Scooby Doo wrote:
A "fool" is someone who won't accept a compromise where he gets more than
92% of what he wants. ANWR is 19 million acres. The area identified as
the largest untapped petroleum supply in North America is 1.5 million
acres, or 7.9% of the 19 million.

Uh huh. And if "opening" that 7.9% negates the value of the rest, then
it's not enough, is it?

.. The proposal to open that 1.5 million
acres would create about 700,000 jobs, decrease our dependence on Middle
Eastern and other unstable foreign sources of energy, and allow 92.1% of
the wildlife refuge to remain untouched.

No, it will provide approx six months worth of oil at current
consumption, probably less by the time all is said and done, and cut
across the entire wildlife refuge disrupting migration & seasonal habitat.

In other words, for a couple days supply of oil (and huge profits to
those allowed "in"), you want to destroy the refuge. Good idea.

DSK

DSK wrote:
Scooby Doo wrote:
A "fool" is someone who won't accept a compromise where he
gets more than 92% of what he wants. ANWR is 19 million
acres. The area identified as the largest untapped petroleum
supply in North America is 1.5 million acres, or 7.9% of the
19 million.

Uh huh. And if "opening" that 7.9% negates the value of the
rest, then it's not enough, is it?

In fact that is demonstrably true too!

The entire purpose of ANWR was and is to protect the subsistence
resources of the Gwich'in people, who depend on the Porcupine
Caribou Herd. We have a treaty with Canada to provide that
protection, and both counties have set aside parks and refuges
as required on respective sides of the border.

It happens the range of the Porcupine Herd is rather large, but
there is a very small area which is so super critical that
environmental damage to it alone could have a major negative
impact on the herd. That area is commonly called the "calving
grounds", though that is not technically an accurate
description. It is the relatively small area where the herd
*nurtures* their calves every summer.

It centers on their preferred calving areas, but also includes
the adjacent areas they move to at different stages of calf
nurturing.

There are 30+ years of caribou biology studies on the North
Slope, and dozens of field biologists who have contributed to
that body of work. You cannot find more than one of them who
says the drilling in ANWR is harmless. (There is indeed exactly
one, a guy named Matthew Cronin who claims all of the others are
either mistaken or liars. Cronin of course has zero
credibility...)

For background information, these two URLs are good:

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

For caribou research, here is more than anyone really wants
to know:

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/index.htm

To just get the conclusions, go to this URL and read what
they decide it all means:

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section3part5.htm

.. The proposal to open that 1.5 million acres would create
about 700,000 jobs, decrease our dependence on Middle Eastern
and other unstable foreign sources of energy, and allow 92.1%
of the wildlife refuge to remain untouched.

No, it will provide approx six months worth of oil at current
consumption, probably less by the time all is said and done, and
cut across the entire wildlife refuge disrupting migration &
seasonal habitat.

In other words, for a couple days supply of oil (and huge
profits to those allowed "in"), you want to destroy the
refuge. Good idea.

Well stated. Greed is the basis for all of it.

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

DSK,
Why would oil companies invest the billions of dollars in infrastructure,
to extract 6 months usage of oil?


"DSK" wrote in message
...
Scooby Doo wrote:
A "fool" is someone who won't accept a compromise where he gets more than
92% of what he wants. ANWR is 19 million acres. The area identified as
the largest untapped petroleum supply in North America is 1.5 million
acres, or 7.9% of the 19 million.

Uh huh. And if "opening" that 7.9% negates the value of the rest, then
it's not enough, is it?

.. The proposal to open that 1.5 million acres would create about
700,000 jobs, decrease our dependence on Middle Eastern and other
unstable foreign sources of energy, and allow 92.1% of the wildlife
refuge to remain untouched.

No, it will provide approx six months worth of oil at current consumption,
probably less by the time all is said and done, and cut across the entire
wildlife refuge disrupting migration & seasonal habitat.

In other words, for a couple days supply of oil (and huge profits to those
allowed "in"), you want to destroy the refuge. Good idea.

DSK

"52 nd Name" Smithers Inc wrote:
DSK,
Why would oil companies invest the billions of dollars in infrastructure,
to extract 6 months usage of oil?

That's a pretty simple minded question there lad, though I doubt
you exact figures, I can't see how you could miss making a rough
estimate. (3.64 billion barrels of oil sells on today's market
for about $218 billion, which is *clearly* the reason oil
companies would invest a few billions of dollars in
infrastructure to extract it.)

However, lets look at some actual specifics, to nail this down
in more detail. The numbers are from the Anchorage Daily News
of February 5, 2005, and they cite the source as "Global Oil and
Gas Risks and Rewards, 2004" public summary, Wood Mackenzie
consultants. That is commonly referred to as the "Wood
Mackenzie Report", and is widely credited as a reliable source
(which costs an arm and a leg if you want access to the detailed
specifics!).

The US uses 20M barrels of oil per day. A six month supply is
3.64 billion barrels. Take your pick what you think the price
will be, but it typically runs about $4 a barrel less than the
average price of oil on the world market. Which is to say that
with other oil hitting $64 a barrel, right now Alaska North Slope
(ANS) crude is running right at $60 a barrel.

The actual cost of production for ANS is $9.94, according to
the Wood Mackenzie Report.

Hence the investment in infrastructure and operating expenses
for that 3.64 billion barrels would be roughly $36 billion. And
the price received for that oil would be $218.4 billion.

Now, the figures did not specify what the taxes are for oil at
$60/bbl, but did state that at $16/bbl it was 71.7% and at $35/bbl
it was 58.4% (for ANS crude). We can probably assume that there
would be a lower percentage at $60/bbl, but I'm not going to even
try guessing how much lower. Lets error on the conservative side
and assume it is the same.

$218 billions, sale price
- 36 billions, cost of production
---------
$182 billions, before tax profit
- 106 billions, taxes at 58.4%
---------
$ 76 billions, pure profit


I'd like to know where else someone can invest 36 dollars and
get 76 back in profit, and do it billions at a time too!

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

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"52 nd Name" Smithers Inc wrote:
DSK,
Why would oil companies invest the billions of dollars in infrastructure,
to extract 6 months usage of oil?

That's a pretty simple minded question there lad


He's just playing you. It's "Smithers," with yet another ID.

Harry Krause wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"52 nd Name" Smithers Inc wrote:
DSK,
Why would oil companies invest the billions of dollars in infrastructure,
to extract 6 months usage of oil?
That's a pretty simple minded question there lad

He's just playing you. It's "Smithers," with yet another ID.

Smithers *is* a simple lad...

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

52 nd Name wrote:
DSK,
Why would oil companies invest the billions of dollars in infrastructure,
to extract 6 months usage of oil?


Because they expect to profit very handsomely, especially after all
their investment in infrastructure is huge tax deduction? Oh wait, that
actually makes sense...

And if you do not know my name, it is because you don't read any boating
posts here. So why don't you go away, or have you been chased out of all
the political discussion groups?

DSK

DSK wrote:
52 nd Name wrote:
DSK,
Why would oil companies invest the billions of dollars in
infrastructure, to extract 6 months usage of oil?


Because they expect to profit very handsomely, especially after all
their investment in infrastructure is huge tax deduction? Oh wait, that
actually makes sense...

And if you do not know my name, it is because you don't read any boating
posts here. So why don't you go away, or have you been chased out of all
the political discussion groups?

DSK


You're being "smithered" here, fella. This is just his latest ID.