Harry Porter wrote:
Alaskans are over 80% for the oil to flow. So it is not
controversial there, just in the lower 48.
Sorta reverse "NIMBY", huh? <not in YOUR backyard!>
I'll be the first to admit that it makes far easier sport to lob a
judgement call on a situation 4000 mi away than on one next door.
- H.
Tapping the oil in ANWR would have little or no impact on prices at
the pump. In spite of what oil companies want you to believe, there's
just not enough oil there to do that. Besides, it is estimated that if
we were to open up ANWR to drilling today, it would be about 10 years
before any oil could make its way to a refinery. And even if we were
to drill all the known or even suspected places left in the US at
which there could be oil, including offshore, we could still not drill
our way to energy independance. We will always have to import most of
our oil. Sooner or later this nation must wake up to the fact that the
days of cheap oil and gasoline are over and focus on more efficient
ways of burning it, as well as on alternative forms of energy.
Artmo
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:
If you want to complain about something, complain about all that oil
laying under ANWR while you are paying $3 a gallon for gas.
As a long time Alaskan and one who lives on the North Slope, I feel I
must weight into this conversation. First off let me say that I do not,
nor have I ever or any of my family, worked for an oil company. Ten
years ago they said it would take 10 years to get oil from ANWR. And
here are we now 10 years later at $3 a gallon. Would it of made a
difference today if we had opened it 10 years ago? Probably. You would
only be paying $2.50 a gallon. If we do not open it up, what will we be
paying 10 years from now? Maybe $6-7 dollars a gallon? Currently I pay
$5.75 a gallon for diesel, and I live next door to the old fields.
Drilling ANWR today will not lower prices today, but today is not what I
am worried about. Tomorrow is the problem. With China sucking up more
oil every year, the price of oil is never going to go down. All we can
do is help offset the increases that are coming. The only true
alternative is nuclear. A dirty word for Americans for sure, but the
rest of the world is building more of them for a reason. Solar and wind
are good energy makers in isolated areas but even then cannot produce
the amount of energy needed in the areas that they are located. Mickey
has a very good take on our feelings in this state as for drilling.
Bob
Artmo wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vpFREE%40yahoogroups.com>,
"mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:>
> If you want to complain about something, complain about all that oil
> laying under ANWR while you are paying $3 a gallon for gas.Tapping the oil in ANWR would have little or no impact on prices at
the pump. In spite of what oil companies want you to believe, there's
just not enough oil there to do that. Besides, it is estimated that if
we were to open up ANWR to drilling today, it would be about 10 years
before any oil could make its way to a refinery. And even if we were
to drill all the known or even suspected places left in the US at
which there could be oil, including offshore, we could still not drill
our way to energy independance. We will always have to import most of
our oil. Sooner or later this nation must wake up to the fact that the
days of cheap oil and gasoline are over and focus on more efficient
ways of burning it, as well as on alternative forms of energy.Artmo
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bob Sommer - Top of the World Coins
<NL7HT@...> wrote:
As a long time Alaskan and one who lives on the North Slope, I feel I
must weight into this conversation. First off let me say that I do
not,
nor have I ever or any of my family, worked for an oil company.
OK. But since the State of Alaska is reported to receive 85% of its
annual revenue from oil taxes and royalties, I hope you're not saying
that as an Alaskan resident you don't stand to benefit more than the
rest of us from opening up ANWR to oil drilling.
Ten
years ago they said it would take 10 years to get oil from ANWR. And
here are we now 10 years later at $3 a gallon. Would it of made a
difference today if we had opened it 10 years ago? Probably. You
would
only be paying $2.50 a gallon.
I don't think so. According to the U.S. Department of Energy's own
Energy Information Administration (EIA), even twenty years down the
road, when Arctic Refuge oil is at or near peak production, gas prices
would be affected by about a penny per gallon.
If we do not open it up, what will we be
paying 10 years from now? Maybe $6-7 dollars a gallon?
Whatever the price is, it will not depend on whether or not we open up
ANWR. Oil prices are set on a global oil market, and ANWR oil
production would, relatively speaking, amount to a drop in the bucket.
Historically, similar increases in U.S. production have had little or
no impact on world oil prices. OPEC controls more than 75 percent of
the world's oil reserves and meets several times a year to agree on
production levels. It's the collusion of these oil powers that sets
the worldwide price for all oil, based on simple supply and demand
principles. They have the majority of the supply and we have the
majority of demand.
This whole business of opening up ANWR to lower prices at the pump is
just another smoke and mirrors deception by the "no place too precious
to plunder", oil company controlled Bush administration.
Currently I pay
$5.75 a gallon for diesel, and I live next door to the old fields.
Drilling ANWR today will not lower prices today, but today is not
what I
am worried about. Tomorrow is the problem. With China sucking up more
oil every year, the price of oil is never going to go down. All we can
do is help offset the increases that are coming.
Even if this can be accomplished, it won't be by drilling ANWR.
The only true
alternative is nuclear.
Please. Don't get me started on this one.
A dirty word for Americans for sure, but the
rest of the world is building more of them for a reason.
Whatever the reason, it ain't because it's been proven as a safe
technology. For me, the dangers to us now as well as to future
generations far outweigh the benefits. It's yet another short sited
solution to our energy needs.
Artmo
In response to:
> Ten years ago they said it would take 10 years to get oil from ANWR.
> And here are we now 10 years later at $3 a gallon. Would it of made
> a difference today if we had opened it 10 years ago? Probably. You
> would only be paying $2.50 a gallon.
Artmo replied
I don't think so. According to the U.S. Department of Energy's own
Energy Information Administration (EIA), even twenty years down the
road, when Arctic Refuge oil is at or near peak production, gas
prices would be affected by about a penny per gallon.
Those of us who might discount the economic impact of opening ANWR to
drilling (and I include myself among them) received a somewhat
unfortunate wake up call this morning.
BP announced the shut down of the Prudhoe Bay oilfield pending
investigation of suspected pipeline corrosion. Prudhoe is the
nation's biggest oilfield, representing 8% of US production. It's
been suggested that this could be good for another quarter or $.50
hike at the pump ultimately ... maybe more.
One has to admit that having alternative domestic sources is becoming
an increasingly attractive asset.
- Harry
the increase in oil prices is based on traders speculation that there
will be more and worse pipeline's shutdown, not the (minor) affect of
the Prudhoe Bay shutdown. gas up right now, as prices should be up
$.10 or so immediately.
The real curiosity for me regarding the oil market is why the oil
consuming nations never got together and formed their own cartel.
On 8/7/06, Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net> wrote:
In response to:
> > Ten years ago they said it would take 10 years to get oil from ANWR.
> > And here are we now 10 years later at $3 a gallon. Would it of made
> > a difference today if we had opened it 10 years ago? Probably. You
> > would only be paying $2.50 a gallon.Artmo replied
> I don't think so. According to the U.S. Department of Energy's own
> Energy Information Administration (EIA), even twenty years down the
> road, when Arctic Refuge oil is at or near peak production, gas
> prices would be affected by about a penny per gallon.Those of us who might discount the economic impact of opening ANWR to
drilling (and I include myself among them) received a somewhat
unfortunate wake up call this morning.BP announced the shut down of the Prudhoe Bay oilfield pending
investigation of suspected pipeline corrosion. Prudhoe is the
nation's biggest oilfield, representing 8% of US production. It's
been suggested that this could be good for another quarter or $.50
hike at the pump ultimately ... maybe more.One has to admit that having alternative domestic sources is becoming
an increasingly attractive asset.- Harry
Gas prices shouldnt be up a single cent as there is more than enough oil in inventory to cover this. Government has promised to release any oil should there be a request from the refineries. Any increases will come as a result of gasoline market no longer being a commodity and more of a casino for traders.
Eric <oddsworking@gmail.com> wrote: the increase in oil prices is based on traders speculation that there
will be more and worse pipeline's shutdown, not the (minor) affect of
the Prudhoe Bay shutdown. gas up right now, as prices should be up
$.10 or so immediately.
The real curiosity for me regarding the oil market is why the oil
consuming nations never got together and formed their own cartel.
On 8/7/06, Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net> wrote:
In response to:
> > Ten years ago they said it would take 10 years to get oil from ANWR.
> > And here are we now 10 years later at $3 a gallon. Would it of made
> > a difference today if we had opened it 10 years ago? Probably. You
> > would only be paying $2.50 a gallon.Artmo replied
> I don't think so. According to the U.S. Department of Energy's own
> Energy Information Administration (EIA), even twenty years down the
> road, when Arctic Refuge oil is at or near peak production, gas
> prices would be affected by about a penny per gallon.Those of us who might discount the economic impact of opening ANWR to
drilling (and I include myself among them) received a somewhat
unfortunate wake up call this morning.BP announced the shut down of the Prudhoe Bay oilfield pending
investigation of suspected pipeline corrosion. Prudhoe is the
nation's biggest oilfield, representing 8% of US production. It's
been suggested that this could be good for another quarter or $.50
hike at the pump ultimately ... maybe more.One has to admit that having alternative domestic sources is becoming
an increasingly attractive asset.- Harry
---------------------------------
Groups are talking. We´re listening. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tar Sand in Alberta Canada, Trillions (yes trillions) of barrels of oil just waiting.
Extracting it is costly but at $3 a gallon, it might be something to look at.
CK
If you want to complain about something, complain about all that oil
laying under ANWR while you are paying $3 a gallon for gas.
Tapping the oil in ANWR would have little or no impact on prices at
the pump. In spite of what oil companies want you to believe, there's
just not enough oil there to do that. Besides, it is estimated that if
we were to open up ANWR to drilling today, it would be about 10 years
before any oil could make its way to a refinery. And even if we were
to drill all the known or even suspected places left in the US at
which there could be oil, including offshore, we could still not drill
our way to energy independance. We will always have to import most of
our oil. Sooner or later this nation must wake up to the fact that the
days of cheap oil and gasoline are over and focus on more efficient
ways of burning it, as well as on alternative forms of energy.
Artmo
Artmo <paddlejunkie@rocketmail.com> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Better yet, why not build some of the plants to turn coal in to gas,
diesel, and jet fuel. Coal is one thing that we have a lot of here in
the US. China is going to be building 20 of the plants (per an
interview on CNBC 3 or 4 months ago).
Are we going to be 15 to 20 years behind China like we are with
Brazil when it comes to ethanol?
Jacob
Tar Sand in Alberta Canada, Trillions (yes trillions) of barrels of
oil just waiting.
Extracting it is costly but at $3 a gallon, it might be something
to look at.
waiting.
Shale oil in Colorado (trillions) just waiting.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, chet Klyn <chetkl@...> wrote:
Tar Sand in Alberta Canada, Trillions (yes trillions) of barrels of oil just
A couple of comments...
First, while trillions is an acurate assessment of the oil reserve in
Albera/Saskatchewan, it is also misleading -- it implies several
trillion. In reality, there are approximately 2 trillion barrels.
Second, they have been generating oil from these sands for many years.
Currently, they are producing at least 750,000 barrels/day of oil.
Expansion of existing facilities and construction of new facilities
will take this over 1 million barrels/day.
The oil costs $12-$15/barrel to mine/separate/refine...far more than
more traditional sources of oil, but certainly well below the current
$70+/barrel prices.
Over the course of the next 10 years, somewhere in the $100 billion
range will be spent on exploration and construction of facilities.
Ken
(Who notes that there is far more oil shale in Colorado and Utah than
oil/tar sand in Canada.)
Tar Sand in Alberta Canada, Trillions (yes trillions) of barrels of
oil just waiting.
Extracting it is costly but at $3 a gallon, it might be something
to look at.
Don't expect any sanity from Congress. The U.S. is also the only
country that taxes its citizens who live abroad. And they just made
some modifications to make it even worse for those of us outside the
country. Slipped it into a bill at the last minute AND better yet made
it retroactive to 1/1/06. So we've already made an estimated tax
payment for 06 (two now) and don't know what this bill will mean
exactly. The IRS doesn't even know what to do with it yet!
Just another smart move by Congress - make it cost-prohibitive for
companies to hire Americans (or cost-prohibitive for Americans to work
abroad if companies don't make up the difference). That will send more
Americans back to compete for U.S. jobs rather than into foreign job
markets. Is that really what they want?
Sorry, had to vent when I read the first part of the e-mail below...
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "caplatinum" <belairgold@...> wrote:
It is the wrong question. The central question why is the United
States the only major English speaking country that taxes
recreational gambling - Canada, the UK and Austrailia do not.