BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
GetBMWParts
View Poll Results: omama or mccain
obama 65 52.00%
mccain 60 48.00%
Voters: 125. You may not vote on this poll

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      07-18-2008, 12:14 PM   #89
unagi1
3
First Lieutenant
 
unagi1's Avatar
 
Drives: Cobra, Mr2, 08 335i
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Trumbull, CT

Posts: 393
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icedog_16 View Post
OTOH, there is also wildlife in the Prudhoe Bay area and across the immediately adjacent Canadian border. Makes a lot of sense. Gotta love government.
If you are so sore about it, go get the law changed.
__________________
08 335i Coupe: BSM / Coral Red
96 Cobra
91 Mr2 Turbo
unagi1 is offline   United_States
Appreciate 0
Reply With Quote
      07-18-2008, 12:32 PM   #90
unagi1
3
First Lieutenant
 
unagi1's Avatar
 
Drives: Cobra, Mr2, 08 335i
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Trumbull, CT

Posts: 393
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
The stated purpose of 1002 is to, "authorize exploratory activity within the coastal plain."
You mind pointing me to that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
The idea that you are willing to sacrifice the economic well-being of millions of Americans because of a extremely remote threat to the "ecological integrity of the whole Arctic Refuge," is simply a concept I cannot grasp. There is an enormous amount of oil there, the equivalent of 30 years worth of Saudi imports and to keep it closed off because Jimmy Carter wanted it to be just does not pass the common sense test.
Don't blame me, it's the law. That region of Alaska has been federally protected since the Eisenhower era -- the ANILC signed in 1980 just revised and updated it. So nearly 50 years of protection in one way or the other, in all.

Now we have a doubling of gas prices in one year and all of a sudden everyone wants to drill in federally protected land instead of just sucking it up and dealing with it.
__________________
08 335i Coupe: BSM / Coral Red
96 Cobra
91 Mr2 Turbo
unagi1 is offline   United_States
Appreciate 0
Reply With Quote
      07-18-2008, 12:44 PM   #91
Icedog_16
4
No Member
 
Icedog_16's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 E92 335is
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Tampa, FL

Posts: 428
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by unagi1 View Post
If you are so sore about it, go get the law changed.
Never said I was sore about it. I simply questioned the logic.

That said, I would rather our money be spent on US oil as opposed to paying big money to Canada for theirs, especially when it is right next door and probably not unrelated to the reserves in ANWR (eg, two straws in the same glass). BTW, that is a good part of the reason their dollar has reached parity with ours. And after all, they are supposedly much more environmentally-friendly than we are and, yet, they seem not to have much of a problem with allowing oil production in those areas. Other countries seem to be willing to utilize their own resources, so I don't see why there is so much resistance to using ours. Hamstringing ourselves only hurts us in the global economy.
Icedog_16 is offline  
Appreciate 0
Reply With Quote
      07-18-2008, 12:48 PM   #92
ganeil
20
Colonel
 
ganeil's Avatar
 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

Posts: 2,050
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by unagi1 View Post
You mind pointing me to that?
Sure, it is here.

Quote:
Don't blame me, it's the law. That region of Alaska has been federally protected since the Eisenhower era -- the ANILC signed in 1980 just revised and updated it. So nearly 50 years of protection in one way or the other, in all.

Now we have a doubling of gas prices in one year and all of a sudden everyone wants to drill in federally protected land instead of just sucking it up and dealing with it.
I thought the discussion was about the relative merits of changing the law?

This is not a decision that just popped up in the past year. Over 10 years ago President Clinton vetoed a bill that would open up the are to drilling.

No Congress is bound by the actions of a previous Congress and as circumstances change we should reevaluate decisions that were made 48 years ago.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
ganeil is offline   United_States
Appreciate 0
Reply With Quote
      07-18-2008, 03:08 PM   #93
unagi1
3
First Lieutenant
 
unagi1's Avatar
 
Drives: Cobra, Mr2, 08 335i
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Trumbull, CT

Posts: 393
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
Sure, it is here.
That is Title 10 of ANILCA, which calls for an "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain Resource Assessment". The initial report was released in 1987 and updated in 1998. Read the introduction in that first link I gave you again, it clearly states that the 1002 area is still a part of ANWR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
I thought the discussion was about the relative merits of changing the law?

This is not a decision that just popped up in the past year. Over 10 years ago President Clinton vetoed a bill that would open up the are to drilling.

No Congress is bound by the actions of a previous Congress and as circumstances change we should reevaluate decisions that were made 48 years ago.
I don't want to change the law, why should I?

The point that I keep coming back to is that the 1002 area is on federally protected land, and as such (read 1003), "production of oil and gas from the Artic National Wildlife Refuge is prohibited."
__________________
08 335i Coupe: BSM / Coral Red
96 Cobra
91 Mr2 Turbo
unagi1 is offline   United_States
Appreciate 0
Reply With Quote
      07-18-2008, 03:43 PM   #94
ganeil
20
Colonel
 
ganeil's Avatar
 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

Posts: 2,050
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by unagi1 View Post
That is Title 10 of ANILCA, which calls for an "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain Resource Assessment". The initial report was released in 1987 and updated in 1998. Read the introduction in that first link I gave you again, it clearly states that the 1002 area is still a part of ANWR.
ANILCA is the 1980 legislation that we are discussing. That is the law you reference. Of course the area is part of ANWR and would remain so if exploration and drilling were allowed.

Quote:
I don't want to change the law, why should I?
We are going in circles now. I understand you do not want to change the law. I do and I have explained why. I have asked you to explain why you do not.

Quote:
The point that I keep coming back to is that the 1002 area is on federally protected land, and as such (read 1003), "production of oil and gas from the Artic National Wildlife Refuge is prohibited."
The last portion of 1003 reads,"and no leasing or other development leading to production of oil and gas from the range shall be undertaken until authorized by an Act of Congress."

If the area were not federally protected land, we would be pumping close to 1.5mbd from there, most likely would not be paying $4+ a gallon at the pump, and would not need to have this discussion.

The question remains, what is threatened by drilling in this tiny area that is worth that much oil?
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
ganeil is offline   United_States
Appreciate 0
Reply With Quote
      07-18-2008, 04:41 PM   #95
unagi1
3
First Lieutenant
 
unagi1's Avatar
 
Drives: Cobra, Mr2, 08 335i
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Trumbull, CT

Posts: 393
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
We are going in circles now. I understand you do not want to change the law. I do and I have explained why. I have asked you to explain why you do not.
I thought I did. I'll do it again:
1) Because that area is "critically important to the ecological integrity of the whole Arctic Refuge". That small piece of land is a critical piece of the surrounding ecosystem, so the whole needs to be protected.
2) There are no immediate benefits to be found until at least 2018.

In addition, and I'd thought I'd save the best for last, is this EIA report:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicer...r/results.html

"With respect to the world oil price impact, projected ANWR oil production constitutes between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030, based on the low and high resource cases, respectively.17 Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices. Relative to the AEO2008 reference case, ANWR oil production is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light (LSL) crude oil18 prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 in the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 in the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 in the high oil resource case. Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount."

So, you see...the actual impact on the price of oil is negligible, and could immediately be reversed by OPEC to account for our increased production. In short, opening ANWR to drilling would only help us marginally with regards to the trade balance, reliance on foreign oil, and domestic jobs. OPEC has and always will hold all the cards.

Good debate, by the way. I think I've laid out my positions pretty well.
__________________
08 335i Coupe: BSM / Coral Red
96 Cobra
91 Mr2 Turbo
unagi1 is offline   United_States
Appreciate 0
Reply With Quote
      07-18-2008, 05:13 PM   #96
ganeil
20
Colonel
 
ganeil's Avatar
 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

Posts: 2,050
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by unagi1 View Post
I thought I did. I'll do it again:
1) Because that area is "critically important to the ecological integrity of the whole Arctic Refuge". That small piece of land is a critical piece of the surrounding ecosystem, so the whole needs to be protected.
2) There are no immediate benefits to be found until at least 2018.
The delayed benefit argument is fatuous as it precludes doing anything for future benefit. Why save for retirement? Go to college? Invest in alternative energy?

I am still not certain what damage you fear may occur to this "critically important" piece of land. What the likelihood of such damage would be if drilling were allowed and why that risk is not worth taking? What benefit do Americans gain in protecting this area? I really would like specifics, such as the caribou herd would be depleted by x% and that would deny the American people y.

Quote:
In addition, and I'd thought I'd save the best for last, is this EIA report:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicer...r/results.html

"With respect to the world oil price impact, projected ANWR oil production constitutes between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030, based on the low and high resource cases, respectively.17 Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices. Relative to the AEO2008 reference case, ANWR oil production is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light (LSL) crude oil18 prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 in the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 in the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 in the high oil resource case. Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount."

So, you see...the actual impact on the price of oil is negligible, and could immediately be reversed by OPEC to account for our increased production. In short, opening ANWR to drilling would only help us marginally with regards to the trade balance, reliance on foreign oil, and domestic jobs. OPEC has and always will hold all the cards.

Good debate, by the way. I think I've laid out my positions pretty well.
The price argument is based on a premise that is no longer accurate. OPEC has not operated as an effective cartel for years. Members have violated their production quotas for years as domestic and political concerns outweigh their commitment to the cartel. I would direct your attention to this article that lays this out.

I have enjoyed this debate as well.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
ganeil is offline   United_States
Appreciate 0
Reply With Quote
      07-18-2008, 09:53 PM   #97
x26
3
First Lieutenant
 
x26's Avatar
 
Drives: 335i
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dante's Inferno...

Posts: 332
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by fermion View Post
wow, over half the people on here are retarded

+1...
x26 is offline  
Appreciate 0
Reply With Quote
      07-18-2008, 10:09 PM   #98
gadget
11
Major
 
gadget's Avatar
 
Drives: 09 e92///M SSII DCT
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: US

Posts: 1,162
iTrader: (0)

i'm voting for Mccain b/c he is white

hey at least I'm honest, I know i'm not the only one.
gadget is offline   United_States
Appreciate 0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:16 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST