Senate stops Anwr and offshore drilling

.

What is Junk Science?
Some rules of our fora

We have made a significant change in the introductory page to debunkers.org.

Come check out our new blog that is born on the 10th of May, 2004. Please read the Administrative details and rationale for the change in the homepage.

Debunkers

New Energy Thoughts

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Senate stops Anwr and offshore drilling
bruiser Member	posted 05-13-2008 07:48 PM Actually it was the democrats who did it. Had a filibuster to stop the GOP bill for opening Anwr and offshore drilling. IP: Logged
LaneH Member	posted 05-13-2008 08:19 PM Buh, ANWR is irrelevant. As noted elsewhere that oil will go west to asia. And will do nothing to change the oil speculation dynamic going on now. We are in a downward spire to fix 'energy' needs. I spent a fun 10 minutes yesterday discussing nuclear energy with a greenpeace kid who just didn't get the concept of nuclear energy. I'd give up, but I get too much fun from the discussion. ------------------ lane h. can be reached at laneman@erols.com "Never let your mind remain so open that your brain falls out." IP: Logged
entropy Member	posted 05-13-2008 10:01 PM quote: Originally posted by LaneH: Buh, ANWR is irrelevant. As noted elsewhere that oil will go west to asia. Wrong. Except for small amounts in the past the oil has gone to west coast refineries. In the future the west coast will probably be able to refine all of the oil (if any) that ANWR can produce. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002245699_export17m.html IP: Logged
SPQR Moderator	posted 05-13-2008 10:35 PM quote: Originally posted by LaneH: I spent a fun 10 minutes yesterday discussing nuclear energy with a greenpeace kid who just didn't get the concept of nuclear energy. I'd give up, but I get too much fun from the discussion. Did you make 'em cry? I made a Greenpeace twit cry once. IP: Logged
John LeBlanc Member	posted 05-14-2008 07:57 AM I made one cry back in the 80's when the flavour of the week was the Amazon jungles. They send kids out door-to-door to collect money, and when she came to my door and asked for my thoughts about the rainforest I suggested that nuking it would be much more efficient than cutting it down one tree at a time. ------------------ "Deer aren't capable of that kind of thinking. All they care about is what am I going to eat next, who am I going to f*** and can I run fast enough to get away. They are very much like the French." - Ted Nugent IP: Logged
Chaon Moderator	posted 05-14-2008 10:28 AM quote: Originally posted by LaneH: Buh, ANWR is irrelevant. As noted elsewhere that oil will go west to asia. And will do nothing to change the oil speculation dynamic going on now. We are in a downward spire to fix 'energy' needs. I spent a fun 10 minutes yesterday discussing nuclear energy with a greenpeace kid who just didn't get the concept of nuclear energy. I'd give up, but I get too much fun from the discussion. Snopes disagrees on the Alaska oil to Asia thing. And while I believe that speculation is a significant factor in current prices, I'm not discounting the demand factor. As I posted in the economics thread, raw material prices are spiking across the board. Surely these are not all because of speculation. IP: Logged
SPQR Moderator	posted 05-14-2008 11:09 AM Indeed, if the issue was speculation, the price would have to collapse sooner or later as speculators with lots of oil and nothing to do with it suddenly went broke. Inventory levels show that someone is using that oil. IP: Logged
KGB Moderator	posted 05-14-2008 11:30 AM Right. It isn't a tulip mania when the purchasers are hungry and are eating the bulbs. IP: Logged
entropy Member	posted 05-14-2008 08:10 PM ANWR discussion fron the oil drum ------------------------------------------ [-] on May 5, 2008 - 7:15am \| Permalink \| Subthread \| Comments top This may be true for sites in the lower 48 but perhaps not for ANWR. At some point the Alaskan pipeline may freeze, or become uneconomic due to falling throughput. If we wait to evaluate and develop ANWR, any economic oil may be lost forever. If developed soon it might be available for our children and grandchildren. Comments can no longer be added to this story. [-] elwoodelmore on May 5, 2008 - 9:42am \| Permalink \| Subthread \| Comments top "At some point the Alaskan pipeline may freeze, or become uneconomic due to falling throughput." huh? what is going to freeze ? the alaskan pipeline is insulated to keep the permafrost from melting. Comments can no longer be added to this story. [-] stclair on May 5, 2008 - 10:54am \| Permalink \| Subthread \| Comments top A couple of points: 1. The Alaska pipeline is elevated for most of the northern section. While it does use insulation in the vertical supports to prevent the permafrost from melting, this has little relation to the temperature of the pipeline contents. 2. The oil traversing the pipeline is typically kept pretty warm; if Wikipedia is to be believed, above 120 F. This keeps the viscosity down (imagine trying to pump oil at -40 F through miles of pipeline!). If the flow rate gets too low, in cold-weather conditions the temperature of the oil will drop unacceptably in the transit from one pumping station to another. This effectively establishes a lower limit to the practical flow rate for the pipeline. Comments can no longer be added to this story. [-] on May 5, 2008 - 1:09pm \| Permalink \| Subthread \| Comments top In the distant past and at least once in the past year I have read that the pipeline may not function through a cold Alaskan winter if the throughput drops below 300,000 bbl/day. I have no clue as to whether or not this is true. Comments can no longer be added to this story. [-] on May 5, 2008 - 6:47pm \| Permalink \| Subthread \| Comments top Pipeline facts. Throughput during 2007 averaged 740,170 bbl/day, far below the maximum of over 2,000,000 bbl/day during 1988 http://www.alyeska-pipe.com/PipelineFacts/Throughput.html IP: Logged

All times are ET (US)	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | The Debunkers

Personal Safety Notice: The discussions on this site may address activities which are inherently dangerous and other activities which could be dangerous if done improperly. Many opinions may be expressed. All or none may be valid. The management of this board has no way of assuring that any of the opinions expressed are consistent with safe practices. If you choose to follow any of the "guidance" expressed on this site and, as a result, blow three of your fingers off, please let us know about it so we can laugh at your stupidity.

Copyright Restrictions: You should know the drill by now. If you post it here, then you promise that you have the right to do so and pledge to defend and hold harmless this board and the staff which manages daily operations. The staff reserves the right to edit or delete material you submit if, in its judgment, your claim is not reasonable.