ANWR

[AYFR]

Why are we not drilling there when some of the land is designated for oil drilling?

Eight million acres (32,375 km²) of the refuge are designated as Wilderness Area. The 1980 expansion of the refuge designated 1.5 million acres (6,070 km²) of the coastal plain as the 1002 area and mandated studies of the natural resources of this area, especially petroleum. Congressional authorization is required before oil drilling may proceed in this area. The remaining 10.1 million acres (40,873 km²) of the refuge are designated as "Minimal Management," a category intended to maintain existing natural conditions and resource values. These areas are suitable for wilderness designation, although there are presently no proposals to designate them as wilderness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANWR

[Saguaro]

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush put politics ahead of the facts Tuesday as he sought to blame Congress for high energy prices, saying foreign suppliers are pumping just about all the oil they can and accusing lawmakers of blocking new refineries.

Bush renewed his call for drilling in an Arctic wildlife refuge, but his own Energy Department says that would have little impact on gasoline prices.

THE SPIN:

Asked what he is doing to try to get Saudi Arabia to pump more oil, Bush didn't answer directly. "We've got to understand there's not a lot of excess capacity in the world right now," he said. Blaming "the lack of refinery capacity" for high energy prices, he said Congress has rejected his proposal to use shuttered military bases for refinery sites.

FACT:

Global oil supplies are tight, in part because OPEC nations including Saudi Arabia are refusing to open their spigots. But Saudi Arabia has considerable additional production capacity. It's pumping a little over 8.5 million barrels a day, compared to about 9.5 million barrels a day two years ago and has acknowledged the ability to produce as much as 11 million barrels a day.

On refineries, Congress has ignored Bush's proposal to use closed military bases. But the oil companies haven't shown much interest in building refineries either and have dismissed suggestions that military bases might be of use. They note, for example, that few bases are near pipelines needed to bring crude in and move finished product out.

When top executives of the country's five largest oil companies earlier this month were asked at a House hearing whether they wanted to build a new refinery, each said no.

While no new refinery has been built in more than 30 years, companies have been adding on to existing refineries. The Energy Information Administration estimates an additional 800,000 barrels a day of production will be added to existing refineries in the next three years. A joint venture between Shell Oil Co. and the Saudi Arabian oil company is expected to double capacity at a Port Arthur, Texas, refinery.

Even the industry's refinery expansion plans have been scaled back over the last few years because companies anticipate less demand for gasoline since the government now requires a huge expansion of ethanol as a motor fuel. They ask: Why should refiners make more gasoline if ethanol is to be used?

THE SPIN:

Bush has long called for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil development, and on Tuesday he chastised Congress for repeatedly blocking the proposal.

"If Congress is interested, they can send the right signal by saying we are going to explore for oil and gas in U.S. territories, starting with ANWR," said Bush, adding that opening the Alaska refuge to oil companies "likely will mean lower gas prices."

FACT:

Strongly opposed by environmentalists, most Democrats and a few moderate Republicans, drilling in the Arctic refuge indeed has been blocked, as the president complained.

Energy experts believe ANWR's likely 11 billion barrels of oil — pumped at just under 1 million barrels a day — would send a signal of increased U.S. interest in domestic energy production. However, in the long run, it likely would not significantly impact oil or gasoline prices. And it likely would have little impact on today's prices.

In 2005, the Energy Information Administration estimated that it would take about 10 years before oil would flow from ANWR if drilling were approved. By 2025, it said, the additional oil would have only a slight impact on global oil prices and cause a decline in gasoline prices of less than a penny a gallon, using constant 2003 dollars. Oil imports would drop from an expected 68 percent of U.S. demand to 64 percent, the EIA said.

THE SPIN:

Bush said "it is in our national interest" to continue pumping oil into the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve — about 70,000 barrels a day — "in case there is a major disruption of crude oil around the world."

FACT:

While some Democrats argue that halting the SPR fill would lower prices, most energy experts agree with the president that it likely would not. But the assertion that continued deliveries to SPR, which already holds 701 million barrels, is needed as a safeguard against a possible supply interruption may be a stretch.

"We have today a three-month supply of oil for emergencies," noted Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who would like to see the deliveries stop. And that would assume a total cutoff of oil imports, an unlikely occurrence even if there are major supply disruptions. In the meantime, said Hutchison, "over the next four months we will deposit over 8 million barrels into the SPR at a very high price."

THE SPIN:

The president said Congress was "demanding emissions cuts that would shut down coal plants" and criticized lawmakers for hindering the expansion of nuclear power.

FACT:

His remarks about coal were an apparent reference to climate legislation that would cap carbon dioxide emissions to address global warming. While such caps would significantly affect coal-burning power plants, the legislation also envisions having emission allowances, many of which would be used by utilities to keep coal plants running, though electricity prices would increase. And the emission limits also would spur development of carbon capture technologies from power plants.

On the nuclear issue, Congress has provided the industry loan guarantees, a streamlining of reactor permitting and other measures, all aimed at spurring construction of power reactors. It has shown little interest in a Bush plan to resume nuclear waste reprocessing, or in pressing ahead with the Yucca Mountain underground waste dump in Nevada.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i_u5JYufG7IzntX-X8DdNouL6rbAD90BNTJ80

[toxic]

Why are we not drilling there when some of the land is designated for oil drilling?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANWR

Probably because every available rig is drilling for oil in Texas and that is where our president has friends.

I would imagine you are seeing some of this in your town.

[AYFR]

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush put politics ahead of the facts Tuesday as he sought to blame Congress for high energy prices, saying foreign suppliers are pumping just about all the oil they can and accusing lawmakers of blocking new refineries.

Bush renewed his call for drilling in an Arctic wildlife refuge, but his own Energy Department says that would have little impact on gasoline prices.

THE SPIN:

Asked what he is doing to try to get Saudi Arabia to pump more oil, Bush didn't answer directly. "We've got to understand there's not a lot of excess capacity in the world right now," he said. Blaming "the lack of refinery capacity" for high energy prices, he said Congress has rejected his proposal to use shuttered military bases for refinery sites.

FACT:

Global oil supplies are tight, in part because OPEC nations including Saudi Arabia are refusing to open their spigots. But Saudi Arabia has considerable additional production capacity. It's pumping a little over 8.5 million barrels a day, compared to about 9.5 million barrels a day two years ago and has acknowledged the ability to produce as much as 11 million barrels a day.

On refineries, Congress has ignored Bush's proposal to use closed military bases. But the oil companies haven't shown much interest in building refineries either and have dismissed suggestions that military bases might be of use. They note, for example, that few bases are near pipelines needed to bring crude in and move finished product out.

When top executives of the country's five largest oil companies earlier this month were asked at a House hearing whether they wanted to build a new refinery, each said no.

While no new refinery has been built in more than 30 years, companies have been adding on to existing refineries. The Energy Information Administration estimates an additional 800,000 barrels a day of production will be added to existing refineries in the next three years. A joint venture between Shell Oil Co. and the Saudi Arabian oil company is expected to double capacity at a Port Arthur, Texas, refinery.

Even the industry's refinery expansion plans have been scaled back over the last few years because companies anticipate less demand for gasoline since the government now requires a huge expansion of ethanol as a motor fuel. They ask: Why should refiners make more gasoline if ethanol is to be used?

THE SPIN:

Bush has long called for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil development, and on Tuesday he chastised Congress for repeatedly blocking the proposal.

"If Congress is interested, they can send the right signal by saying we are going to explore for oil and gas in U.S. territories, starting with ANWR," said Bush, adding that opening the Alaska refuge to oil companies "likely will mean lower gas prices."

FACT:

Strongly opposed by environmentalists, most Democrats and a few moderate Republicans, drilling in the Arctic refuge indeed has been blocked, as the president complained.

Energy experts believe ANWR's likely 11 billion barrels of oil — pumped at just under 1 million barrels a day — would send a signal of increased U.S. interest in domestic energy production. However, in the long run, it likely would not significantly impact oil or gasoline prices. And it likely would have little impact on today's prices.

In 2005, the Energy Information Administration estimated that it would take about 10 years before oil would flow from ANWR if drilling were approved. By 2025, it said, the additional oil would have only a slight impact on global oil prices and cause a decline in gasoline prices of less than a penny a gallon, using constant 2003 dollars. Oil imports would drop from an expected 68 percent of U.S. demand to 64 percent, the EIA said.

THE SPIN:

Bush said "it is in our national interest" to continue pumping oil into the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve — about 70,000 barrels a day — "in case there is a major disruption of crude oil around the world."

FACT:

While some Democrats argue that halting the SPR fill would lower prices, most energy experts agree with the president that it likely would not. But the assertion that continued deliveries to SPR, which already holds 701 million barrels, is needed as a safeguard against a possible supply interruption may be a stretch.

"We have today a three-month supply of oil for emergencies," noted Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who would like to see the deliveries stop. And that would assume a total cutoff of oil imports, an unlikely occurrence even if there are major supply disruptions. In the meantime, said Hutchison, "over the next four months we will deposit over 8 million barrels into the SPR at a very high price."

THE SPIN:

The president said Congress was "demanding emissions cuts that would shut down coal plants" and criticized lawmakers for hindering the expansion of nuclear power.

FACT:

His remarks about coal were an apparent reference to climate legislation that would cap carbon dioxide emissions to address global warming. While such caps would significantly affect coal-burning power plants, the legislation also envisions having emission allowances, many of which would be used by utilities to keep coal plants running, though electricity prices would increase. And the emission limits also would spur development of carbon capture technologies from power plants.

On the nuclear issue, Congress has provided the industry loan guarantees, a streamlining of reactor permitting and other measures, all aimed at spurring construction of power reactors. It has shown little interest in a Bush plan to resume nuclear waste reprocessing, or in pressing ahead with the Yucca Mountain underground waste dump in Nevada.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i_u5JYufG7IzntX-X8DdNouL6rbAD90BNTJ80
That doesn't answer why we are not drilling there.
How much oil is in ANWR?
Geologists agree that the Coastal Plain has the nation's best geologic prospects for major new onshore oil discoveries. According to the Department of Interior's 1987 resource evaluation of ANWR's Coastal Plain, there is a 95% chance that a 'super field' with 500 million barrels would be discovered. DOI also estimates that there exists a mean of 3.5 billion barrels, and a 5% chance that a large Prudhoe Bay type discovery would be made.
http://www.anwr.org/Background/How-much-oil-is-in-ANWR.php

Top ten reasons to support ANWR development

1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.

2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates on bonus bids for ANWR by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Interior for the first 5 years after Congressional approval are $4.2 billion. Royalty and tax estimates for the life of the 10-02 fields were estimated by the Office of Management and Budget from $152-237 billion.

3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.

4. Economic Impact Between 1977 and 2004, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union.

5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 16% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 731,000 barrels a day.

7. Imported Oil Too Costly In 2007, the US imported an average of 60% of its oil and during certain months up to 64%. That equates to over $330 billion in oil imports. That’s $37.75 million per hour gone out of our economy! Factor in the cost to defend our imported oil, and the costs in jobs and industry sent abroad, the total would be nearly a trillion dollars.

8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas.

9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.

10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The democratically elected Alaska State Legislatures, congressional delegations, and Governors elected over the past 25 years have unanimously supported opening the Coastal Plain of ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.http://www.anwr.org/ANWR-Basics/Top-ten-reasons-to-support-ANWR-development.php
Probably because every available rig is drilling for oil in Texas and that is where our president has friends.

I would imagine you are seeing some of this in your town.
Actually I live over the Barnett Shale and they are drilling for gas here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Shale

The citizens here have fought against the enviromentialist to allow the drilling and the citizens won.

[jim]

I don't feel that we should make one big mine and oil well out of the whole world: We, or at least our posterity, have to live on this Earth... It is sure as hell in enough of a mess now!!:voodoo:mob:ydt:headshake:drevil

[patriotsblade]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/

WASHINGTON - Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.

The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.

But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge’s oil remained off the market.

At the same time, the report said new Alaska production would stem the expected dramatic decline in domestic production and extend the economic life of the Alaska oil pipeline as production from other North Slope areas declined significantly.

But even the additional domestic production would not be enough to overcome increased demand, meaning continued heavy reliance on imports, the EIA said. Currently, the United States imports about 56 percent of the oil it consumes.

Refuge a political football
Congress has grappled for years over whether to allow oil companies access to the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain in the Alaska refuge, which geologists believe harbors about 10.4 billion barrels of crude.


Last year, the House, citing the need for more domestic oil to ease the reliance on imports, gave a green light to drilling in the refuge, but the Senate refused to go along.

Many Senate Democrats, joined by a handful of moderate Republicans, have repeatedly blocked pro-drilling legislation, arguing that the refuge would be harmed ecologically. The coastal plain, which includes calving areas for caribou, is home to polar bears and other wildlife, as well as being a stopover for an annual migration of millions of birds.

Both sides see ammunition
Both sides in the issue likely will use the EIA report as ammunition in the next round of debate over energy legislation in Congress.

Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., chairman of the Resources Committee, seized on the finding Tuesday that development of the refuge would boost domestic oil production by 20 percent over what it otherwise would be in 2025.

“Given America’s energy crunch, ANWR production is a must,” Pombo, who requested the analysis, said in a statement.

But environmentalists said the findings debunked arguments pushed by the Bush administration and other pro-drilling advocates that the refuge was important for national security and economic independence.

“It underscores what we’ve been saying all along, that oil drilling in the refuge would do next to nothing to actually meet America’s energy needs,” said Justin Tatham of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, an environmental organization active in protecting the refuge from development. “... We’re still going to be reliant, if not more reliant, on foreign sources of oil.”

The EIA study also noted the importance of the refuge’s oil to Alaska.

Without the refuge’s development, oil flowing from the North Slope would fall to 500,000 barrels a day — half of current levels — by 2025 and approach levels at which the pipeline may no longer be economical to operate, the report said.

Production to increase anyway
U.S. domestic oil production will increase over the next four years, from the current 5.7 million barrels a day to 6.1 million barrels a day, largely because of additional oil coming from the Gulf of Mexico, according to the EIA report.

But after that, domestic production will decline steadily without access to the Alaskan coastal plain, and it is expected to fall to 4.6 million barrels a day by 2025. With demand increasing, imports will continue to play a larger role, jumping from 9.7 million barrels a day to nearly 16 million barrels a day, about 70 percent of what is consumed by 2025.

With the 876,000 barrels the refuge could provide a day, the reliance on imports would drop to 66 percent of domestic consumption, the EIA analysis said. The study said it would likely have little impact on world oil prices — perhaps reducing the price by 30 to 50 cents a barrel if prices were in the $27-a-barrel range.

The price of light sweet crude was $37.48 per barrel Tuesday on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

James Kendell, one of the authors of the study, said the refuge would add to domestic production, but “when you’re talking of a world oil market of over 75 million barrels a day, adding 900,000 barrels by 2025 is a drop in the bucket.”

No one is certain how much oil is beneath the Alaskan coastal plain. In assuming 876,000-barrel-a-day production, the EIA assumed the “mean” estimate provided by geologists of 10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable reserves. Geologists say there could be less or much more. Environmentalists argue that much of that oil may not be economically recoverable if oil prices decline.

These are the finding of Bush's Energy Dept.

[AYFR]

Ok PB but it will still help, so why not drill in a place that was set aside for drilling.

[patriotsblade]

Reverend, it won't help. I think people who say drill ANWR are thinking that as soon as the drill bit hits the ground the oil prices will drop. That study was published in 2004 and it stated that production would not even begin until 2013 if the drilling started then. Based on those numbers that would be extended to 2017 if it were to start now. Add to it the fact that it would not be a major source of petroleum it just doesn't make sense to even chance the potential environmental damage. When the area was 'set aside' in 1980 there was no possible way that people could have imagined the evironmental consequences as we understand them today.

[nixon]

We own Iraq. Iraq has plenty of oil. Why don't we put that Iraqi oil on a boat and ship it to the U.S.?