The real reason for our high fuel/fertilizer costs.

[Sir Loin]

The real reason for our high fuel/fertilizer costs.

IMO, the real reason for high fuel and fertilizer costs, among some others, is being caused by our inability, or lack of willingness to tap our own abundant natural resources, such as this one.
IMO the day a drill hits the ground in ANWR the price of both fuel and fertilizer will begin to fall.
What do you think?
SL

US Dept of the Interior
Office of the Secretary

For Immediate Release: March 12, 2003 Contact: Mark Pfeifle (202) 208-6416
ANWR Oil Reserves Greater Than Any State
"We can develop energy at home while protecting the environmental values
we all hold dear," Interior Secretary Norton says
(WASHINGTON, DC) - Interior Secretary Gale Norton said that oil reserves in the far Northern Coastal Plain of ANWR represent the nation's largest single prospect for future oil production - greater than any state, including Texas and Louisiana.
Secretary Norton shared statistics about ANWR's energy potential with members of the U.S. House Resource Committee during testimony this morning on Capitol Hill.
"The Administration firmly believes that we can develop energy at home while protecting the environmental values we all hold dear," Secretary Norton said. "The Coastal Plain of ANWR's 1002 area is the nation's single greatest onshore oil reserve. The USGS estimates that it contains a mean expected value of 10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil. To put that into context, the potential daily production from ANWR's 1002 area is larger than the current daily onshore oil production of any of the lower 48 states."
"ANWR could produce nearly 1.4 million barrels of oil, while Texas produces just more than one million barrels a day, California just less than one million barrels a day and Louisiana produces slightly more than 200,000 barrels a day."
Secretary Norton reiterated the Interior Department's support for energy production in the far Northern Coastal Plain of ANWR - the area set aside for possible oil and gas production in 1980 by President Carter and a Democratically-controlled Congress.
"Energy production in Alaska's Northern Coastal Plain will reduce dependence on foreign oil; will create new jobs; is strongly supported by organizations that represent working men and women; and will protect wildlife with the toughest environmental regulations ever applied.
"With American ingenuity and new technologies, we can protect the tundra and wildlife on the Northern Coastal Plain. Protections with bipartisan congressional and administration support include the following: mandated ice roads and runways to protect habitat; strict analysis of each proposed exploration side to avoid sensitive springs, streams, rivers and wetlands; removal of all facilities, structures and equipment and reclamation of all lands effected; and exploration only in the winter to protect breeding, spawning and wildlife migration patterns," Secretary Norton concluded.

Source: http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm

 

[Frankie]

The oil companies don't want to drill in ANWAR. The amount of oil there is not worth the huge cost of drilling and transporting it back to the lower 48. Or at least that's what one oil exec said a few years ago. Oil wasn't $100+ a barrel then, so he might have changed his mind. The only way they would be interested in drilling would be if the US taxpayer footed the bill for their expenses in drilling and shipping. With the profits they've been showing these last few years, that's not likely to happen. So you're arguing about something that is moot.

Edited: I even found a link. Here are some quotes:

Once allied, the administration and the oil industry are now far apart on the issue. The major oil companies are largely uninterested in drilling in the refuge, skeptical about the potential there. Even the plan's most optimistic backers agree that any oil from the refuge would meet only a tiny fraction of America's needs.

A Bush adviser says the major oil companies have a dimmer view of the refuge's prospects than the administration does. "If the government gave them the leases for free they wouldn't take them," said the adviser, who would speak only anonymously because of his position. "No oil company really cares about ANWR," the adviser said, using an acronym for the refuge, pronounced "an-war."

Other companies have taken similar positions. George L. Kirkland, an executive vice president of Chevron Texaco, said a still-banned section in the Gulf of Mexico, where the company has already drilled, was of more immediate interest. ExxonMobil also has shown little public enthusiasm for the refuge. Lee R. Raymond, the chairman and chief executive, said in an television interview last December, "I don't know if there is anything in ANWR or not."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/21/polit ... ref=slogin

 

[Sir Loin]

Frankie,
Re:

The oil companies don't want to drill in ANWAR.

Nothing could be further from the true.
Halliburton open an office there over 5 years ago so they could get started drilling. What is holding up drilling is congress.
Here is just a few articles on the congressional battle of drilling.
SL

Senate Approves Arctic Drilling to Slake U.S. Oil Thirst
By J.R. Pegg
WASHINGTON, DC, November 3, 2005 (ENS) - The U.S. Senate today rejected a bid by Democrats and a handful of Republicans to strike language in the budget bill that will permit oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
The 51-48 vote against the amendment moves the prospect of oil drilling in the refuge one step closer to reality and is a major defeat for environmentalists who have lobbied long and hard to keep oil companies out of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

Read this in it’s entirety and you will know the real truth about who is stopping the drilling. And it’s certainly not the oil companies.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2005 ... -03-10.asp

Alaska senator plans new push to open ANWR
Reuters ^ | January 10, 2006 | Yereth Rosen
Posted on 01/10/2006 2:53:53 AM PST by RWR8189
ANCHORAGE (Reuters) - Alaska's Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Republican in the U.S. Senate, vowed on Monday to remain in office until the chamber agrees to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling.
Stevens, 82, last month threw the Senate into chaos when he threatened to keep lawmakers in session over the Christmas holiday unless members approved drilling in ANWR, a wilderness area about the size of South Carolina.
He eventually conceded defeat after trying to attach the drilling language to a must-pass Pentagon funding bill.
On Monday, he said he would not give up the fight.
"I'm going to stay and get ANWR, there's no question about that. It's going to happen," Stevens told reporters. "If they want to get rid of me, they're going to pass ANWR."

The Congressional Office of Technology and Assessment reports that oil exploration in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve ? as contemplated in the current legislation ? would require only about 5,000 to 7,000 acres, one-half of 1 percent of ANWR, or about 0.004 percent (four one-thousands percent) of Alaska's total land mass. Putting together Prudhoe Bay with the coastal area of ANWR that may be opened to oil exploration and you still get an area that is about the size of a postage stamp on a football field. Prudhoe Bay's gravel pads, gathering lines, production facilities, roads and other infrastructures occupy less than 6,000 acres of land, yet Prudhoe Bay remains America's largest oil field.
The Energy Information Agency of the Department of Energy estimates that Alaska oil production averaged 902,000 barrels of oil per day from January through August 2004, about 16 percent of total U.S. oil production during that period, most of which comes from Prudhoe Bay. Opening up even a limited area of ANWR for drilling would offer the prospect of producing from Alaska possibly 40 percent or more of the oil consumed in America.
Each day we import some 12 million barrels of oil, about 60 percent of all the oil we consume. About 20 percent of our oil imports come from Persian Gulf countries, averaging about 2.4 million barrels a day. At $50 a barrel, this means we are sending more than $600 million a day overseas for oil, of which $120 million a day goes to Persian Gulf countries. At $60 a barrel, we are sending $720 million a day overseas for oil, of which $144 million goes to the Persian Gulf. With oil at $60 a barrel, we are sending overseas nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars each year just to buy oil.

 

[3fifty7]

Oil Companies/Congress Im having trouble differentiating the two :?

 

[Frankie]

Frankie,
Re:

The oil companies don't want to drill in ANWAR.

Nothing could be further from the true.
Halliburton open an office there over 5 years ago so they could get started drilling. What is holding up drilling is congress.
Here is just a few articles on the congressional battle of drilling.
SL

Senate Approves Arctic Drilling to Slake U.S. Oil Thirst
By J.R. Pegg
WASHINGTON, DC, November 3, 2005 (ENS) - The U.S. Senate today rejected a bid by Democrats and a handful of Republicans to strike language in the budget bill that will permit oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
The 51-48 vote against the amendment moves the prospect of oil drilling in the refuge one step closer to reality and is a major defeat for environmentalists who have lobbied long and hard to keep oil companies out of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

Read this in it’s entirety and you will know the real truth about who is stopping the drilling. And it’s certainly not the oil companies.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2005 ... -03-10.asp

Alaska senator plans new push to open ANWR
Reuters ^ | January 10, 2006 | Yereth Rosen
Posted on 01/10/2006 2:53:53 AM PST by RWR8189
ANCHORAGE (Reuters) - Alaska's Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Republican in the U.S. Senate, vowed on Monday to remain in office until the chamber agrees to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling.
Stevens, 82, last month threw the Senate into chaos when he threatened to keep lawmakers in session over the Christmas holiday unless members approved drilling in ANWR, a wilderness area about the size of South Carolina.
He eventually conceded defeat after trying to attach the drilling language to a must-pass Pentagon funding bill.
On Monday, he said he would not give up the fight.
"I'm going to stay and get ANWR, there's no question about that. It's going to happen," Stevens told reporters. "If they want to get rid of me, they're going to pass ANWR."

The Congressional Office of Technology and Assessment reports that oil exploration in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve ? as contemplated in the current legislation ? would require only about 5,000 to 7,000 acres, one-half of 1 percent of ANWR, or about 0.004 percent (four one-thousands percent) of Alaska's total land mass. Putting together Prudhoe Bay with the coastal area of ANWR that may be opened to oil exploration and you still get an area that is about the size of a postage stamp on a football field. Prudhoe Bay's gravel pads, gathering lines, production facilities, roads and other infrastructures occupy less than 6,000 acres of land, yet Prudhoe Bay remains America's largest oil field.
The Energy Information Agency of the Department of Energy estimates that Alaska oil production averaged 902,000 barrels of oil per day from January through August 2004, about 16 percent of total U.S. oil production during that period, most of which comes from Prudhoe Bay. Opening up even a limited area of ANWR for drilling would offer the prospect of producing from Alaska possibly 40 percent or more of the oil consumed in America.
Each day we import some 12 million barrels of oil, about 60 percent of all the oil we consume. About 20 percent of our oil imports come from Persian Gulf countries, averaging about 2.4 million barrels a day. At $50 a barrel, this means we are sending more than $600 million a day overseas for oil, of which $120 million a day goes to Persian Gulf countries. At $60 a barrel, we are sending $720 million a day overseas for oil, of which $144 million goes to the Persian Gulf. With oil at $60 a barrel, we are sending overseas nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars each year just to buy oil.

You really must hold the record on this board for being wrong. Halliburton is not an oil company. They're a service company. They don't own rigs, they don't drill wells and they don't have an office in ANWAR. In case you don't know what ANWAR stands for: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Your rant about how much money we're sending overseas is true. And we should look to other sources of energy. But that doesn't mean the oil companies want to drill in ANWAR. They don't. They are skeptical of government estimates of the oil actually there. The results of the one test well drilled there are a closely guarded secret. But the general consensus is that if the results were encouraging, you'd see more pressure from oil companies to drill. And there's none. They are pressuring for rights to drill offshore Florida and the Gulf of Mexico because they know there's oil in those places. You obviously didn't read my link so I'll spit out a few more quotes for you.

Lee R. Raymond, the chairman and chief executive, said in an television interview last December, "I don't know if there is anything in ANWR or not."

Ken Bird, a geological survey official who worked on the study, said the federal geologists did not have access to test data from the only exploratory well drilled on the refuge, by Chevron Texaco and BP in the 1980's. An official with one of the companies, speaking anonymously because of the confidentiality of the test, said that if the results had been encouraging the company would be more engaged in the political effort to open the refuge.

"The enthusiasm of government officials about ANWR exceeds that of industry because oil companies are driven by market forces, investing resources in direct proportion to the economic potential, and the evidence so far about ANWR is not promising," Mr. Kelley said.

The oil companies are about profit. There's no real proof that there's enough oil in ANWAR to make it worth their while to drill there. As long as they have other options, they aren't interested in drilling there. So keep posting stuff that claims how much is there; the oil companies don't believe it. Why should I?

 

[Sir Loin]

AB,
Re:

Also, I understand that there was mention of me sending you one or more derogatory PM's. Sir Loin, I have never sent you an unkind or derogatory PM. I publically, right here, give permission to the Administrator of this forum to reprint, for public view, any PM's I have ever sent to you.

That won’t be necessary. I’ll put this to rest right here and now.
To whom it may concern:
Let it be publicly know that Angus/Brangus has never ever sent me a PM (private message) unkind, derogatory or other wise and anyone who says he has is a flat out liar! But he may in the future.
Case closed! No comments required and please stay on topic.
Thank you
SL