November 2, 2005

ANWR Shall We Drill Next?

Hatched by Dafydd

Hugh Hewitt notes that tomorrow, the Senate votes on drilling for oil and natural gas in a teensy sliver of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) -- the 1002 Area of the Arctic Coastal Plain, to be specific. And just now, Sen. George Allen (R-VA) predicts that drilling will pass.

Anwrmap.jpg

If this proves correct, this is great news! I would stick the "Good News" subject on this post, but we typically use that for Good News about Iraq, not about Alaska. Even if it involves black gold.

The House has been supportive of drilling in ANWR for a long time, even going back to the Clinton administration, when they voted for it in 2000. The Senate has always been the roadblock. Ever since 9/11, there has been a majority in the Senate willing to vote for drilling... but the vote has been stopped at least once before by Democratic threats of a filibuster.

I don't know whether Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has solved this problem; they got ANWR drilling into a budget vote on March 16th of this year; the budget is not subject to filibuster, and it passed. However, simply budgeting money does not release it... it also must be appropriated; and I don't know whether the Democrats are going to be allowed to filibuster that vote -- which presumably is what they will hold tomorrow.

Perhaps the procedural machinations have made ANWR drilling immune to the filibuster; in that case, Sen. Allen's prediction will likely eventuate. But if it's still subject to filibuster, I'm pretty sure there are more than 40 die-hard opponents of Alaskan oil drilling, and it will fail.

This is a critical battle that can have long-term impact not only on gasoline prices (when coupled with major construction of refineries, as called for in the recently approved Energy Bill) -- but also on the Global War on Terrorism, for reasons which are obvious.

And who knows? If this passes, maybe we can likewise step up oil production off the coast of Santa Barbara and in the Gulf of Mexico. We could, if we chose, convert ourselves into almost being energy independent.

I would actually hope for one codicil in this ANWR bill: I want a proviso that says Americans have the right of first refusal to buy the oil and natural gas from this site, at prevailing world oil prices, before it's sold on the world market. In other words, we should first offer to sell American oil to American consumers (at the same price, but of course with lower transportation cost) before exporting it to foreigners. This would encourage energy independence, weakening the Axis of Islam significantly.

Well, that's my two barrels, at least.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, November 2, 2005, at the time of 5:07 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/183

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference ANWR Shall We Drill Next?:

» ANWR Shall Drilling Opponents Go to Cry? from Big Lizards
Yesterday, I gave you all a heads up (HT Hugh Hewitt) that the Senate was to have a final vote on drilling for oil in ANWR. Today the Senate voted -- and pro-energy forces won! The Luddites lost, but narrowly:... [Read More]

Tracked on November 3, 2005 4:03 PM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

Canada is doing "Tar Sand". We have lots of "Oil Shale"...more oil than SA from what i hear. With "Off-Shore" and "Oil-Shale", we apparently have more oil reserves than the whole Middle East.

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 2, 2005 5:49 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

Senator Bill Nelson is up for re-election in 2006, here in Florida, and he is against "off-shore" drilling. He'll get at least one Vote against his arse, and it will be a Karmic one.

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 2, 2005 6:17 PM

The following hissed in response by: RBMN

They'll be doing the drilling in Winter, when they can drive on the ice. Do people realize that ANWR is way above the Arctic Circle, and at the times of year they'll be doing the drilling, the Sun doesn't even come up? It's dark 24 hours a day.

The above hissed in response by: RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 2, 2005 6:23 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

ANWR Shall We Drill Next?

Excellent!!!

Anyway, ANWR is but a drop in a 50,000 gallon barrel of 50,000 such barrel containers. Off-Shore first, then move to "Shale Oil". Environmentalists and America’s Democrat Party have stifled fair competition for oil. Hurricane Katrina proved that Off-Shore drilling is safe!!!

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 2, 2005 7:03 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

we should first offer to sell American oil to American consumers

What if that oil can sell for triple elsewhere? This is part of the problem...America places limits on producing its own oil (law suits, legal fees for rules, etc.), and wants to buy oil cheap. i hope it hits $5 a gallon soon (here in America)!!! Too many rules here in America is the problem, and thus we remain stuck with Middle East oil.

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 2, 2005 7:33 PM

The following hissed in response by: Ric Locke

::sigh::

Oil is "fungible" -- by which is meant it doesn't matter where it comes from, it all burns the same. What that means to the market is that details, like transportation costs, control. There isn't any such thing as "American" oil. The dinosaurs didn't have passports. Their mashed and cooked remains are stateless.

It is very likely that ANWR oil will go to Japan. It's a straight shot as ships do it, as contrasted with the fairly tortuous passage for oil from the Middle East to get there. What that means is that the Mad Mullahs get less Japanese money. They have to sell oil somewhere else, and the obvious choice is Europe -- nearby, pipelines, etc. That in turn means Europeans buy less from Venezuela, so we get oil from South America. To ship oil from ANWR to the coast of Texas, where it can be efficiently refined, is more expensive than this Goldbergish arrangement (or some equivalent one; it might be different).

The effect is what we want: a barrel of oil pumped from ANWR means a barrel of oil shows up at a refinery along the Houston Ship Channel, or somewhere in South Louisiana. The fact that it isn't the *same* barrel of oil doesn't make a hill of beans to anybody, to a close first approximation.

To a second approximation, oil is not *quite* fully fungible. Different sources produce crude that requires slightly different processes in the refinery, and once a refinery is built assuming a particular source it's expensive and time-consuming to refit it. Gulf Coast refineries (the Big Boys in that system) are set up to accept, more or less in order, crude from local (Texas, Louisiana), Gulf, and Venezuelan sources (only East Coast refineries, primarily New Jersey, use much Middle Eastern oil). Even if you could magically transport oil from ANWR to, say, Lake Charles or Secaucus, the refineries couldn't handle it efficiently. Better to do swaps and get oil that can be used without major changes.

That's just the tip of that oilberg :-) Further neeping would be redundant, methinks.

Regards,
Ric

The above hissed in response by: Ric Locke [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 2, 2005 7:59 PM

The following hissed in response by: Ric Locke

Oh, and KarmiCommunist, you may be disappointed. Last week, regular unleaded was $2.029 in Oklahoma City, and today, here in small-town north Texas, the price dropped thirty cents, from $2.439 to $2.139, between 5:00 PM and 7:00 PM.

The refineries in south Louisiana and southeast Texas are coming back on line, and the system is working the way it's supposed to.

Regards,
Ric

The above hissed in response by: Ric Locke [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 2, 2005 8:05 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Ric Locke:

Yes, I understand that... and I want to break that fungibility in this case. I want American oil to be offered to American consumers before it enters the world market: a straight shot down a pipeline or via tanker.

The problem with the scenario above is that it works great -- so long as everybody is playing within the market. But if oil from here goes to Japan, and we get our oil from the ME or Venezuela, then that means we're dependent upon countries that are potentially our enemies and can cut us off at the drop of a turban or a gaucho's hat.

It makes more strategic sense for something as vital as oil to go from our domestic sources -- and KarmiCommunist is absolutely correct to bring up shale oil -- into our domestic market. If the rule says we buy at the world oil price, that means the suppliers don't lose a dime by selling to us first and only selling surplus to Japan.

But it does mean that even if the Middle East explodes into a terrible World War and Venezuela joins with Cuba to form the United Democratic People's Republic and refuses to sell us any oil, we won't lose a drop.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 2, 2005 8:11 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

Ric,

Ignore my name, and pay closer attention to my words.

Karmi

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 2, 2005 8:14 PM

The following hissed in response by: cdquarles

Dafydd,

Sorry, the market does not work that way. Products go to the highest bidder. Adding your idea to the massively overregulated oil markets will just make things worse. I understand the sentiment, but it is just like the stupid price controls, 'windfall profits' taxes, and other impediments that caused this problem in the first place.

Btw, we will never run out of oil or any other hydrocarbon. This planet is awash in it. Making oil isn't difficult (just not economical). Back in the '70's I was part of the coal liquefaction effort. We still can get oil from livestock rendering. We grow it (soybeans, et. al). We have genetically engineered bacteria into making it (and plastics too).

What is silly is the hydrogen fanatics. Hydrogen is very expensive to extract (there's no free hydrogen in the Earth or on the surface). Fuel cells will have thermodynamic problems to overcome (not impossible, but expensive). Energetically, hydrocarbons are best. That's why nearly all life forms on the planet use them as an energy storage form.

The above hissed in response by: cdquarles [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 2, 2005 10:40 PM

The following hissed in response by: jackal

Well, it's about time.

To expound on RBMN's comment: not only is ANWR well above the Arctic Circle, but the portion that they'll be drilling on (the 1002 Area) is on the flat, barren coastal plain. So when the Sierra Club and Greenpeace shows TV commercials of lush forests and grand mountains and says that they'll be threatened by drilling, they're lying through their teeth. That portion of ANWR is several hundred miles south of where they'd drill.

I know. I've been there. And I've interviewed people from oil companies, environmental groups, and State of Alaska officials.

And if someone argues that the tundra is a vital part of the arctic's ecosystem, let me be the first to agree. (Barren and flat doesn't necessarily mean wasteland.) But I have to follow that up by saying that not only do the oil companies explore and drill in winter to minimize their impact on the environment, their actions actually *promote* environmental growth. The caribou herd that migrates through the Prudhoe Bay area has actually *grown* in the 30 years they've been pumping oil and is no longer considered threatened. So when the environmentalist groups and the Gwitch'in tribe say that the porcupine caribou herd will be decimated, they're not looking at the facts.

So, there may be 40 Senators that opposed drilling. But they stood on erroneous facts. Let's hope their beliefs have been corrected.

Now, more on topic:

Dafydd: you make a good point. Perhaps Alaskan oil should be used to reduce our dependence on foreign sources. But if it's economically beneficial to arrange the distribution in a way like Ric said, let's not look a gift horse in the mouth. Former Alaska governor Jay Hammond said in his autobiography that the state would have come out way ahead of where it is now had we gone with the idea of a pipeline to and through Canada. Unfortunately, the "Keep oil in Alaska!" lobby won, and the state ended up losing oil revenue. (The economics of it were vastly more complicated, but I don't have the book handy enough to do a summary of his point.) That may or may not be related to Ric's point, but my point is: let's do what is economically best for both the State of Alaska and the United States of America.

And if Ric's proposal goes through and the South Americans later cut their supply of oil to us, we can always (contracts and regulations permitting) just redirect the oil tankers to West Coast refineries and markets (where they go right now, anyway, with Prudhoe Bay oil) to help our nation's supply.

OK, enough out of me...

The Jackal

(Comment on my introductory post: I have to say, it's a remarkably small world. So here I am, reading Glenn Reynolds' Instapundit blog when he links to a post by "Dafydd ab Hugh." I swear to myself I've seen that name before...was it in a science fiction setting? The name is unique enough, but I have to verify: is this the very same Dafydd ab Hugh who wrote my single most favorite Star Trek novel: Invasion, from the Final Fury series?)

The above hissed in response by: jackal [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 2, 2005 10:51 PM

The following hissed in response by: Ed Poinsett

As was posted, the world is awash in hydrocarbon fuels. Between Canada and the USA, we have more proven oil reserves in shale and oil sands than all of the arabs combined. Up until recently, it has not been economical to extract but with oil at $60 a barrel, it becomes very feasible. There were reports recently that Canadians are producing it at about $20 a barrel. As long as our citizens are willing to spend $3 a gallon for gas, there is plenty of money to be made using world oil. I don't know this for certain, but it seems the strategy is to let the arabs pump it dry, then we'll control it all.

The above hissed in response by: Ed Poinsett [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 2, 2005 11:36 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Cdquarles:

What is silly is the hydrogen fanatics. Hydrogen is very expensive to extract (there's no free hydrogen in the Earth or on the surface). Fuel cells will have thermodynamic problems to overcome (not impossible, but expensive). Energetically, hydrocarbons are best. That's why nearly all life forms on the planet use them as an energy storage form.

Actually, my favorite solution is the high-temperature ceramic engine, because you can burn ordinary gasoline in it -- or crude oil, wood, leaves, or anything organic. Small animals will work, too... at 5000° Fahrenheit, pretty much anything will burn.

I blogged about it on Patterico's Pontifications a while ago, before Big Lizards was up and running. Should I put the post up here?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 2, 2005 11:54 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Jackal:

I know. I've been there.

How did you get to go there? Can I go? I'd love to visit area 1002 in the dead of winter... it should be as close to an alien planet as I'm likely to see for quite a few decades.

(Yes, I wrote Final Fury, as well as six or seven other Trek books, starting with Fallen Heroes, the Deep Space 9 novel where everybody dies. Alas, there is no money in Star Trek novels anymore. Is Peter David even doing them still?

(By the way, to quash the highly amusing rumor... no, I am not a pseudonym of Peter's. We are two separate people... though come to think of it, even I have never seen the two of us in the same room together!)

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 3, 2005 12:05 AM

The following hissed in response by: David

"Should I put the post up here?" Yes.

:-)

There's more than one way to skin the energy cat. A demonstrastion thermal depolymerization plant in Carthage, MO, has been manufacturing oil from "turkey guts" since 2003, and has recently ramped up to 100% capacity. Yeh, a few political problems, but the technology's apparently sound. Can be used with virtually any organic refuse, including sewage. Some horrible byproducts, though: methane (with is, not surprisingly, re-used in the process as an energy source), fertilizer and—gasp!—clean water.

That's just one helpful lil bit.

Since petroleum products are also used extensively in electricity production, why not eliminate petro from the electicity production loop entirely? Pebble bed reactors are comparitively simple technology and safer than oil refineries. China's planning its own energy independence with scores of pebble bed ractors already being built. It's time for sensible, safe nuclear energy.

Hey! With economical, abundant and dependable nuclear-produced electricity, hydrogen fuel becomes much more reasonable as an alternative. "Hydrogen is very expensive to extract (there's no free hydrogen in the Earth or on the surface)." Yeh. Pull the other one. Economical, abundant and dependable pebble bed reactor-priduced electricity+water= uhm electrolitically-produced hydrogen (with the terrible byproduct of... oxygen). Hydrogen is the third most abundant element on the planet, and just about the easiest thing in the world to "refine" from its crudely-available state. Anyone else here burned a lil hydrogen you refined from water in a high school "chemlab for dummies" experiment?

Ahhh... we could be entirely energy-independent without sacrificing lifestyle if we as a people wanted such. All the pieces are there, already (like the ANWAR drilling and more), but for completely silly reasons we're lurching from manufactured "crisis" to manufactured "crisis". Well, at least it keeps the chicken littles in caviar.

The above hissed in response by: David [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 3, 2005 12:48 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

David:

The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) is gas cooled; another interesting new design is the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR), which if I recall correctly is cooled by liquid metal... sodium, I think.

There are some great new designs out there; and for the very first time, a number of environmentalists are starting to take a more benign view of reactors. They have finally realized, it seems, that every modern, safe, and clean nuclear reactor can take the place of a nasty, dangerous, and environmentally damaging coal or oil powered generator. I don't have the names at my finger-ends, but I recall several high-profile enviro-wacko groups have recently (past decade or so) advocated switching plants to modern nuclear reactors.

(They justify the change by saying modern designs are much safer than the old-fashioned kind of breeders... which is true enough and gives them sufficient cover.)

Somewhere around 50% of oil is used on vehicles (passenger and commercial) and the rest on generators and other industrial, I believe. So if we can use ceramic engines to burn gasoline or oil at very high temperatures (greatly increasing the horsepower and reducing pollutants -- hydrocarbon emissions being wasted fuel, of course), and also power more and more industrial machinery by electricity generated by various advanced nuclear reactors, we could probably decrease our oil-gasoline-coal needs by 75%-80% over thirty or forty years, without having to change our existing manufacturing and fueling infrastructure (saves a lot of money, not having to replace gasoline pumps across the nation with electrical recharging centers).

Is that an unreasonable guess?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 3, 2005 3:57 AM

The following hissed in response by: jackal

(Dafydd said:) How did you get to go there? Can I go? I'd love to visit area 1002 in the dead of winter... it should be as close to an alien planet as I'm likely to see for quite a few decades.

Er, oops. That's what's wrong with writing things out of order.

I added that tidbit in after I wrote everything else ("Hey, I need something to show that I'm an Alaskan!"). I thought I had mentioned Prudhoe Bay in that paragraph, but I guess not.

What I've done is driven the haul road (the Dalton Highway) up to Deadhorse, near Prudhoe Bay. Geographically, Prudhoe Bay is somewhat similar to the 1002 Area of ANWR's coastal plane. The major difference is of course the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline and the industrial development that's sprung up around the oil fields.

Anyway, the coastal plane is barren enough in the summer...I'd be as intrigued as you to see it in the winter. Right now, though, I'd be happy just going to Fairbanks in the middle of January: I have this intense curiosity to see if hot coffee really does freeze before it hits the ground when it's -60° outside. (Unfortunately, it doesn't get nearly that cold here in Anchorage.)

On a technical note, how do you quote someone else here with Movable Type? Try as I might, I couldn't get that red vertical bar signifying a reply to come up. I tried all manners of [quote] and > and the like...

The above hissed in response by: jackal [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 3, 2005 9:09 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Jackal:

On a technical note, how do you quote someone else here with Movable Type? Try as I might, I couldn't get that red vertical bar signifying a reply to come up. I tried all manners of [quote] and > and the like...

Alas, I haven't been able to make work a new comment template that is supposed to give you buttons to make it simple.

Therefore, you have to type in the XHTML code to do a <blockquote>, just as you have to write in the code to do boldface (using <strong>).

So to quote this sentence, you would write this:

<blockquote>So to quote this sentence, you would write this:</blockquote>

And in the comment, it should end up looking like this...

So to quote this sentence, you would write this:

At least, I think it works; it works when I leave comments (as you see), and as far as Movable Type is concerned, I'm just another commenter (it doesn't know I'm the blog author when I'm commenting).

Try it, let's see!

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 3, 2005 2:17 PM

The following hissed in response by: jackal

Try it, let's see!

OK...we'll see if that worked. "Blockquote" was what I was looking for...

Yup, that works! :-)

Chris (I might as well reveal my name...)

The above hissed in response by: jackal [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 3, 2005 6:21 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved