Thank An Enviromentalist / Democrat

On 28 Apr 2006 23:13:36 -0700, wrote:

>Even if the AK drilling takes place today, it would not
>have any effect on lowering the gasoline price at the pump for at least
>10 years from today!

Yeah - and if we'd started drilling it years ago when the oil companies wanted
to, but the environmentalist democrats prevented it, we might be getting the
oil from it now. But because of wacko environmentalist democrats, the oil is
stll years away. As I said, if you like high gas prices, thank an
environmentalist / democrat.

Dave Head

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>> If you like the price of fuel today, thank an environmentalist and the
>> democrats that support them for:
>>
>> 1) failure to drill ANWR
>
> Drop in the bucket.
>

Drop in the bucket? No one knows how much oil is there. Some oil companies
think there is a lot, and are willing to risk billions on the venture. I say
drill there, while coming out with advances in hydrogen or other renewable
technologies.

Dave Head > wrote:
>On 28 Apr 2006 16:16:53 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" > wrote:
>
>And the impossibility of building new refineries in this country, due to
>environmentalist / democrat opposition, has enabled such a situation. If there

You sure are full of myths!

The refining capacity has been steadily *increasing* for
decades. The actual number of refineries has decreased simply
because the refiners, as noted above, do *not* want to add
enough capacity to reduce the price.

Hence every time they remodel an enlarge an existing refinery,
the do *not* use that capacity to add to the supply, but instead
they shut down capacity at some other plant.

>were many more refineries, and many more companies operating them, then when
>one set of refiners cut back, the others would step up production and capture a
>larger portion of the market. That's the way capitalism is _supposed_ to work.

Then why isn't it?

>But democrat environmentalists have interfered with this, so now the few that
>own refineries can do most anything they want to. Again, thank the
>environmentalist democrats - you'd have to be absolutely daft to vote for a
>democrat and then expect the situation to improve.

In fact the last refinery that went on line in this country was built
in *record* time. Nobody is preventing anyone from building a new
refinery, or from enlarging existing refineries.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Dave Head > wrote:
>On 28 Apr 2006 23:13:36 -0700, wrote:
>
>>Even if the AK drilling takes place today, it would not
>>have any effect on lowering the gasoline price at the pump for at least
>>10 years from today!
>
>Yeah - and if we'd started drilling it years ago when the oil companies wanted
>to, but the environmentalist democrats prevented it, we might be getting the
>oil from it now. But because of wacko environmentalist democrats, the oil is
>stll years away. As I said, if you like high gas prices, thank an
>environmentalist / democrat.

The Department of Energy has said that if the wildest predictions about
ANWR came true it would indeed drop the price of gasoline.

By about 4 cents a gallon at the pump.

Can you say Whooop Deeee Dooooo.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Dan J.S." > wrote:
>"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>>> If you like the price of fuel today, thank an environmentalist and the
>>> democrats that support them for:
>>>
>>> 1) failure to drill ANWR
>>
>> Drop in the bucket.
>>
>
>Drop in the bucket? No one knows how much oil is there. Some oil companies
>think there is a lot, and are willing to risk billions on the venture. I say
>drill there, while coming out with advances in hydrogen or other renewable
>technologies.

That isn't true. There are *no* oil companies predicting there
would even be a drop of oil in ANWR. The only predictions are
from the USGS, which produced a study in 1988 and another in
1998 (the two are contradictory, so just how much either of them
should be trusted is indeed open to question).

And in fact the oil companies are *not* saying they are willing
to risk billions on any new oil ventures in Alaska. In fact
that is the one and the *only* reason they want to drill in
ANWR! It happens that ANWR is the area just to the east of
current production infrastructure. They are currently drilling
off shore, just north of existing infrastructure, and are about
to start more drilling in the NPR-A (National Petroleum Reserve
- Alaska) just to the west of existing infrastructure. They
have been drilling just to the south for 3 decades, and haven't
found much for 20 years or so. (NPR-A has been being drilled
since the late 1940's, but not in it's northeastern corner
nearest existing infrastructure.)

Hence ANWR and NPR-A are the only two prospects that can be
explored without the expenditure of *billions*. Everywhere else
(e.g., Northwestern Alaska) would *require* another Prudhoe Bay
sized field to be profitable.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Floyd L. Davidson" > wrote
> And in fact the oil companies are *not* saying they are willing
> to risk billions on any new oil ventures in Alaska. In fact
> that is the one and the *only* reason they want to drill in
> ANWR! It happens that ANWR is the area just to the east of
> current production infrastructure. They are currently drilling
> off shore, just north of existing infrastructure, and are about
> to start more drilling in the NPR-A (National Petroleum Reserve
> - Alaska) just to the west of existing infrastructure. They
> have been drilling just to the south for 3 decades, and haven't
> found much for 20 years or so. (NPR-A has been being drilled
> since the late 1940's, but not in it's northeastern corner
> nearest existing infrastructure.)
>
> Hence ANWR and NPR-A are the only two prospects that can be
> explored without the expenditure of *billions*. Everywhere else
> (e.g., Northwestern Alaska) would *require* another Prudhoe Bay
> sized field to be profitable.

Well, according to the last National Geographic, that's not the only
reason. It appears (from the map on pps. 55-9) that it's the only
area with good-to-excellent prospects for oil.

FloydR

PS: We "Floyd's" have to stick together. ;->

Dave **** Head wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 06:29:30 GMT, zmike6 > wrote:
>
> >I thank all the idiots who drive giant trucks and SUVs in situations
> >where they are completely unnecessary. Most of them are Republicans.
>
> Dream on - they're mostly soccer moms picking up kids. They've got money for 1
> vehicle, and that's the vehicle they drive, 100% of the time. And... mostly
> soccer moms are democrats, environmentalists, etc... because they're women, who
> tend to be more democrat than republican.

Hey Dave **** Head, you're not only ill-informed, you are ill. The
sickle cell must has gotten to severe in your case. Why don't you soak
yourself with gasoline and start a cigarette in your mouth? But then
again, with the price of gasoline these days, it would be a waste of
resource. So, I guess you should just let those "soccer moms" running
you over with their SUVs until you become useful again in the
society... as a fertilizer. After all, as is, you're made of mostly
**** any way.

"Floyd Rogers" > wrote:
>
>Well, according to the last National Geographic, that's not the only
>reason. It appears (from the map on pps. 55-9) that it's the only
>area with good-to-excellent prospects for oil.

Not according to geologists.

The current predictions for NPR-A are almost identical to ANWR, for
example.

Otherwise, please note that "good-to-excellent prospects" does
*not* relate only to the amount of oil possible. It also
includes the potential for production. A 300 million barrel
field discovered 10 miles from an existing production facility
is an excellent prospect. A 600 million barrel field that is
500 miles from the nearest facilities is not.

Also keep in mind that the closest facility to ANWR is the
Badami field, which turned out to be a boondoggle. It had to be
shut down due to low production and excessive wax in the
product. Imagine if all of ANWR turned up the same oil?
Bummer! (Last I heard they were looking into re-opening
Badami, so it may not be a total loss yet.)

On the other side, NPR-A has been being explored for about 60
years now. There are *several* known pools, not one of which
has ever been put into production. Compare that to ANWR, where
there is not one single positively known to exist pool of crude.
And, even though there are several known oil reservoirs in
NPR-A, none of the current exploration is in the same areas, or
even in that direction! Basically small pools of oil that are
100 miles distant are not worthy prospects...

Here is a site with 2 or 3 interesting maps. They are a bit dated
now, but close enough.

http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm

On the map showing existing/proposed leases, not where Umiat is.
That areas was explored starting in the late 1940's. Note the
areas directly west of Nuiqsut, all the way over to Teshekpuk
Lake, which is in fact were they are now starting exploration.

Here is an index for most of the information available on that
site.

http://arctic.fws.gov/content.htm

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Dave Head wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 05:28:12 +0100, Pooh Bear
> > wrote:
>
>
> >Dave Head wrote:
> >
> >> If you like the price of fuel today, thank an environmentalist and the
> >> democrats that support them for:
> >
> >< snip >
> >
> >> 5) trumping up a bunch of nonsense about nuclear waste disposal that has
> >> precluded nuclear power development
> >
> >Interest in nuclear power waned after TMI because the *utilities* are risk averse.
> >In short, the power generators didn't want nuclear any more.
>
> And why is that? Its because of all the democrat / environmentalist opposition
> to nuclear power that caused a ton of anti-nuclear regulations to be imposed,
> which made it virtually impossible to get approval for a new plant. So... why
> try?
>
> The "risk" isn't anything about nuclear power, its about getting sued, which
> was much more enabled by the environmentalist / democrats clearing the way for
> it. If instead they would do something to promote nuclear power, we'd have
> nuclear power.

I can't agree. Orders for nuclear generation effectively dried up after TMI.

The risk was simply financial. High financial risk > no interest in nuclear.

What are these supposed 'anti-nuclear regulations' anyway ?

Graham

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Pooh Bear wrote:
> >
> >
> > Brent P wrote:
> >
> >> In article >, Pooh Bear wrote:
> >>
> >> > Interest in nuclear power waned after TMI because the *utilities* are risk averse.
> >> > In short, the power generators didn't want nuclear any more.
> >>
> >> Basically anything beyond the status quo ends up in the courts, etc. So
> >> more coal power!
> >
> > It doesn't involve the courts. Power generators want a reliable return on investment not
> > the danger of irretrievable losses.
> >
> > I reckon it'll need ( free ) Government 'insurance' to persuade generators to build
> > nuclear again.
>
> lawsuits are more likely for nukes.

Can you explain what the lawsuits would be about ?

> Nukes take a lot of money just to
> break ground. patching up the coal plant and expanding it is
> comparitively cheap with a much better ROI.

You're probably right.

In Europe I expect to see plenty of new nuclear generation though.

Graham