogen is unviable economically and a hydrocarbonless model would probably be dangerous to the environment in storage and harbor terrorist concerns. I agree that it's not ready yet. My remark was that Bush is selling it as a short term oil to hydrogen goal.

Realistically, a quick conversion to a hybrid fleet of cars will reduce oil demand and volatility. If there's a market for it, the motor companies will ramp up development into efficiency and speed.

I've written this before, but theoretically, we have enough wind power in the continental US to provide current energy usage. Wind power's energy to cost ratio is around the price of coal's.

I could search for the thread I wrote more in if you're interested.

 

Show me data where wind power can compete with coal. I've never seen it even remotely close.

 

we aren't supplying the world with this oil. this oil is for our use. i have not been able to find numbers on how it would directly effect the U.S. gas/oil prices. i am just guessing that something that increases domestic production by nearly 20% and satisfies 3-4% of the daily U.S. demand for oil would have a significant impact. those percentages are adjusted for U.S. oil demand which would be around 25-26 mln bpd by the time the field is online.

 

I wrote wrong, the 365 million barrels per year would satisfy a few months worth of oil supply.

Again though this is of course based on the hypothetical.

 

What? It's being nationalized and sold for our benefit? No it's not, it's going to be drilled by multinational petroleum companies and added to the worlds oil supply - you think we're going to get this oil "cut-rate"? Economically why should I treat oil that is drilled in Angola by Exxon any differently than oil drilled in Alaska? It's all going to the same refinery and its value to the markets is the same, less transportation costs

It's easy to exaggerate the impact on supply if you somehow pretend that Alaskan oil is not fungible with other oil, even though it is.

 

This is a silly debate.

I lived in Valdez in 1984-1985. The southern half of the Alyeska Pipeline ends there. This was roughly 4 years after it had started. In those four years, the animals had already learned to adapt to them.

It's not hard to adapt to trees, is it? Due to permafrost, they had to place the majority of the pipeline 5-10 feet above ground. The animals simply go underneath it.

It's about as harmful as a regular paved road, when finished. Any real problems near barren road areas in Yosemite? Didn't think so.

The original pipeline was a financial windfall for everyone involved, including Alaskan's, who had no problem receiving their residuals once it was in place.

Also, They can VERY easily tie in the new extension of the pipeline to the original one in the Northern section of Alaska, where any life is sparce.

In the end, this will only benefit our society.

 

Regardless, Sammy. It is an American resource that American taxpayers will benefit from.

Or do we no longer export any resources?

 

Sure. Roads can be harmful to the environment on their own, especially as a barrier. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, read Y2Y: Yellowstone to Yukon. It's a guy who walked from Yellowstone to Alaska, and studied the impact of forestation, oil&gas industry, roads, etc. on animal populations and migrations. An interesting read.

I think it is easy to say either "animals adapt" or "animals are clearly harmed", even to find some "scientific evidence" to support it.

My personal opinion is that even if this was 100% no harm no foul, short-term, long-term, whatever, to the environment, I wouldn't want it done.

 

??? Why not, then?

 

How much? That's what I keep asking and nobody can answer. I'm guessing that the monetary benefit per American is pretty damned small or else it would be trumpeted loudly.

 

That makes absolutely no sense. I guess you'd be fine if we'd just stayed in the original thirteen colonies, as well.

 

Nobody can give you a definitive answer, and you know it.

I do know that all Alaskan citizen's received a percentage of the original pipeline's profits every year. That should be an easier thing to find.

Roughly 500,000 Alaskans receive roughly $1,000 every year.

$500 million paid to Alaskan citizen's EVERY YEAR for the first pipeline.

I'd say We American's should benefit quite nicely

 

This file gives the figure of $5/Megawatt hour for wind in 1998. It also provides cost benefits for alternate energy sources.
http://www.ucsusa.org/documents/ACFF6pMpQ.pdf

In 2000, coal plants had the ballpark figure of $4-5/Megawatt hour.

Factor in health and legacy costs of coal and improving tech for wind during the course of operation, and the benefits long term are very tangible.

 

LOL, what? That's great. When am I going to get my check from ANWAR sales? Or does it only go to Alaskans? Do I have to move there? And who is doing this drilling? It is the US National OIL company? Sweet, I want to work for the US National Oil Company - this must be the company that drills oil on behalf of the US to make us money.

 

Want a laugh, anyone?

http://www.johnkerry.com



OWNED

 

Have they found a way to generate hydrogen that uses less hydrocarbons than just running whatever will be powered by the hydrogen just burning the hydrocarbons directly?

 

Because I feel comfortable knowing that just because something is there, doesn't mean we have to gobble it up and consume like there is nothing else to do in life, or there is no beauty in keeping something pristing just for the sake of it.

 

You're the report fetcher. Go fetch what percentage profit's were due Alaskan citizen's for the pipeline. It had to be in the gov's paperwork.

C'mon! You're always able to find these reports. Go find it!

 

Fatty, I don't give a f-k about the pipeline, and either way you've professed to be the expert on it so I defer to you as to the benefits.

I'm not asking about the pipeline. I'm asking about ANWR drilling. What I really wanted to know was how much a 1% (maximum- unless global oil production doesn't increase anywehere else, ever) increase in supply would impact crude oil prices.

Nobody seems to know.

But I'm glad you've informed me that I'm going to be receiving a check. I want to know how much it is, thanks.