Re: Sky-is-falling set triumphs with ANWR vote

"Larry Gross" <gross.larry@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> "The Savage Truth" <savage_news@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >John Lansford wrote:
>> >Not if governmental regulations say that they cannot export it outside
>> >the USA. It would be a condition of them being able to do business in
>> >ANWR.
>>
>> Absolutely true. Indeed, the original Congressional authorization for
>> the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, passed in December 1973 included exactly
>> such a prohibition. It was removed in 1995, and could be re-install
>> any day that Congress believes North Slope oil is being exported...
>>
>here you have a situation where there is much controversy and
>opposition
>to a proposal and a key issue is the export issue.

I find your logic to be well thought out. Unfortunately
politics isn't necessarily logical, and starting with an
invalid premise can also result in logical, but invalid,
conclusions.

>If a person were a pro-drilling advocate wouldn't it be a smart
>strategy to
>include such a provision NOW as part of the proposal - to silence those
>who opposition might be based on this aspect and/or win over people
>who might support it if that part were assured?
>
>By NOT doing that as part of the proposal, it's clear what the intent
>is
>and those who claim that it can be done after passage of the law are
>IMHO using a disengenuous tactic to mislead those who are on the
>fence that it "might" be done. Why not do it NOW as part of the
>proposal?
>
>I think it is pretty clear what the advocates intend and if this thing

Right down to here, I totally agree with what you've said.
There seems little doubt that the reason oil producers
voluntarily ceased the small amount of Alaska North Slope (ANS)
crude that they were exporting, and promised Congress not to
start again, is the exact same reason they do *not* want a ban
put into another authorization bill.

They do *hope* that someday they'll have leverage to export ANS
again!

But last time, while it would have been beneficial to get the
ban lifted in the mid-1980's, it took *ten* *more* *years*...
and by the time it was lifted there was no economical advantage
to be gained simply because production was in decline and the
surplus no longer existed.

>ever
>passes - the no export rule would never see the light of day.. it would
>be quickly dismissed as something that was "talked about" but never
>part of the proposal... fool me once - shame on you - fool me twice,
>shame on me.

That's what I don't agree with. Congress wrote such a
prohibition into the enabling legislation for the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline System (TAPS) in 1973, but took it out in 1995 and by
2000 were all set reinstate it. I think it would merely take
one hint of scandal relative to exports, and bang! It would be
there.

But what the oil producers are looking at isn't all that
unreasonable from their perspective, though for anyone who
doesn't own their stock it certainly has problems.

First, it *isn't* going to happen unless oil is found in ANWR.
That is in no way guaranteed to happen. Second, it would take a
massive oil find, not just a series of producible fields (which
is closer to what geologist predictions suggest would be likely
to happen). If the actual predictions come true, there would be
a slow ramp up, and then as any given field began to decline
another would come on line to bolster the output, thus keeping a
fairly steady flow, (and here is the significant point) all
within the current capacity of the TAPS and west coast
refineries. Which is to say, nothing would happen that is
likely to trigger enough heat to allow exports...

But... every oil producer hopes to hit the bonanza. And if any
of them do, what they *don't* want to have to do is spread out
the production over more years than necessary (for example by
limiting production to the current capacity of the TAPS and the
refineries) or invest more money in re-building both the TAPS
and the refineries to get additional capacity! If they had
their choice, they would increase only the TAPS capacity
(several pump stations are moth balled today, and can be
restarted) and export oil rather than build refineries.

That is what drives the export ban legislation politics. It is
an almost certain to never be significant bit of insurance that
the oil producers want to keep in place.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@xxxxxxxxxx
.