• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Alaska ANWR Leases Have a Buyer!

They need to sit on those leases until 2024, because they are not going to get the federal permits to sink wells while anti-American leftist filth are in the White House.
Sit on em longer than that. Let the ones who are children today decide what to do.
Nice to leave a legacy, something for the kids to inherit. We don't have to take it all before we die.
 
"The WalletHub analysts essentially asked how much each state receives back as a return on its federal income-tax investment. They compared the 50 states and the District of Columbia on three metrics: 1) federal spending per capita compared with every dollar paid in federal income taxes; 2) the percentage of a state’s annual revenue that comes from federal funding; and 3) the number of federal employees per capita. The third measure received only half the weight of each of the others in the calculation."
So it days federal SPENDING not benefits.
 
Sit on em longer than that. Let the ones who are children today decide what to do.
Nice to leave a legacy, something for the kids to inherit. We don't have to take it all before we die.
We haven't even begun to exact the oil available in Alaska. Currently the focus is on ANWR, 90 miles east of Prudhoe Bay. However, 100 miles west of Prudhoe Bay is the National Petroleum Reserve (NPR). An area that covers 23.6 million acres (95,506 square kilometres), which is slightly larger than the State of Indiana. It is almost twice the size of ANWR. There is more oil in NPR than all the oil Alaska has ever produced in the last 50 years. There is more than enough oil and natural gas in Alaska to last centuries. Just as there is enough oil and natural gas in Canada to last centuries.

I'm sorry to hear about Biden cancelling the Keystone XL Pipeline. That project would have supported both Canada and the US and it should never have been canceled. However, on the plus side, the canceling of the Keystone XL Pipeline project has given Alaskan oil a boost in price. Every little bit helps.
 
Last edited:
They need to sit on those leases until 2024, because they are not going to get the federal permits to sink wells while anti-American leftist filth are in the White House.

No one is going to do anything up there regardless of who is in office when oil is sitting around 50 dollars a barrel.
 
We are still pumping ~450,000 barrels of oil every day in Alaska.

Due to previous investments in oil production up there when oil was much more expensive. You are still pumping oil on the north slope due to previous capital investments. You are in a fantasy world if you think that oil companies are going to build out the infrastructure in ANWR needed to produce oil there when oil prices are around 50 dollars a barrel.

You rail against leftists, but you don't seem to understand basic business economics. The fact is, in any given year, the energy sector will outspend environmental groups in lobbying by around 200 to 1. Thus for every dollar a group like the Sierra Club spends lobbying the federal government and state governments, oil companies will spend 200 dollars. The point being, it's pretty damn rare for environmentalists to stand in the way of oil companies when oil companies really want to do something. If there was money to be made in drilling for oil in ANWR, the oil industry would be up there doing it. However, because global oil demand has plateaued for years, and there is no sign of a ramp-up in global oil demand due to greater economic efficiency regarding energy usage around the world, it's quite likely that the oil in ANWR will never be economically recoverable.
 
Due to previous investments in oil production up there when oil was much more expensive. You are still pumping oil on the north slope due to previous capital investments. You are in a fantasy world if you think that oil companies are going to build out the infrastructure in ANWR needed to produce oil there when oil prices are around 50 dollars a barrel.

You rail against leftists, but you don't seem to understand basic business economics. The fact is, in any given year, the energy sector will outspend environmental groups in lobbying by around 200 to 1. Thus for every dollar a group like the Sierra Club spends lobbying the federal government and state governments, oil companies will spend 200 dollars. The point being, it's pretty damn rare for environmentalists to stand in the way of oil companies when oil companies really want to do something. If there was money to be made in drilling for oil in ANWR, the oil industry would be up there doing it. However, because global oil demand has plateaued for years, and there is no sign of a ramp-up in global oil demand due to greater economic efficiency regarding energy usage around the world, it's quite likely that the oil in ANWR will never be economically recoverable.
We were pumping 1.89 million barrels per day when oil prices were under $20/barrel. The only reason we are only pumping ~450,000 barrels per day today is because the oil at Prudhoe Bay is running low, after 43 years and 25+ billion barrels of oil. As long as oil continues to flow through the trans-Alaska pipeline it will stay in operation, and the 1002 Area in ANWR just added at least another two decades to the life of the trans-Alaska pipeline.

You obviously have not been paying attention. There is lots of oil on the north slope, which is why numerous oil companies have been drilling there. Prudhoe Bay is just one of numerous locations where large quantities of oil have been found.

The demand for oil in the last 10 to 12 years has been the result of the economic recession that began in 2008. Despite the "shovel ready job" lies by Obama, the US never really recovered from that recession until 2017. Even then GDP growth has been anemic. A normal and healthy economy has an annual GDP growth rate between 3% and 5%. Obama never saw better than 2% growth in the GDP during his entire 8 years. Trump's economy was better, but not by a great deal. The best the GDP grew under Trump was by 2.6% in 2018, even though there was a 3.4% growth in the GDP during the third quarter of 2018.

When the US economy gets back to normal, and we began growing at between 3% and 5% annually, then you will see the price of oil increase accordingly. Which certainly won't happen with a Biden administration or Democrats irrationally spending in Congress. So that will also have to wait until 2024.
 
We were pumping 1.89 million barrels per day when oil prices were under $20/barrel. The only reason we are only pumping ~450,000 barrels per day today is because the oil at Prudhoe Bay is running low, after 43 years and 25+ billion barrels of oil. As long as oil continues to flow through the trans-Alaska pipeline it will stay in operation, and the 1002 Area in ANWR just added at least another two decades to the life of the trans-Alaska pipeline.

You obviously have not been paying attention. There is lots of oil on the north slope, which is why numerous oil companies have been drilling there. Prudhoe Bay is just one of numerous locations where large quantities of oil have been found.

The demand for oil in the last 10 to 12 years has been the result of the economic recession that began in 2008. Despite the "shovel ready job" lies by Obama, the US never really recovered from that recession until 2017. Even then GDP growth has been anemic. A normal and healthy economy has an annual GDP growth rate between 3% and 5%. Obama never saw better than 2% growth in the GDP during his entire 8 years. Trump's economy was better, but not by a great deal. The best the GDP grew under Trump was by 2.6% in 2018, even though there was a 3.4% growth in the GDP during the third quarter of 2018.

When the US economy gets back to normal, and we began growing at between 3% and 5% annually, then you will see the price of oil increase accordingly. Which certainly won't happen with a Biden administration or Democrats irrationally spending in Congress. So that will also have to wait until 2024.

It's not a question of how much oil there is there, it's a question of at what price is that oil economically recoverable. For example, a barrel of Saudi oil costs them about $2.80 to produce. In contrast, Shale oil costs between $40 and $90 a barrel to produce. Most of the north slope oil is recoverable at around $36 a barrel but if new infrastructure must be built, as would be the case with ANWR, you need around $70 a barrel oil prices to make it economically recoverable.

There are a lot of forces working against seeing high oil prices again. For one, vehicles are more efficient than they were 30 years ago. We also have transitioned to a knowledge-based economy where many workers work from home, and those that don't, often have shorter commutes. Containerization has reduced the amount of oil per dollar of GDP used in shipping. Business travel is down due to Zoom and Teams meetings.
 
It's not a question of how much oil there is there, it's a question of at what price is that oil economically recoverable. For example, a barrel of Saudi oil costs them about $2.80 to produce. In contrast, Shale oil costs between $40 and $90 a barrel to produce. Most of the north slope oil is recoverable at around $36 a barrel but if new infrastructure must be built, as would be the case with ANWR, you need around $70 a barrel oil prices to make it economically recoverable.
You were doing well, until you pulled that nonsensical $70/barrel price out of your posterior. In today's market it does cost the oil companies on the north slope approximately $36/barrel to produce. However, like I said, that is because the current economy is depressed. There has been very little economic growth in the last 10 to 12 years, even with Trump as President.

When the economy begins growing at a normal rate again, the demand - and ergo the price - for oil will increase. It doesn't need to increase by much either. Anywhere in the $40-$50 per barrel range will do.

As far as building the infrastructure to the 1002 Area, you seem to forget that it is only 90 miles due east of Prudhoe Bay and there are already ice-roads built to the oil company's leases at Point Thompson which is adjacent to the 1002 Area. So there is very little to actually build.

There are a lot of forces working against seeing high oil prices again. For one, vehicles are more efficient than they were 30 years ago. We also have transitioned to a knowledge-based economy where many workers work from home, and those that don't, often have shorter commutes. Containerization has reduced the amount of oil per dollar of GDP used in shipping. Business travel is down due to Zoom and Teams meetings.
Yes, I am well aware of the Democrats attempts to sabotage and destroy as much of the US economy as possible. We've been watching them do precisely that since March 2020 by putting tens of millions out of work. It is currently estimated that Democrats destroyed between 31% and 33% of the US GDP in 2020. That is a great way to keep oil prices depressed, but expected from anti-American Democrat filth.
 
So it days federal SPENDING not benefits.
For crying out loud, spending is 1/3 of the equation, because spending creates benefit. It also includes federal employees.

I have a question for you, it's easy, just a yes or no. Did President Biden win a free and fair election with no statistically significant voter fraud last November?
 
You were doing well, until you pulled that nonsensical $70/barrel price out of your posterior. In today's market it does cost the oil companies on the north slope approximately $36/barrel to produce. However, like I said, that is because the current economy is depressed. There has been very little economic growth in the last 10 to 12 years, even with Trump as President.

When the economy begins growing at a normal rate again, the demand - and ergo the price - for oil will increase. It doesn't need to increase by much either. Anywhere in the $40-$50 per barrel range will do.

As far as building the infrastructure to the 1002 Area, you seem to forget that it is only 90 miles due east of Prudhoe Bay and there are already ice-roads built to the oil company's leases at Point Thompson which is adjacent to the 1002 Area. So there is very little to actually build.


Yes, I am well aware of the Democrats attempts to sabotage and destroy as much of the US economy as possible. We've been watching them do precisely that since March 2020 by putting tens of millions out of work. It is currently estimated that Democrats destroyed between 31% and 33% of the US GDP in 2020. That is a great way to keep oil prices depressed, but expected from anti-American Democrat filth.

GDP growth under Democrats in the postwar era has been considerably higher than it has under Republicans. Just the same, who is currently in Washinton has very little to do with economic growth.
 
No one is going to do anything up there regardless of who is in office when oil is sitting around 50 dollars a barrel.
For crying out loud, spending is 1/3 of the equation, because spending creates benefit. It also includes federal employees.

I have a question for you, it's easy, just a yes or no. Did President Biden win a free and fair election with no statistically significant voter fraud last November?
not relevant to the current discussion.
 
GDP growth under Democrats in the postwar era has been considerably higher than it has under Republicans. Just the same, who is currently in Washinton has very little to do with economic growth.
Not in reality. From 1944 until 1956, and again from 1985 until 1989 the US GDP grew by more than 5%, which is a "booming" economy. Republicans controlled Congress from 1944 until 1956, and the GOP controlled the Senate and the White House from 1984 until 1988, which was preceded by a 25% across the board tax cut in 1983. Even JFK saw an increase in the GDP after a Democrat-controlled Congress gave him his tax cut in 1962. However, the biggest growth in the economy has always been when Republicans have been in charge.

That, however, is changing. Republicans are no longer the "fiscal conservatives" that they once were. In fact, the Republican Party is no longer conservative at all. The GOP stopped being conservative when they stopped passing appropriation bills in 1999 and started passing veto-proof Continuing Resolutions, Omnibus, and Supplemental Spending bills.

The last honest budget, that included all twelve appropriations bills, to pass Congress was in 1998 when Newt Gingrich was still Speaker of the House.

There might be one or two conservatives remaining in Congress, like Sen. Cruz or Rep. Don Young, but they are in a distinct minority.
 
Not in reality. From 1944 until 1956, and again from 1985 until 1989 the US GDP grew by more than 5%, which is a "booming" economy. Republicans controlled Congress from 1944 until 1956, and the GOP controlled the Senate and the White House from 1984 until 1988, which was preceded by a 25% across the board tax cut in 1983. Even JFK saw an increase in the GDP after a Democrat-controlled Congress gave him his tax cut in 1962. However, the biggest growth in the economy has always been when Republicans have been in charge.

That, however, is changing. Republicans are no longer the "fiscal conservatives" that they once were. In fact, the Republican Party is no longer conservative at all. The GOP stopped being conservative when they stopped passing appropriation bills in 1999 and started passing veto-proof Continuing Resolutions, Omnibus, and Supplemental Spending bills.

The last honest budget, that included all twelve appropriations bills, to pass Congress was in 1998 when Newt Gingrich was still Speaker of the House.

There might be one or two conservatives remaining in Congress, like Sen. Cruz or Rep. Don Young, but they are in a distinct minority.
Conservatism as a political ideology has little to do with budgets. That’s technocratic stuff.
 
Not in reality. From 1944 until 1956, and again from 1985 until 1989 the US GDP grew by more than 5%, which is a "booming" economy. Republicans controlled Congress from 1944 until 1956, and the GOP controlled the Senate and the White House from 1984 until 1988, which was preceded by a 25% across the board tax cut in 1983. Even JFK saw an increase in the GDP after a Democrat-controlled Congress gave him his tax cut in 1962. However, the biggest growth in the economy has always been when Republicans have been in charge.

That, however, is changing. Republicans are no longer the "fiscal conservatives" that they once were. In fact, the Republican Party is no longer conservative at all. The GOP stopped being conservative when they stopped passing appropriation bills in 1999 and started passing veto-proof Continuing Resolutions, Omnibus, and Supplemental Spending bills.

The last honest budget, that included all twelve appropriations bills, to pass Congress was in 1998 when Newt Gingrich was still Speaker of the House.

There might be one or two conservatives remaining in Congress, like Sen. Cruz or Rep. Don Young, but they are in a distinct minority.

Cruz a conservative... sure man. Ted Cruz having an ideology would require him to have any actual principles at all. If Biden wants to work with with Cruz, perhaps he should publically insult Ted Cruz's wife, after all that worked for Trump.

What drives economic growth is innovation that leads to greater productivity. For example, a big driver of the economic boom of the 60s was all the investments in the space program and corporate finance departments moving their accounting over to mainframes. The big driver of the economic boom of the 90s was corporations moving to digital inventories.

The reason why economic growth has been anemic for 12 years now is that no one has come up with anything that provides a huge boost to productivity. The government has nothing to do with it.
 
not relevant to the current discussion.
How is it not relevant, djt opened it, and President Biden stopped it. If the election went one way we have new policy, if it was the other way ANWR remains open?
 
At least Alaska's future is assured.
Biden can hold it up for a while and may be able to stop it permanently.
Nothing is assured with the selling off of ANWR yet.
 
Biden can hold it up for a while and may be able to stop it permanently.
Nothing is assured with the selling off of ANWR yet.
ANWR wasn't sold, just a small piece of it (480,753 acres) in the northwestern corner called the 1002 Area. ANWR itself is 19,286,722 acres. The 1002 Area is only 2.5% of ANWR.

Biden can, and most likely will, hold up the federal permits that will allow wells to be sunk. It is a good thing those leases are for 10 years. It cannot be stopped permanently without violating the US Constitution. I wouldn't put it past Democrat filth to do precisely that.
 
ANWR wasn't sold, just a small piece of it (480,753 acres) in the northwestern corner called the 1002 Area. ANWR itself is 19,286,722 acres. The 1002 Area is only 2.5% of ANWR.

Biden can, and most likely will, hold up the federal permits that will allow wells to be sunk. It is a good thing those leases are for 10 years. It cannot be stopped permanently without violating the US Constitution. I wouldn't put it past Democrat filth to do precisely that.
In ten years most people will appreciate the value of the ANWR and will want to save it.
But I agree with you on calling the Democratic party 'filth', as I would for the R party too. They're all the establshment that are teamed up in keepind the working people from getting a piece of the American pie.
Imagine that, a rich country such as America!.

I think the US Constitution is baloney that's so erroneous that it can be interpreted any way some shyster chooses. It was written as a compromise and will be compromised by both sides.

I would appreciate if you don't start off with me by screaming extremism. I have little patience for those who need to resort to that!
 
We haven't even begun to exact the oil available in Alaska. Currently the focus is on ANWR, 90 miles east of Prudhoe Bay. However, 100 miles west of Prudhoe Bay is the National Petroleum Reserve (NPR). An area that covers 23.6 million acres (95,506 square kilometres), which is slightly larger than the State of Indiana. It is almost twice the size of ANWR. There is more oil in NPR than all the oil Alaska has ever produced in the last 50 years. There is more than enough oil and natural gas in Alaska to last centuries. Just as there is enough oil and natural gas in Canada to last centuries.
I'm sorry to hear about Biden cancelling the Keystone XL Pipeline. That project would have supported both Canada and the US and it should never have been canceled. However, on the plus side, the canceling of the Keystone XL Pipeline project has given Alaskan oil a boost in price. Every little bit helps.

Alaska is about finished with oil reserves. NPR is not yours to pump. There are still massive amounts of gas but nobody seems in a hurry to develop them. Last time they tried to sell off gas leases it was a total flop. And Keystone was canceled because the Alberta tar sands are shutting down. Tar sand is the most expensive way to get low grade oil. TransAlaska decided not to finish the Keystone long before Biden announced he was closing it.

The money from this recent leasing will be pissed away in stupid projects, graft, and payoff to the rich just like the vast wealth from Proudhoe Bay. Nobody will invest in anything smart or sensible like education, universal health insurance, infrastructure. The money will be spent on scams like the millions spent on the frozen fish packing plant off of Raspberry that never froze one filet and stood empty for years. The Baptists bought it cheap. Just what AK needs another fundy religious center.
I love Alaska, but Alaskans just are not smart. Everybody wants to get rich quick. Nobody wants to do the hard work of sustainable economy.
 
In ten years most people will appreciate the value of the ANWR and will want to save it.
But I agree with you on calling the Democratic party 'filth', as I would for the R party too. They're all the establshment that are teamed up in keepind the working people from getting a piece of the American pie.
Imagine that, a rich country such as America!.

I think the US Constitution is baloney that's so erroneous that it can be interpreted any way some shyster chooses. It was written as a compromise and will be compromised by both sides.

I would appreciate if you don't start off with me by screaming extremism. I have little patience for those who need to resort to that!
I'm not happy with the Republicans either. The last time I voted for a Republican candidate for President was in 1992. The Republicans today are what Democrats were during the 1960s, completely fiscally irresponsible and equally guilty as the Democrats for keeping the unconstitutional Affordable Healthcare Act. With the exception of one or two Congress critters, like Sen. Cruz or Rep. Don Young, there is no more conservative representation in Congress.

The money from the 1002 Area lease goes to the federal government. Not a penny of it will be spent in Alaska. Furthermore, those leases costs $10 per acre per year, whether they are developed or not. Since Biden imposed a moratorium (like we knew he would) on drilling the 1002 Area, it means the State-funded corporation will be paying millions for at least four years before they are allowed to drill.

Unless Alaska chooses a more radical route.

There has been talk by some of taking a page from the Democrat's playbook and declaring Alaska to be a "Resource Sanctuary" State and simply go ahead and develop our resources as we see fit, despite Biden's moratorium.
 
I'm not happy with the Republicans either. The last time I voted for a Republican candidate for President was in 1992. The Republicans today are what Democrats were during the 1960s, completely fiscally irresponsible and equally guilty as the Democrats for keeping the unconstitutional Affordable Healthcare Act. With the exception of one or two Congress critters, like Sen. Cruz or Rep. Don Young, there is no more conservative representation in Congress.

The money from the 1002 Area lease goes to the federal government. Not a penny of it will be spent in Alaska. Furthermore, those leases costs $10 per acre per year, whether they are developed or not. Since Biden imposed a moratorium (like we knew he would) on drilling the 1002 Area, it means the State-funded corporation will be paying millions for at least four years before they are allowed to drill.

Unless Alaska chooses a more radical route.

There has been talk by some of taking a page from the Democrat's playbook and declaring Alaska to be a "Resource Sanctuary" State and simply go ahead and develop our resources as we see fit, despite Biden's moratorium.

I see no common ground on which we could begin a discussion. However, I would suggest that neither the D or the R party seem to have much interest in helping the long suffering working class Americans. Biden's talk will be thrown aside and little will be realized.
You mention the ACA so maybe you would be interested in starting a discussion on that topic in the academia section? You're guaranteed one Canadian at least!
 
I see no common ground on which we could begin a discussion. However, I would suggest that neither the D or the R party seem to have much interest in helping the long suffering working class Americans. Biden's talk will be thrown aside and little will be realized.
You mention the ACA so maybe you would be interested in starting a discussion on that topic in the academia section? You're guaranteed one Canadian at least!
I could never live anywhere that government is all-powerful, able to do whatever they please, whenever they please, without concern for any of its citizens. So I will stay in the US where the government is limited to very specific powers, and where the rights of its citizens are protected.

That's the difference between the US and Canada, or any other country on the planet. You have no rights. Your government has all the power. You have only what your all-powerful government gives you, like a good government slave.

ACA is illegal, and has never been, or ever will be, accepted in Alaska or 27 other States. The federal government does not have the authority to involve itself in our healthcare. That is the exclusive power of the States. That goes for education as well, but being a government slave with an all-powerful government I seriously doubt you could comprehend the problem.
 
I could never live anywhere that government is all-powerful, able to do whatever they please, whenever they please, without concern for any of its citizens. So I will stay in the US where the government is limited to very specific powers, and where the rights of its citizens are protected.

That's the difference between the US and Canada, or any other country on the planet. You have no rights. Your government has all the power. You have only what your all-powerful government gives you, like a good government slave.

ACA is illegal, and has never been, or ever will be, accepted in Alaska or 27 other States. The federal government does not have the authority to involve itself in our healthcare. That is the exclusive power of the States. That goes for education as well, but being a government slave with an all-powerful government I seriously doubt you could comprehend the problem.
I could never live anywhere that government is all-powerful, able to do whatever they please, whenever they please, without concern for any of its citizens. So I will stay in the US where the government is limited to very specific powers, and where the rights of its citizens are protected.

That's the difference between the US and Canada, or any other country on the planet. You have no rights. Your government has all the power. You have only what your all-powerful government gives you, like a good government slave.

ACA is illegal, and has never been, or ever will be, accepted in Alaska or 27 other States. The federal government does not have the authority to involve itself in our healthcare. That is the exclusive power of the States. That goes for education as well, but being a government slave with an all-powerful government I seriously doubt you could comprehend the problem.

No, neither could I, so we share some common ground on that!
 
I could never live anywhere that government is all-powerful, able to do whatever they please, whenever they please, without concern for any of its citizens. So I will stay in the US where the government is limited to very specific powers, and where the rights of its citizens are protected.

That's the difference between the US and Canada, or any other country on the planet. You have no rights. Your government has all the power. You have only what your all-powerful government gives you, like a good government slave.

ACA is illegal, and has never been, or ever will be, accepted in Alaska or 27 other States. The federal government does not have the authority to involve itself in our healthcare. That is the exclusive power of the States. That goes for education as well, but being a government slave with an all-powerful government I seriously doubt you could comprehend the problem.
It's just been brought to my attention that 401k's are directly related to the stock market's success or failure. Of course, it's always been obvious!
But would forcing the people into the 401k situation be directly related to government interference in your affairs, that would be intolerable. I as a Canadian would certainly not be amenable to such a scheme! We may have government providing us with high quality and affordable health care but we can see a large distinction between that and being forced to invest in order to abide by the system.
Assuming that you consider universal health care as government interference??
 
Back
Top Bottom