What are the main reasons to drill for oil in Alaska?

[youngbuck]

I've read plenty of reasons why we shouldn't drill for oil in Alaska, but what are the main reasons we should drill?

What would be the main economic benefits?
How would these economic benefits outweigh the detriment to the environment?
How would drilling improve national security and significantly reduce foreign dependence on oil?

I'm not looking for what should happen in a perfect free market environment. I'm looking for what the practical and likely benefits would be if we were to really ramp up oil drilling in Alaska.

[sofia]

More oil = lower prices

Alaska is enormous

If you think of Alaska as a basketball, the then the size of the area which we need to drill would be a pea.

To suggest that drilling in pristine parts of Alaska would ruin it is as ridiculous as Global Warming claims.

[awake]

Placing resources out of reach by way of the law creates an artificial scarcity where none need exist. This in turn drives up demand and prices accordingly. You can not both be too dependent on foreign oil and preventing exploration of known reserves with in the United States.

[teamrican1]

I've read plenty of reasons why we shouldn't drill for oil in Alaska, but what are the main reasons we should drill?

What would be the main economic benefits?
How would these economic benefits outweigh the detriment to the environment?
How would drilling improve national security and significantly reduce foreign dependence on oil?

I'm not looking for what should happen in a perfect free market environment. I'm looking for what the practical and likely benefits would be if we were to really ramp up oil drilling in Alaska.

The primary reason is that there is absolutely no reason not to. The oil in Alaska wouldn't make a particularly huge difference to the global supply of oil, but it would have a drastic impact on the Alaskan economy. It's Washington fat cats interfering with the lively hood of mostly lower income rural residents and desperately poor native americans who could really use the jobs. What the Feds are doing with this issue is essentially an act of war against Alaska.

[Zippyjuan]

Drilling in Alaska would minimally effect our dependence on foreign oil- our demand is just too high compared to the estimated reserves there. I would agree that the environment impact is overstated (and I consider myself an environmentalist- just not a radical one)- the same concerns were raised over the Trans- Alaska oil pipeline and they did not materialize. The USGS estimated that the ANWAR oil fields contained about 10 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil (this number may rise and fall with the price of oil) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy while we consume about 7 billion barrels a year. If you pump out what you can now, do you still have reserves if some crisis occurs and imports are shut off? Should we save it for a proverbial "rainy day"? It is not enough oil to have any impact on the global price of oil.

[pcosmar]

What are the main reasons to drill for oil in Alaska?

To get oil.
Duh !

[bucfish]

Oil is there so therefore we get oil by drilling there. Yet the Federal Government doesn't respect private property rights.

[erowe1]

My main reason for thinking we should comes out of my Christian beliefs. I think we need to be good stewards of the planet. And Jesus defined a bad steward as someone who leaves what God has given him buried in the ground and a good steward as someone who uses it to make a profit.

[Zippyjuan]

Oil is there so therefore we get oil by drilling there. Yet the Federal Government doesn't respect private property rights.

Who's property rights are not being respected on this issue? Who owns the land the oil is on?

[WClint]

I've read plenty of reasons why we shouldn't drill for oil in Alaska, but what are the main reasons we should drill?

What would be the main economic benefits?

How would these economic benefits outweigh the detriment to the environment?
How would drilling improve national security and significantly reduce foreign dependence on oil?

I'm not looking for what should happen in a perfect free market environment. I'm looking for what the practical and likely benefits would be if we were to really ramp up oil drilling in Alaska.




A 1998 U.S. Geological Survey assessment still used today concluded it's almost certain there are at least 5.6 billion barrels of recoverable oil and possibly as much as 16 billion barrels (a 5 percent likelihood) beneath the refuge's 1.5 million-acre coastal plain.

The number most frequently cited is 10.4 billion barrels, the amount the report says is the "mean" — a statistical tool that simply says there's as good a chance to find less than that as there is to find more.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002692315_webanwr19.html

Okay.
If the Us uses around 20 million barrels of oil a day and there is 10.4 billion barrels in Alaska

20 / 10,400 = 520
So a year and a half supply of oil (if used entirely by the US), of course that is not to say that it would/could be used in that time period it would make the US less dependent/fragile on the middle east/opec.

It might be better to wait until Alaksa is its own nation which they would be self sustaining for along time. Smaller collectives are better than larger ones as it will have less parasites which means you are able to enjoy a better standard of living. That is why should oppose the global government at all costs.

[youngbuck]

I think we should drill for the oil in Alaska, and I think we should explore for more oil because I bet their plenty more.

But, what would be a good argument against someone who said "well, there's only a year and a half worth of oil so it wouldn't be worth the environmental impact." Said person is definitely a staunch environmentalist.

[jmdrake]

I think we should drill for the oil in Alaska, and I think we should explore for more oil because I bet their plenty more.

But, what would be a good argument against someone who said "well, there's only a year and a half worth of oil so it wouldn't be worth the environmental impact." Said person is definitely a staunch environmentalist.

I don't think that's true. I think there's a lot more. But assuming that it is true and Alaska oil is just a "drop in the bucket". Any bucket can be filled with enough drops. There's also offshore oil that's been kept off the market for so called "environmental reasons". If we apply the "X, Y or Z oil field itself want solve our energy needs" then ultimately they never get solved.

Meanwhile watch:
The Energy Non-Crisis (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147#)

[youngbuck]

I know, I have the above DVD.

[Zippyjuan]

Ah- the guy who said there is more oil on the North Slope of Alaska than in all of Saudi Arabia. The guy who said that Gull Island has enough to last us for 200 years. Gull Island is within just a mile or two from Prudhoe Bay which has been declining in production since 1988. The largest field in Saudi Arabia is over 200 miles long. (the island is quite small- not a square mile in area)- and this little island has that much oil? If the oil was there, why wouldn't the company which owns the leases be extracting that oil and maintaining that procuction? Their pipeline runs way below its capacity.

By the way, 200 years worth of just the US current oil usage would be 7.3 billion barrels a year times 200 years or 1.4 trillion barrels of oil. That is greater than the total reported reserves of ALL countries in the world according to the BP Journal (1.2 trillion estimated or reported reserves in all countries).

Williams mentions two sites in Alaska he claimed had as much as all of Saudi Arabia (some 265 billion reported but that number has not changed in years despite the amounts pumped out and sold on the international market). That would mean over half a trillion barrels.

Lindsay Williams is NOT a reliable source on how much oil is anywhere. He is just out there to sell books and DVDs.

[Icymudpuppy]

Let's examine this from a free market perspective...

Who really owns that land? Is it publically owned? State or Federal?

Should it be sold off to private interests, or kept as a public asset?

If sold to private interests, would it be worth the infrastructure cost to drill? Drilling in landlocked Alaska is not cheap. The remoteness of the area makes oil production an expensive project. I doubt 800 billion dollars worth of oil would be worth the cost of development.

If a public resource, should we go with simple majority in the legislature, or super majority for development even though it likely would give us more debt?

[kathy88]

Because I'm an oil and gas title abstractor and I've always wanted to see Alaska :) Job Security for yours truly.