| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front Economy |
| US to open 3.9m acres in Alaska for drilling |
| 2008-07-17 |
| The US federal government said yesterday it would open 3.9m acres of land in a designated petroleum reserve in Alaska for drilling as a means to help curb rising petrol prices. "This is welcome news at a time when Americans are paying record prices at the pump," said C. Stephen Allred, assistant US secretary for land and minerals. "Together with proposed new production from other offshore and onshore areas, these increased supplies will help to stabilise energy costs.'' The Alaska decision follows another by President George W. Bush on Monday to lift a presidential ban on drilling on the US outer continental shelf, off Florida. That decision still requires Congress to lift a separate ban on the area before the area can be leased for development. But the bureau of land management, an agency within the US Department of the Interior, said the Alaskan land that will now be offered requires no other approvals and will be up for leasing in the autumn. The site was set aside decades ago but development was blocked by lawsuits from environmentalists concerned about disrupting wildlife. The government has tackled these fears, making it a condition of the lease by oil and gas companies that polar bears, waterfowl and caribou are protected. |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #22 Adopting a complete opposition to drilling anywhere is not going to work. |
| Posted by: Albemarle Uniper3460 2008-07-17 23:08 |
| #21 Too little, too late scumbags. |
| Posted by: newc 2008-07-17 22:15 |
| #20 What needs to be done is declare open season on 80% of all "environmentalists" who have nothing to do with a particular area. If you don't live there, shut your yap and move on. We have too many people in this nation that engage in lawfare with no consequences for themselves. Hanging a bunch of them may get the message across to the rest that we're tired of their "back to nature" BS. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2008-07-17 22:11 |
| #19 According to the Institute for Energy Research (h/t Powerline): Section 2. Lease Sales in the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska Ø This section requires that lease sales be conducted once a year. This is something that is currently allowed, but not done because NPRA’s Indiana-sized area has no infrastructure. In addition, a history of dilatory lawsuits has made it an area of limited interest to energy producers. This section also seeks to expedite permits in the NPR-A, a positive step. However, it does nothing to tackle the biggest problem with developing new energy: dilatory protests and lawsuits. Any genuine effort must involve putting a stop to the legal blocking and tackling of groups opposed to American energy production. Incidentally, Congress should address this issue nationwide. In other words, it's already open. They don't sell leases because there is no infrastructure; the Alaska pipeline serves ANWAR better. Powerline: NPR-A is already open to oil exploration and development. That isn't happening, though, because the Corps of Engineers hasn't been able to get a permit to build a pipeline, and the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations have tied up proposed projects in litigation. Moreover, NPR-A is a less desirable area for exploitation than ANWR. It has about the same amount of recoverable oil, but spread out over ten times the area as ANWR's 1002. Both environmentally and economically, ANWR is a far superior place to recover oil, and it is close to the existing Alaska Pipeline. |
| Posted by: KBK 2008-07-17 21:55 |
| #18 I say eliminate margin in the oil futures market. Get the speculators to have as much skin in the game as the consumers do. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-07-17 19:56 |
| #17 Should we feel sorry for them when they start hanging themselves in the men's room at the exchange cause they cant meet their margin calls? I'll hand out the rope. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-07-17 19:46 |
| #16 The new area has as much as ANWR, but its over 10x as much territory - the density sucks. Also its an area where the Enviros and their lawyers have tied up the needed pipeline for years in the courts. Drill ANWR and drill it NOW! |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-07-17 19:39 |
| #15 I wouldn't mind seeing a great many futures and hedge fund jackals lose their shirts over this. They have been dicking around with the price of oil at the cost of every other sector of the American economy, all the while running away with obscene profits. Should we feel sorry for them when they start hanging themselves in the men's room at the exchange cause they cant meet their margin calls? I think not. Pass the popcorn. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-07-17 17:17 |
| #14 Higher prices mean less demand. The bastards you see on the idiot box seem to think that gasoline is an inelastic demand. WRONG! Some of the boys at The Big Picture have been claiming for some time that commodities were the last big bubble to be popped. I thought they were right at the time and I think the proof of that belief is now beginning to make itself apparent. My guess is that in five years the price of gas will be back under $2. |
| Posted by: Jomosing Bluetooth8431 2008-07-17 16:57 |
| #13 Light, sweet crude for August delivery fell $5.31 to settle at $129.29 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Prices have fallen about $15 in the past three days. Natural gas futures for August delivery fell as much as 8.2 percent in the day, the biggest one-day drop in nearly a year. Other energy futures also fell. Heating oil fell 6.62 cents to $3.7748 a gallon, while gasoline futures gained slipped fell 9.92 cents to $3.1802. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-07-17 16:19 |
| #12 Ole Bill and his guys deliberately understated the potential oil reserves in these areas of Alaska by a factor of 10. On a separate note, he deliberately had the Dept of Commerce understate the potential reserves in ANWR by a factor of ONE HUNDRED as a means of justifying the set aside..as in "its only a fifty year supply"...actually its enough oil for us to tell the middle east to shove it for a long time...enough time to find those precious alternative energy sources those darling little simpletons in the environmental movement dream of. I believe that the announcement of opening ANWR for drilling would send oil futures through the floor...Hmmmm, I wonder if the dems will call for a bailout of the commodity brokers that have jacked the oil prices? |
| Posted by: James Carville 2008-07-17 15:32 |
| #11 Now under 130. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-07-17 15:31 |
| #10 Down 4.22 at 130.38 as of two minutes ago. Tehran better wake up the Photoshop guys for another launch or have Mahmoud drop another one of his pearls of apocalyptic wisdom. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-07-17 14:48 |
| #9 Americans are turning down the economy by taking heed and the gas is starting to seriously back up at the refineries and storage facilities. Can't sell all they got now. Look to lucrative extended deals for major purchasers of bulk first so that the oil companies can lock in prices now before it drops too far. Who's going to blink first on falling prices. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-07-17 14:44 |
| #8 re #4. Crosspatch. Oh my god, the economy is tanking so the price of oil is falling! This has nothing to do with the announcements made by Bush and the administration in the last couple of days. /s off (grin) |
| Posted by: tipover 2008-07-17 14:34 |
| #7 Depending on the type of oil bearing strata, the yield might be good or not so good. Depends on the geology specific to ANWR's costal plain. Have we even test drilled yet? I don't think we even know. It was probably discovered with magnetic surveys or regional seismic reflection surveys, so the geology may be unknown yet. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-07-17 14:22 |
| #6 I think this is an area pretty far west of the existing pipeline. Thus there will be plenty of opportunities for greenies to stall this one by attacking the environmental impact of the pipeline, etc. |
| Posted by: mhw 2008-07-17 13:54 |
| #5 The Dow Industrials are up almost 200 points today as I type this to over 11,400. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2008-07-17 13:47 |
#4 I wondered why Matt Drudge didn't have the economic doom and gloom stuff going today as he has most days recently. Then I went over to a financial page and found out why ...
and
So his strategy of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre didn't work. At least not this time. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2008-07-17 13:45 |
| #3 Yes! |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-07-17 13:30 |
| #2 According to the New York Times, the field could contain as much as 3.7 billion barrels of oil. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/us/17alaska.html |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2008-07-17 13:06 |
| #1 Question is, is this good yield area. or is it just more symbolic slack poor production area the Dems keep pushing? |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-07-17 12:47 |