Big Oil Steps Aside in Battle Over Arctic

[Coastie for Truth]

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/21/politics/21refuge.html?

Comment: The Bush-Cheney energy policy is back at square one. The gist of the story is that there isn't enough oil in ANWR to justify commercial exploitation.

Big Oil Steps Aside in Battle Over Arctic
By JEFF GERTH

Published: February 21, 2005

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 - George W. Bush first proposed drilling for oil in a small part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska in 2000, after oil industry experts helped his presidential campaign develop an energy plan. Five years later, he is pushing the proposal again, saying the nation urgently needs to increase domestic production.

But if Mr. Bush's drilling plan passes in Congress after what is expected to be a fierce fight, it may prove to be a triumph of politics over geology.

Once allied, the administration and the oil industry are now far apart on the issue. The major oil companies are largely uninterested in drilling in the refuge, skeptical about the potential there. Even the plan's most optimistic backers agree that any oil from the refuge would meet only a tiny fraction of America's needs.

<snip><

Whether that battle will be worthwhile, though, is not clear. Neither advocates nor critics can answer a crucial question: how much oil lies beneath the wilderness where the administration wants to permit drilling?

[kaitykaity]

1. Just wait for the "We'll subsidize it."

The Bushies will pump in taxpayer dollars to make
it profitable for them. That's all this is is big
oil saying "we don't want to spend our own money going
up there."

[Coastie for Truth]

2. That's a valid point.

We are subsidizing (Federal and State) the major cost of energy r and d in this country. Even biomass is being subsidized by the farm states and their state universities (keeps lots of PhD candidates busy doing something besides solving nth order partial differential equations), synthane/syngas is being 100% subsidized by the coal states (you ought to see the facilities at Penn State and at WVU). As to hydrogen energy and fuel cells - they just buy the "start ups" after the high financial risk "proof of concept" stage is passed.

I have some links on the University of Illinois' work on converting poultry processing plant waste to gasoline (for real). Not diesel fuel, but real gasoline feed stock. Subsidized by the Illinois Dept of Agriculture.

[kaitykaity]

3. Alternative energy they can spend all the taxpayer $$ they want.

That's a good thing.

It's when they use my $$ to pad the bottom line of a
big oil company, like we're doing in Iraq to pay for
their security.

I looked at this at first and thought oh, good. But
then the wheels kicked in and I could see the Interior
Secy going and saying "how much do you need?" The Thugs
can't give up on drilling in ANWR. It's a MEME, like
abortion and homo-SEX-ual marriage. It's candy for
their babies.

[Coastie for Truth]

4. They have learned to milk the CRADA and Patent Systems

One of the oil companies used Federal CRADA (Co-operative Research and Development Act) money to optimize a particular summer blend of oxygenated gasoline,then they phonied up their patent filing dates (its called a "Provisional Patent Application") to charge their CRADA "co-participants" a royalty on each and every gallon of the optimized summer blend of oxygenated gasoline (after a valid patent issued on the "Provisional Patent Application").

Another Big Oil company used Federal CRADA funds to develop hydrogen fuel technology, then bought up their smaller CRADA co-participant and has the co-participant's patents sitting on the shelf - with just a "demo" project to placate the California Air Resources Board.

[kaitykaity]

5. Friends of Bush corrupt?

Getting around government regulations to pad their
pockets? I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you. Where
is Eliot Spitzer when you need him?

Sounds like something you've put a lot of time and
effort into. Is there a backstory there?

[struggle4progress]

6. kick