Dear Liberals of the USA ...

True, but i'm only talking about oil

I know, I agree that, where there's oil, drill. And don't understand how we tear down rainforests and pave over plains like nobody's business, but claim we can't drill for oil we need cuz we wanna "preserve nature". That's like someone fighting against killing chickens to eat, then hacking the head off a cow and making burgers.

Trillions? Clearly it's not yours either.

No, but I have worked in the oil industry in Alaska from 1975 on, most on the North Slope. Not totally ignorant.

Trillions?

Domestic?

Controlling interest at Prudhoe Bay is owned by British Petroleum. If you did not know, they are headquartered in London.

I see your point, but i still think it is best to keep new drilling in our country at a minimum right now and leave the oil in the ground until we actually do have an energy crisis on our hands. Then when oil reaches a price of around $200 a barrel due to lowered supply, open up new pipelines with a new energy policy stating that this oil is domestic product only, in turn relieving some of the pressure off of our country while the rest of the world is squirming. Call it selfish, greedy or whatever you want to call it, but we'll be thankful when that day comes...and all of this goes without mentioning that drilling for new oil reserves will most likely bankrupt a couple oil companies since the only oil reserves they will be able to find are ones they've already tapped in to...

There's talk in Britain about more exploitation of our oil and gas reserves (in the North Sea). The problem is that this cannot be done quickly as it requires more drill rigs and pipes. The very high extraction costs mean that it is only viable while oil is at the present astronomic prices. No company is going to put forward the investment needed unless they feel sure that prices are going to be as high in 5-10 years. At the moment it seems they don't feel this, which is perhaps good news.

Presumably the position in the USA is comparable - until high prices are sustained the investment in more extraction is not viable.

U.S. petroleum imports (crude & products) in April 2008: 13,178,000 barrels per day @ $134 per barrel today so you are the math wiz allegedly, how many days of imports = a trillion dollars? P.S. don’t forget to add in the US Military and other in-house costs.


The contracts for additional drilling have not been awarded yet and when they are they could go to American companies and/or we can buy stock in others like British Petroleum unlike the inability of buying stock in Saudi Arabia or Venezuela.

BINGO!! Give that man a gold star!

Why we have centuries worth of uranium still buried in Tennessee, centuries worth of coal still to mine, and centuries worth of oil in the Colorado oil shale. It's the true strategic reserve. In global politics, the last man standing wins.

The same arguments were made for development at Prudhoe in the sixties. There was a domestic only clause in the Federal enabling legislation. The producers were successful in getting that removed in the 80's because they could make a higher profit selling it to Japan.

From the wildlife conservation perspective, it is more significant that ANWR coastal plain is the calving area for the Porcupine Caribou herd. They can tolerate some development in their feeding or migrating areas, but will not bear calves in the presence of people. They are the larges remaining group of migratory large mammals on the continent.

Polar bears are going to be in trouble primarily from loss of sea ice, regardless of development on land. They are not afraid of people, they think we are just as delish as seals.

Honestly people, kalipygian knows what the fuck he is talking about. If we were to just go into there and drill it which is up to the people of Alaska I believe, I lived there but wasn't old enough for the politics, it would not change much and whenever we ran through that what next?

I don't think he knows nearly as much as these guys ...

Arctic Power - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - Home

... check the "facts" there!

Well, the API figures (which you cite) are way out of line with almost all others I've read, and you 'conveniently' forgot to add that both the BPD figure and the import total as a fraction of consumption are down over 5% on April 2007. The price you quoted is ~ today's spot price, the average price paid over the period you quoted was $110. Another convenient omission.

But let's assume the API figures are correct, then that would be about 635, let's say two years - using the average price paid it's 773 days, or well over two years.

Thing is, the DOE figures for March show 9.6 million per day, which equates to 873 days (~3 years?). So, that's a likely minimum of 3-4 years, at current prices to even 'break even', and that assumes exploration, extraction and recovery is gratis or that said costs are otherwise 'offset' (tax?).

Add in the points raised by others and you should see that it's not that simple as changing as changing from one 'source' to another as you (I assume, in starting this misguided thread) well know. That was primarily what I was challenging, the raw cost of crude is but one element in the real cost equation.

Also, I didn't allege I was a maths whiz, and you said trillions not a trillion.

Lets put this another way, in 2007 the US imported 37,750,000 dollars worth of oil every hour of every day!

Factoring in the cost to defend imported oil and the cost of jobs and industry sent abroad = nearly a trillion dollars!

BUT there’s more, MUCH more! We have not even mentioned the trillions of cubic feet of domestic natural gas that is also useable from the same area.