[MonteQuest]

A lot of attitude and little knowledge here. Freidman is right. Quickest figures I could find show Alaska North Slope crude oil exports in 1999 averaged about 75,200 bpd or approximately 7.1% of total ANS production. That oil was shipped in 24 tanker loadings (out of a total of 442 tankers that loaded at Valdez during 1999). Exported oil went to: Japan (9 tankers); Korea (5 tankers); Taiwan or China (10 tankers).

ANWR oil will go to those markets again. Like Freidman says, it's pure geography. Look at the world map. Alaska oil via Panama Canal to Lousiana to be refined? Not hardly. The oil goes on the world market. It matters not whether we actually consume the actual oil we drill and produce. We sell some and buy it elsewhere, i.e. SA or Venezuela. I don't think we have the refining capacity on the West coast to handle it.

Be interesting to see the actual breakdown of where it goes. There was a two-decade-old ban on the export of Alaska North Slope (ANS) crude oil to foreign countries until 1996.

[maverickdoc]

But MonteQuest 10 years from now when we are post peak, with chronic shortages, do you think ANWAR oil will still go to china? or maybe we could make that extra few miles to Louisiana?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('maverickdoc', 'B')ut MonteQuest 10 years from now when we are post peak, with chronic shortages, do you think ANWAR oil will still go to china? or maybe we could make that extra few miles to Louisiana?

[WebHubbleTelescope]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bart', 'Y')ou may disagree with these ideas, but they are not uncommon. In fact the neo-cons seem to be moving towards a similar position: As Green as a Neocon: Why Iraq hawks are driving Priuses.

[tokyo_to_motueka]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bart', 'h')e is a liberal hawk, but so is Tony Blair

[Sys1]

pea-jay : Stop saying crap ! In 2012 there will be Olympic Games in Paris ! (i live in France)

[MonteQuest]

It's not over yet.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he House resolution decreases Medicaid spending by $20-bil. The differences over Medicaid are likely to overshadow the ANWR issue in a House-Senate conference, and could doom any chances of an agreement between the House and Senate, which would kill the budget resolution and the ANWR provision with it.
Should that happen, the House, as it has done in the past, could approve free-standing legislation authorizing leasing, or include such language in a
comprehensive energy bill. However, such legislation would be subject to a filibuster in the Senate, where leasing proponents are not expected to be able to muster the 60 votes necessary to halt debate and proceed to a vote. As for the budget resolutions, a conference report reconciling differences in the Senate and House bill must pass Congress by April 15, although Congress has only met that deadline a few times, according to Senate Energy Committee spokesperson.

[JohnnyDangerously]

After reviewing a few recent posts here implying a measured distrust of Matthew Simmons, I googled these recent articles with a quote from him regarding ANWR. It looks like to me the NWF was correct to suspect ANWR is just a "can opener" for even more ecologically sensitive drilling. And now with the big players pulling out of the artic refuge project, it appears that the target may not have been ANWR at all. Guess Matt still remembers which side his bread is buttered on. _________________________________________
Arctic a portal to the gulf
"So why would Bush put phantom revenues from refuge drilling in his budget? Matthew Simmons, a Houston investment banker to the energy industry and a former Bush adviser, may have answered that when he told the New York Times, "If you can't do (the arctic refuge), you'll never be able to drill in the promising areas."" link
_____________________________
Big oil cools on Arctic drilling
"Others who advised Bush on his energy plan said including the refuge was seen as a political maneuver to open the door to more geologically promising prospects off the coasts of California and Florida. Those areas, where tests have found oil, have been blocked for years by federal moratoriums because of political and environmental concerns." link
_________________________
[Add this article which was posted in an earlier thread: link
"The obscure draft legislation, called SEACOR, or the State Enhanced Authority for Coastal and Offshore Resources Act of 2005, would expand state control over energy development in offshore waters -- and at the same time eliminate the blanket West and East Coast moratoriums given by Congress since 1982"
link
________________________
Related thread: link

[aahala]

I think it's better described as the old soft shoe.
Oil companies always want to drill whereever they want to without restriction. The public never wishes to pay more, so you can dance with both with a single step.

[killJOY]

It ain't Simmons' fault, and it ain't the oil companies' fault. It's the fault of the public (and the government that has misinformed them) for being such selfish, blind consumers of oil products.

Take your pick: either drilling in sensitive areas, or a hard landing.

[Pops]

Interesting you should post this topic JD, I just saw Simmons and the Exxon CEO on the Wall St Journal Report.
It struck me the same, Simmons said that of course oil could get to triple digits. Of course just like the other Wall Street salesmen, I expect he makes big money when oil co stocks go up. Exxon now has the largest capitalization of any company in the world way up from 5 years ago.

Perhaps that was what the task force was talking about.
No excess capacity, oil cos underestimated demand that may begin exceeding supply yes he said that, and when asked how that would affect the economy he only said something along the lines of we'll look back and wonder why prices were ever this low.

[pup55]

I think ANWR was just another WMD, weapon of mass distraction , which is typical of this crew. They come up with a relatively minor, but highly emotional issue, and use it as a wedge to divide the country, and have a big noisy debate, so as to distract the public from any really serious policy issues, such as conservation.
ANWR is remote, and whatever minimal animal and plant life can survive up there is in much more danger from global climate change than they are from running into a drilling rig. This whole argument is a waste of time, that keeps us from having a serious discussion on the root cause of the problem, which is too many cars.
I say let them drill it, pump the oil, and get the hell out of there and turn it back over to the reindeer. It's not worth the fight either way.

[clv101]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', 'A')NWR is remote, and whatever minimal animal and plant life can survive up there is in much more danger from global climate change than they are from running into a drilling rig. This whole argument is a waste of time, that keeps us from having a serious discussion on the root cause of the problem, which is too many cars.

[linlithgowoil]

i suppose though, why doesnt anyone ask the question - what happens after ANWR? are people really that stupid? surely its really easy to see the problem. we (the west) are far too dependent on oil and we need to do something to stop it. lets do it now whilst there is still time to avery a catastrophe.. please!!!

[PhilBiker]

Mr. Simmons has always advocated what you describe as "even more ecologically sensitive drilling" and his views in this are very well documented. Particularly on the East and West coasts of the USA. And also particularly regarding natural gas, he sees much more sense in offshore drilling off New England which may be very promising over building huge megaexpensive potentially cataclismic LNG facilities there.
Perhaps you're dissapointed because Mr. Simmons doesn't live up to your conconcted idea of who he is. I have no such illusions, and greatly respect the man and his opinions in this matter.
I say drill again off Santa Barbara, the technology has come a long way since 1968.

[pea-jay]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')ake your pick: either drilling in sensitive areas, or a hard landing.

[PhilBiker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')o, more like "drilling in sensitive areas and have a hard landing later or don't drill in sensitive areas and have a hard landing soon" Drilling in national parks or on the coasts is not going to provide us a great amount of oil and human nature and current politics ensures it wouldnt be utilized to ensure a soft landing. It'll just keep the fatcat$ hummers fueled for another year or two.

[Dezakin]

I hope its not over. I hope they spend most of their time fighting over this, despite having a position. I would prefer to drill ANWR, but I don't care if we don't. The more time congress spends fighting over this, the less time they have crafting more orwellean laws for the evangelical political block.

[EZODIAK]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PhilBiker', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')o, more like "drilling in sensitive areas and have a hard landing later or don't drill in sensitive areas and have a hard landing soon" Drilling in national parks or on the coasts is not going to provide us a great amount of oil and human nature and current politics ensures it wouldnt be utilized to ensure a soft landing. It'll just keep the fatcat$ hummers fueled for another year or two.

[PhilBiker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hile drilling in such places will push things back and yes, enable the level of consumption to continue for a bit