>Of course this still doesn't sound like very much, and
> I'll concede that "industrialize" is too strong a word for the proposed
> development. Nevertheless, there seems little point to spoiling this area
> with any development for what, from a historical perspective, is little
>but a drop in the bucket.
Well, it is not unreasonable to get cheap oil from elsewhere for now,
because we will be increasingly dependant on foreign sources for oil for a
long time.
at
> > Prudue Bay, and how industrialized that still is or isn't?
>
>I know what it's like when the tar residue from an oil spill washes up on
>the beach, and with it hundreds of dead birds.
OK, I'll be more than happy to agree that oil spills are not a good thing.
First, though, the way to eliminate oil spills is not to import oil from
Africa instead of Alaska, is it? With regard to oil spills, how many come
from wells, how many come from oil transport, and how many come from ships
pumping out their bilge etc.? Looking for something else, I stumbled on
this National Geographic site.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/05/0514_wireoilspill.html
Quoting from that site, we read:
"The long-running push for safer shipping is apparently working. Oil tanker
spills in U.S. waters have been on the decline since the 1989 Exxon Valdez
disaster. U.S. Coast Guard data show that only 8,414 gallons were lost in
1999. The average between 1979 and 1988 was 2.4 million gallons a year."
I would argue that the National Geographic can be considered a fairly
unbiased publication.
So, we've cut oil spills in the US tremendously. I've tried to get the 2000
spill data, but I can't seem to find it on the web. The EPA did point out
that we import over 100 billion gallons of crude per year. It seems as
though we've improved noticeably. If take the Valdez out of the 79-88
figures, one still has an improvement by about a factor of 150 over the
remaining spills during that time. I've seen other sketchy old data, but
the indications are that most oil spills are now from ships are not
accidental spills but bilge pumping, etc.
But, even this does not address my question. What spills have been noted
from drilling in the Arctic? The example you give below refers to a minor
spill that didn't get beyond the gravel. I have not seen the environmental
web sites cite any significant spills in Purdon Bay. That leads to
believe that there have not been any.
>I know how the oil derricks blemish the Coast near Santa Barbara.
That sounds to me like NIMBY (not in my back yard.) Is it much better that
the African coast or the Texas Coast have derricks that interfere with
aesthetics? My feeling is that one should be willing to put up with
production of what one consumes in one's own back yard. On shore drilling
will not meet world demand. Most good fields are off shore.
>I saw the pictures and read the body count from the Exxon Valdiz disaster.
And I read just the other day >that Exxon still doesn't have any double
hulled tankers.
Few tankers are double hulled. I don't see how not shipping out of Alaska
is going to solve problems. From what I read in the National Geographic
site, they are actually taking a lot of care to ensure that such an accident
doesn't happen again. This includes using three tugs to escorts all ships
out past the rocks, with the tugs having enough power to overwhelm a ship's
captain who would ground the ship.
A tanker mishap seems much more likely outside of the US. Further, I'd be
more worried about independent tankers that fly under flags of convenience
than for US or European registered tankers owned by big corporations with
big pockets.
>
> > I have friends that have gone up there to work. From the sounds of
things,
> > just outside of camp,it is really wild. Indeed, going from the rig to
the
> > housing unit, they had to carry a gun, just in case the polar bears
attacked
> > them.
> >
> Have any of your friends helped construct this website:
> http://www.anwrnews.com/? This is a site put up by BP employees that
>"want to see ANWR developed. But we are afraid for our safety, and we are
afraid
>for the environment.
Probably not. I went to that site and it
1) Didn't address my statement that the footprint of oil exploration is
relatively small
2) Cited one accident that cost tens of millions of dollars but resulted in
no injuries.
I can see why employees get excitable about the possibility of the
reoccurrence of an accident that might have killed them. I certainly would
have. It is quite possible that the company is not doing a good job
analyzing the risks of another explosion and taking the necessary steps to
prevent another accident. It is also possible that the company is, and that
it just cannot convince these employees. It would be quite reasonable for
there to be an unrepentant exploration of the explosion, and the risk to the
pipeline.
But, it seems to me that the standards to which BP is being held are much
higher than those of other industries. The practical short term alternative
to oil or natural gas is coal. (Nuclear is safer and more environmentally
friendly, but it will take a while to build new plants.) I've been off shore
on oil rigs and I've been down coal mines and I've read the safety numbers
on each. Coal mines are dangerous even if you everyone is careful. To put
it bluntly, the roof is constantly falling in. I saw one roof fall the one
night I was down a coal mine. I heard a number of others.
A good safety year in a coal mine is a death free year. Its not as though
they don't try. The mine I went down proudly displayed their victor's cup
from the local the safety carry contest. Its that coal mines are
inherently dangerous.
And, that's just the energy industry. Construction workers are killed
regularly. But its no big deal because it isn't good news, I guess.
> Greenpeace _is_ too extreme on many issues, but so is the oil industry
though
>they mask it well with their bulls**t "people do" kind of PR campaigns.
>The difference is, Greenpeace and other environmental groups don't have
millions
> to spend on PR.
And, that neither makes them right or wrong.
>
> California is 49th of 51 in per capita energy consumption (2) (Texas is
> fourth).
Its first in total consumption though. It is a net importer of energy.
About half of the crude oil for California gasoline comes from outside of
California. This fraction is bound to go up, as the years go on, and the
onshore California fields mature. Indeed, it was 60% 15 years ago. The
question is why is it better for mines and wells to exist elsewhere.
>I think the SUV trend is silly, but it isn't just California that buys
>them, and come this summer, when gas prices top $3/gal., I'll bet the trend
comes to an
abrupt
>end.
It will slow down for a bit. $3/gal is still less than European
prices, and will mainly be due to short term shortages due to the lack of
refinery capability. Why aren't there enough refineries? Because it wasn't
economically feasible to build them because prices were so low.
>California pioneered automobile emissions standards and I believe still has
the strictest laws on the books.
Those are good things, but they do lower gas mileage, thus increasing the
energy used per mile.
California has the fourth highest oil
> production (year to date) (3), but we will never, never, never besmirch
>the Big Sur Coast with oil rigs an the inevitable mess they cause.
Where is the documentation of the inevitable mess? The documentation I've
seen is one group of employees predicting a mess if careful steps aren't
taken. While I certainly would want oversight, that doesn't mean that oil
platform = big mess is a given. You know its impossible to prove a
negative. The track record of US and North Sea offshore drilling is good.
As far as I can tell, most oil spills here have been due to regular
non-tanker, non oil well spills.
Let me ask a question. Is it even possible for oil well drillers to do a
good enough job to satisfy you? Will there be any way for them to meet your
standards?
>I dare say that most other state's oil production is a lower percentage of
their consumption, but who cares >anyway.
I do. I think NIMBY is not a good tendency in the US. We have half the
refining capacity in the US within about 60 miles of where I live. It does
indeed affect the air quality. But, that's a lot of refining. AFA It would
be practically impossible to open enough refineries for California gasoline
in California. Why should California expect others to refine their gas when
>Much of the country gets a lot of it's produce from California, especially
in the
>winter months. Should I suggest that other states be more produce
independent?
If they refused to grow veggies but insisted on cheap veggies from
California, sure. But, that's not the case. If California couldn't, it
would be different. California is a net importer of energy. It consumes
more than it produces. Obviously, places without oil or coal are not going
to produce much energy.
But, refusing to build power plants, refusing to drill oil wells but being
happy to buy energy from people that do sounds very hypocritical to me.
Having no coal or oil in Iowa doesn't sound hypocritical to me.
>
> Who is they?
As far as I can see, the Californian public and the California utility
companies working together to mess things up. The public's NIMBY attitude
made it next to impossible to construct plants in California. About 2 years
ago, people saw that there was a small excess of production elsewhere that
California could tap at a relatively cheap price. The utilities and the
liberal and conservative representatives saw this as win-win. California
would be spared the environmental impact of new plants, the price would stay
lower than if new plants were built, and the companies would make a nice
profit.
It was interesting that the liberal wing insisted that there be no long term
contracts. They felt that the a long term contract would be a sweetheart
deal.
On the whole, California suffered from the same collective wishful thinking
that was being "the new market" that is not based on future profits. They
looked at the low spot market prices for electricity and thought it would
last forever.
>If anything, we suffer from poor leadership over the past two decades. For
sixteen of those years a
>Republican has been in the state house. Most of us had no idea that there
was a problem here until last
>year.
Ah, no plants were built for years. The ones that were proposed faced
opposition. Y'all grew. There is an old website that says 18% of California
power was bought from out of state. The requirement that no long term deals
could be made wasn't public?
>We took the pro industry step of deregulating 2 years ago and this is what
it bought us.
The alternative was building power plants, or accepting long term contracts.
Remember, only wholesale power was deregulated. Retail was still regulated.
The companies that did this are on the verge of bankruptcy, having lost
billions. That seems to be punishment enough for a capitalistic concern:
going from being worth billions to being worth next to nothing.
>I'm convinced that most of the so called crisis is a hoax anyway,
> though I don't have facts and figures to back my convictions (to busy
>trying to get info on the ANWR and other stuff, but I'll bet it's out
there).
As far as I can tell, the plan was to save money by buying 20% of power on
the spot market. The only way that would work was that there was a
permanent surplus of electric capacity in need of a buyer. Power plants
aren't popular. Coal prices fell by more than a factor of two from 1978 to
2000 (and that's without adjusting for inflation), oil prices were down at
$10.00/barrel for West Texas Intermediate and in the $6.00 range for Calf.
heavy oil. Natural gas was still bottom feeding, under $2.00 per thousand
cubic feet. My old company's engineering group was about cut in half.
I'd argue that saving money by buying on the spot market gambling.
I'm not
>And I don't know if you've heard of Diablo Canyon, California's last foray
into
>nuclear energy, but if you have you probably know what a fiscal disaster
>it has been.
I have heard about it.
>I pay $2.20/month nuclear decommissioning fee. Yikes. Someone
>has to show that Nukes can be economically viable before we spend any
effort
> building a bunch of them.
Well, the question is why they are viable elsewhere, but not in California.
More on that in a bit.
>And don't forget we have a little earthquake problem here.
It is possible to design buildings to withstand the strongest California
earthquake. Its just a bit more expensive. If it were that impossible,
then LA will have casualties in the millions in the big quake. But, from
what I've seen, even apartment buildings can be designed safely.
> >
> > IMHO, if California was serious about the environment, they would impose
a
> > $5.00/gallon tax on gas and a $0.10c a kWh tax on residential
electricity
> > usage to promote conservation, with tax rebates given to make it revenue
> > neutral and to minimize the impact on the poor. It won't happen,
though.
>
>We have always encouraged alternative sources here and have several wind
>farms and at least one large scale geothermal plant.
Geothermal works in one or two areas in California due to the usually high
thermal gradients. With nominal thermal gradients, they don't work. Wind
farms require large areas and relatively high sustained winds to be viable.
Plus, to be really useful, they need to have storage capacity attached to
them. Remember, the real crunch with power is peak use. My church, for
example, has a major component of its utility bill determined by the highest
hour of usage. The utility company tells us that's the capacity they have
to reserve for each of their bigger clients.
>We have high gas taxes, but I think that a 250% tax would be a little
silly.
Why, that's how Europe promotes conservation. I don't get it. You seem to
be arguing for cheap, abundant, energy that people will be careful to use as
little of as possible. I proposed taxing it as a means of conservation, and
you call it silly.
>A 40% rate increase was imposed the other day, I'll be paying about
.17/Kwho. What are you paying >again?
Oh, about .10/Kwh. But, remember, a lot of my electricity is produced in a
nuclear plant, so costs are relatively low. Why is nuclear power providing
relatively cheap power in Texas, but not financially viable in California.
Is it possibly because the anti-nuke people in California were so sucessful
in throwing up expensive roadblocks that they made nuclear power
non-viable...especially combined with the rock bottom energy prices of the
'90s.
> Maybe we should charge a premium for states with the highest per capita
>use.
Well, that is a way to totally shut down the Alaska fields, isn't it. Are
you suggesting shutting down the existing fields.
> I refer you to anwrnews.com again. BP owns the rights. Is it wise to let
> them in there?
Well, what's their safety and environmental record? I've dealt with BP
folks and the rules on North Sea wells. On the whole, I've been fairly well
impressed. From what I've read, there would be no way that BP could
possibly defend themselves against this allegation to your satisfaction.
I'm not automatically assuming that they are right, but you appear to be
assuming that they must be wrong, because they are a corporation. The
website talked about the cost cutting measures at BP. Well, everyone in the
oil patch went through desperate cost cutting measures in the late 90s.
> You've said before you think that we should hold the area in reserve. The
> best (only?) way to do that would be to protect it now. If we call it
>some kind of reserve there is little doubt we'll exploit it as soon as the
oil
> companies deem it expedient.
>
Actually, as a Democrat, it hurts me to see the Democratic leaders arguing
to use up our petroleum reserves to keep oil prices artificially low. I
agree that, if it were a reserve, there would be regular temptations to tap
it every time prices rise.
But, it seems silly to talk about the horror of drilling in an area adjacent
to an area where there has been drilling for 20 years without a significant
mishap. Yes, there was a shipping accident in Alaska. But, shipping
accidents can happen anywhere.
I'm arguing that one has to assume that the is something special about the
US that gives us the right to use production elsewhere but prohibit it in
our own country. Using it because its cheap elsewhere is one thing;
prohibiting it is another.
Dan M.
