Bush urges to lift the ban on drilling in the ANWR
- Thread starter 720skiguy
- Start date
KRASHED
Active member
Here's the pictures you won't find on a republican backed site of the so-called desolate Brooks Range.
"As one of the most remote and least-disturbed wildernesses of North America, the mountains are teeming with wildlife, including Dall sheep, grizzly bears, and caribou."
So there you go Jefferson. Maybe you should look outside of the box at pictures from the ground that actually show the landscape. Just because their are no trees in some places doesn't mean no wildlife exists. What about the leftover tailings ponds? I hear caribou and fish love that shit, and hell even the hundreds of thousands of snow goose that nest within ANWR love nesting in waste ponds.
"As one of the most remote and least-disturbed wildernesses of North America, the mountains are teeming with wildlife, including Dall sheep, grizzly bears, and caribou."
So there you go Jefferson. Maybe you should look outside of the box at pictures from the ground that actually show the landscape. Just because their are no trees in some places doesn't mean no wildlife exists. What about the leftover tailings ponds? I hear caribou and fish love that shit, and hell even the hundreds of thousands of snow goose that nest within ANWR love nesting in waste ponds.
Casey
Active member
Personally, I oppose drilling in ANWR, but if it was going to make a positive difference for average americans I would tolerate it, but thats the main point of this debate. It won't. It won't do shit. Instead of looking at real, effective solutions for a legitimate crisis, American politicians bullshit around like we were all born this morning (Federal Gas Tax Holiday, Drilling in ANWR being the two most recent) and try to turn the debate into whether or not American Security is worth 5 polar bears. Fuck the polar bears, fuck the habitat, I dont give a shit about that, its all going to hell anyway. What I care about is sustainable solutions. So fuck all of you that think that ANWR is the next saudi arabia and if only the dumbass liberals would stop tree hugging all our problems would be solved. THEY WOULDNT. In many ways it would be worse, because instead of focusing on what needs to be done inevitably, we fool ourselves into thinking that we're not completely fucking retarded when we obviously are. I love America, but god damn we Americans are stupid.
StanMcStanson
Active member
But if we do drill, Americans aren't going to change their lifestyles. In a few years, we'll be royally fucked because all Americans depend so much on oil and there won't be any left. People need to realize that they need to switch energy sources if they want our economy to survive. If we drill, we just help solidify the mindset that "well, the oil prices are going down, I guess we don't need to worry about a thing." Until they run out. And the drilling is terrible from an environmental standpoint as well.
Decimating a Wildlife Reserve? Are you serious? do you know what you're talking about?
Please refer to the previous analogy I gave, which compares the impact of our drilling to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Decimate - 1. To destroy or kill a large part of (a group).
Anwar is 19,000,000 + Acres. The are we are talking about is .000001 of that. I'd also recommend doing due diligence on what animals reside in the region they are proposing to drill. (here's a hint. the guy who said 'mosquitos' basically had it)
To be against the way congress has handled this or against Bush's knee-jerk reaction.. and lack of a clear plan and goal as to where we go next. That's a valid argument and open for debate.
But to imply that we are going to be destroying the greater part of 19,000,000 acres is ludicrous.
And to make broad generalizations and stereotypes of republicans and conservatives puts you right in your own pile of 'mud'. Everyone's got their reasons why they are for or against this, leave it at that.
I am a conservative and I don't base any system upon "holding onto tradition," no more than rural America holds "onto their guns and religion".. and just because you might lean more towards "liberal" thinking.. doesn't mean you go out and hug trees, and I wouldn't ever imply that you do.
Please refer to the previous analogy I gave, which compares the impact of our drilling to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Decimate - 1. To destroy or kill a large part of (a group).
Anwar is 19,000,000 + Acres. The are we are talking about is .000001 of that. I'd also recommend doing due diligence on what animals reside in the region they are proposing to drill. (here's a hint. the guy who said 'mosquitos' basically had it)
To be against the way congress has handled this or against Bush's knee-jerk reaction.. and lack of a clear plan and goal as to where we go next. That's a valid argument and open for debate.
But to imply that we are going to be destroying the greater part of 19,000,000 acres is ludicrous.
And to make broad generalizations and stereotypes of republicans and conservatives puts you right in your own pile of 'mud'. Everyone's got their reasons why they are for or against this, leave it at that.
I am a conservative and I don't base any system upon "holding onto tradition," no more than rural America holds "onto their guns and religion".. and just because you might lean more towards "liberal" thinking.. doesn't mean you go out and hug trees, and I wouldn't ever imply that you do.
KRASHED
Active member
I don't care what decimal place they're talking about drilling in. Do you honestly believe that it's the only area going to be affected? That's like dropping an oil rig in an ocean and saying that only that particular area in which the oil rig encompasses will be effected. Where we effect tends to grow in a large way around the area. It will not be contained to whatever decimal place you believe it will be.
My mistake on the proposal site of ANWR, my internet is slow as balls tonight and I just used what Jefferson said as my basis. If i'm right this time they are proposing the drill in the Arctic Coastal Plane or 10-12. The actually usage of the land has been restricted to .005% which is much larger than .000001, a pretty large decimal to me at this point.
Sorry this is wikipedia but my nets killing me right now. Here's the description of the Arctic Coastal Plain, unfortunatly they forgot to mention that only mosquitoes live there.
"The Arctic coastal plain stretches southward from the coast to the foothills of the Brooks Range. This area of rolling hills, small lakes, and north-flowing, braided rivers is dominated by tundra vegetation consisting of low shrubs, sedges, and mosses. Caribou travel to the coastal plain during June and July to give birth and raise their young. Migratory birds and insects flourish here during the brief Arctic summer. Tens of thousands of snow geese stop here during September to feed before migrating south, and musk oxen live here year-round."
My mistake on the proposal site of ANWR, my internet is slow as balls tonight and I just used what Jefferson said as my basis. If i'm right this time they are proposing the drill in the Arctic Coastal Plane or 10-12. The actually usage of the land has been restricted to .005% which is much larger than .000001, a pretty large decimal to me at this point.
Sorry this is wikipedia but my nets killing me right now. Here's the description of the Arctic Coastal Plain, unfortunatly they forgot to mention that only mosquitoes live there.
"The Arctic coastal plain stretches southward from the coast to the foothills of the Brooks Range. This area of rolling hills, small lakes, and north-flowing, braided rivers is dominated by tundra vegetation consisting of low shrubs, sedges, and mosses. Caribou travel to the coastal plain during June and July to give birth and raise their young. Migratory birds and insects flourish here during the brief Arctic summer. Tens of thousands of snow geese stop here during September to feed before migrating south, and musk oxen live here year-round."
Have you considered the tillage ponds, the possibility of leaks into the surround ecosystem, and the AWESOME historical reputation that oil companies have with 'safety'? Because to be honest, everyone who is supporting the drilling is projecting the "outta sight, outta mind" attitude pretty hard and its kind of embarrassing to see. Seems republicans are OK with pwning the shit outta the planet as long as its in someone elses backyard....how typical...
The notion you raise that the land they would be drilling on is only ".000001" of the total shows the short sighted nature of your argument. How can you fail to consider the possible result of a leak/disaster when every year we see stories on the news talking about oil spills ranging from tankers sinking or running aground, to ruptured pipelines flooding entire basins in oil, and oil wells that leak million of gallons into the ground? That shit is fucking scary enough as it is, the last thing I want if for you guys to increase that risk.
Another point to consider is the global supply of fresh water. As global pressures increase the demand for fresh water as a commodity, both our countries will be looking to capitalize on the 'purity' of the north and the glaciers for a secondary supply to compliment our inland freshwater lakes. As a Canadian, the last thing I want is for you guys to go up there, fuck something up and in turn pollute OUR northern territory due to proximity.
The notion you raise that the land they would be drilling on is only ".000001" of the total shows the short sighted nature of your argument. How can you fail to consider the possible result of a leak/disaster when every year we see stories on the news talking about oil spills ranging from tankers sinking or running aground, to ruptured pipelines flooding entire basins in oil, and oil wells that leak million of gallons into the ground? That shit is fucking scary enough as it is, the last thing I want if for you guys to increase that risk.
Another point to consider is the global supply of fresh water. As global pressures increase the demand for fresh water as a commodity, both our countries will be looking to capitalize on the 'purity' of the north and the glaciers for a secondary supply to compliment our inland freshwater lakes. As a Canadian, the last thing I want is for you guys to go up there, fuck something up and in turn pollute OUR northern territory due to proximity.
I give a shit.
We're talking two different issues here. Your point is that if we drill in Anwar than it won't help our oil supplies. While I completely disagree with you on that one, you still make a valid point and it's completely up for discussion.
Now if your main platform and point of debate as to why we shouldn't drill in ANWAR rests entirely on bs propaganda on how we are going to destroy a whole entire wildlife habitat. then I don't care about what you have to say. because that tells me that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. And that's my point.
There have been many people in here who gave valid reasons why they don't support drilling for reasons of congress, no long term solution, energy cost vs reward.. and those are perfectly viable.
If that's what you'd like to expand on, then by all means do, and I would love to hear your viewpoint on it.
But don't feed me bullshit propaganda that you don't have a clue about.
And krashed - sorry if I came across as harsh in the last posts. jokes aside, you're a good dude, and I got nothing but love for you.
I spent all day working with the city government.. so maybe that just put me in a bad mood. lol
We're talking two different issues here. Your point is that if we drill in Anwar than it won't help our oil supplies. While I completely disagree with you on that one, you still make a valid point and it's completely up for discussion.
Now if your main platform and point of debate as to why we shouldn't drill in ANWAR rests entirely on bs propaganda on how we are going to destroy a whole entire wildlife habitat. then I don't care about what you have to say. because that tells me that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. And that's my point.
There have been many people in here who gave valid reasons why they don't support drilling for reasons of congress, no long term solution, energy cost vs reward.. and those are perfectly viable.
If that's what you'd like to expand on, then by all means do, and I would love to hear your viewpoint on it.
But don't feed me bullshit propaganda that you don't have a clue about.
And krashed - sorry if I came across as harsh in the last posts. jokes aside, you're a good dude, and I got nothing but love for you.
I spent all day working with the city government.. so maybe that just put me in a bad mood. lol
Ryno. You're a good dude too. I respect your last post and you rose valid concerns.
How about this. I could sit here and argue that the picture of mass pollution caused by oil companies that you just described is completely untrue. Even during hurricane Katrina not a drop of oil was spilled from the 3200+ rigs that were offshore.
Yes the media has a feeding frenzy when an oil spill happens, and yes they can happen.. and the effects are horrible. New tightened federal regulations should really restrict this..
I could argue.. you could argue.. we could all have a huge argue party. But why? Arguing is no fun, and I am in a good mood. How about we both agree that we would much rather see cleaner more efficient energy.. and we bake some cookies and play some mario party?
Honestly thoug Gas prices are high and that sucks right now.. but I don't really care. I figure I got two choices 1. Gripe like everyone else 2. Just use it as more motivation to make more money this year.
How about this. I could sit here and argue that the picture of mass pollution caused by oil companies that you just described is completely untrue. Even during hurricane Katrina not a drop of oil was spilled from the 3200+ rigs that were offshore.
Yes the media has a feeding frenzy when an oil spill happens, and yes they can happen.. and the effects are horrible. New tightened federal regulations should really restrict this..
I could argue.. you could argue.. we could all have a huge argue party. But why? Arguing is no fun, and I am in a good mood. How about we both agree that we would much rather see cleaner more efficient energy.. and we bake some cookies and play some mario party?
Honestly thoug Gas prices are high and that sucks right now.. but I don't really care. I figure I got two choices 1. Gripe like everyone else 2. Just use it as more motivation to make more money this year.
Arguing uncovers the pros and cons of each approach though which in turn helps everyone involved wiht it form more informed opinions on the issue. IMO, everyone should have an informed opinion on things they are passionate about.
This is one of those things I'm passionate about and I'll gladly continue this if anyone on the other side wants to (that is if they raise intelligent points...I'm not going to respond the morons who are rambling worthlessly in here).
A lot of good points have been raised in here and I bet more then a few people have learned something or reconsidered their stance on this issue.
This is one of those things I'm passionate about and I'll gladly continue this if anyone on the other side wants to (that is if they raise intelligent points...I'm not going to respond the morons who are rambling worthlessly in here).
A lot of good points have been raised in here and I bet more then a few people have learned something or reconsidered their stance on this issue.
These are the kinds of threads on NS that I love. I have definitely come out of this thread having learned new things, & formed a stronger opinion. I wish more threads could go in this direction so it's readers could benefit from it.
Tasche
Active member
I don't know where people got the idea that drilling ruins the environment. The biggest problem is building roads not drilling. Off of one directional well pad about an acre in area you could drill around 15-20 wells. After completion a small well head, about 6 feet tall would be placed on the well. A production station would have to be set up and a pipeline would have to be build.
There is already an Alaskan pipeline which was built.
There would be effect on the environment no one is arguing that but it would not be like oil shooting out of the ground like in the movies. Petroleum engineering has come a long way even from the 80's and because of the follies of the past it is now one of the most regulated cleanest industries.
You can be against drilling in the ANWR or even the gulf, of Mexico, but you have to be prepared to pay higher prices for oil and be at the mercy of other large oil producers.
I say drill the ANWR. But drill it right. Directional pads and careful planing.
There is so much to be said on this topic and I don't really feel like writing right now but try to look at this debate from both sides and try to make your own decision.
There is already an Alaskan pipeline which was built.
There would be effect on the environment no one is arguing that but it would not be like oil shooting out of the ground like in the movies. Petroleum engineering has come a long way even from the 80's and because of the follies of the past it is now one of the most regulated cleanest industries.
You can be against drilling in the ANWR or even the gulf, of Mexico, but you have to be prepared to pay higher prices for oil and be at the mercy of other large oil producers.
I say drill the ANWR. But drill it right. Directional pads and careful planing.
There is so much to be said on this topic and I don't really feel like writing right now but try to look at this debate from both sides and try to make your own decision.
sdfjklioeur
Active member
Im really getting sick of all of these threads about drilling in the ANWR. My main issue with this is that it is a temporary fix and in the long run it really will not help us get off of fuel dependence which should be the main issue. All that opening the ANWR would do would be to delay the inevitable because sooner or later we are going to have to deal with skyrocketing gas prices due to a drastic decrease in supply. It's either going to happen now, or a couple years from now.
If we were to use oil extracted from the ANWR to supply 5 percent of the total US consumption of oil it would last us anywhere from 12-32 years. If it were used to replace oil imported from the Persian Gulf it would last anywhere between 5.5-15 years. Even then its not going to be some magical cure for skyrocketing gas prices. Sure it might offset the steep rise in prices slightly. But either way gas prices would still be near the price they are now.
If you dont want to pay so much for gas then try riding a bike or something. Find ways to use less of it instead of bitching when it gets expensive.
If we were to use oil extracted from the ANWR to supply 5 percent of the total US consumption of oil it would last us anywhere from 12-32 years. If it were used to replace oil imported from the Persian Gulf it would last anywhere between 5.5-15 years. Even then its not going to be some magical cure for skyrocketing gas prices. Sure it might offset the steep rise in prices slightly. But either way gas prices would still be near the price they are now.
If you dont want to pay so much for gas then try riding a bike or something. Find ways to use less of it instead of bitching when it gets expensive.
ATLskier
Active member
Some facts on ANWR:
(sorry if these have been posted before, but I dont have the time and evergy to read the entire thread right now. But I will later)
ANWR is about the size of South Carolina. The area that would be drilled is about the area of Dulles Airport. The pictures of the Brooks range are not of where oil would be drilled. Those areas will not be affected.
There are not 4.3 billion gallons of oil. There are at least 10 billion, maybe a little less, maybe a lot more. Some estimates of advanced drilling technologies put it up to 20 billion.
The area is covered in ice 8 months out of the year.
The area is in darkness 4 months out of the year.
It is a wetland filled with big mosquitoes when its not ice.
A thing about caribou, in other areas of alaska where drilling has taken place, caribou have increased 5 times. A few oil rigs and shit aren't going to kill all the caribou.
Really this is a start, but america really needs to start drilling offshore. We have China drilling 60 miles off our coast and the fact that we cant drill 250 miles off our coast is fucking bullshit. We need to start decreasing our dependance on foreign oil(alternative energy sources are great and I would take them over oil, but right now there are no solutions for all of america right now).
(sorry if these have been posted before, but I dont have the time and evergy to read the entire thread right now. But I will later)
ANWR is about the size of South Carolina. The area that would be drilled is about the area of Dulles Airport. The pictures of the Brooks range are not of where oil would be drilled. Those areas will not be affected.
There are not 4.3 billion gallons of oil. There are at least 10 billion, maybe a little less, maybe a lot more. Some estimates of advanced drilling technologies put it up to 20 billion.
The area is covered in ice 8 months out of the year.
The area is in darkness 4 months out of the year.
It is a wetland filled with big mosquitoes when its not ice.
A thing about caribou, in other areas of alaska where drilling has taken place, caribou have increased 5 times. A few oil rigs and shit aren't going to kill all the caribou.
Really this is a start, but america really needs to start drilling offshore. We have China drilling 60 miles off our coast and the fact that we cant drill 250 miles off our coast is fucking bullshit. We need to start decreasing our dependance on foreign oil(alternative energy sources are great and I would take them over oil, but right now there are no solutions for all of america right now).
sdfjklioeur
Active member
intelligent post......
aurora.
Active member
^Thank you.
seeing as i am one of the few people on ns that has actually been on ANWR i feel that I am entitled to my opinion here:
i hike and camp in ANWR almost every summer. its absolutely beautiful. its home to many memories for many alaskans. it is one of the last places for polar bears to den and now that the sea ice in the chukchi sea and the arctic ocean its even more important. Debbie Miller, a family friend has written extensively about the wildlife at ANWR and is now working on a project about birds that nest in ANWR. over 1 million species of birds call ANWR home. i know this might be too hippie-nature-loving for some of you..but id rather not see an important habitat as well as a beautiful place become industrialized so that we can continue this countries oil-holic habits....
this argument is kinda of like the debate that ensued after the pipeline was proposed. Many people opposed it becuase it was thought to disturb caribou migration routes. We now know that nothing has happened to the caribou and they are doing fine. It was a risk however and there was no way of knowing whether it would affect the caribou migration or not...I for one would rather not see this risk taken again and would like to see a place that has held many memories for me be perserved. despite the efforts of many conservationists this probably won't happen. I would say our best bet is to find a happy median...come up with a solution and innovation where the oil companies can drill with the least amount of impact and risk on the environment as possible and at the same time learn to ween our country off oil dependancy...whatever you think the solution is...something needs to happen becuase Prudhoe bay is running dry....
anyway...thats my two cents....and if anyone is interest in helping with the conservation effort for ANWR you can start by taking a look at the Alaska Wilderness League website
seeing as i am one of the few people on ns that has actually been on ANWR i feel that I am entitled to my opinion here:
i hike and camp in ANWR almost every summer. its absolutely beautiful. its home to many memories for many alaskans. it is one of the last places for polar bears to den and now that the sea ice in the chukchi sea and the arctic ocean its even more important. Debbie Miller, a family friend has written extensively about the wildlife at ANWR and is now working on a project about birds that nest in ANWR. over 1 million species of birds call ANWR home. i know this might be too hippie-nature-loving for some of you..but id rather not see an important habitat as well as a beautiful place become industrialized so that we can continue this countries oil-holic habits....
this argument is kinda of like the debate that ensued after the pipeline was proposed. Many people opposed it becuase it was thought to disturb caribou migration routes. We now know that nothing has happened to the caribou and they are doing fine. It was a risk however and there was no way of knowing whether it would affect the caribou migration or not...I for one would rather not see this risk taken again and would like to see a place that has held many memories for me be perserved. despite the efforts of many conservationists this probably won't happen. I would say our best bet is to find a happy median...come up with a solution and innovation where the oil companies can drill with the least amount of impact and risk on the environment as possible and at the same time learn to ween our country off oil dependancy...whatever you think the solution is...something needs to happen becuase Prudhoe bay is running dry....
anyway...thats my two cents....and if anyone is interest in helping with the conservation effort for ANWR you can start by taking a look at the Alaska Wilderness League website
switchskier206604
Member
AAHHH HAHAHAHA IT GOES ON FOORREEEEVERRR. -- ....white power.
Dustin.
Active member
Just another topic for everyone to bitch about while leading a life of disregard to anyone or anything but themselves. There are only about 5 opinions on this site that mean anything to me. Everyone else should stop bitching or do something important for their country that they seem to hate so much.
switchskier206604
Member
lol and then theres al gore in the left corner not givin a fuuuuck either!!!
http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
yaaay we all fuucked no matter the parlayy
http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
yaaay we all fuucked no matter the parlayy
tribefan226
Active member
give the oil companies all the damn tax breaks they want. hell dont even tax em at all for all i care. if the oil companies dont have to pay as much in taxes then they dont have to charge as much for gas. if you tax them more its the people buying gas that will suffer
aurora.
Active member
the oil companies have so much money that taxing them isn't going to make them raise the price of oil. the oil companies right now are like pigs in shit they couldn't be happier...they have tax breaks, gas is over $4.00 a gallon, no one seems to be coming up with any energy effecient alternatives that threaten the oil companies, and every politician seems to be too much of a pussy to stand up to them...maybe by taxing them at least some of the money they are making will go to the federal government and then show up in better road quality and education like taxes are suppose to...
ginty
Active member
Were so dumb for such a smart country, rather than deal with the monopoly opec currently has over us we should use our own natural resources, Yes i do agree we should treat the environment properly but we need to use what we were given and have discovered, for one we should invest in to nuclear energy as it is by far the most productive, and technology is far greater than it was at the time of chernoble and the three mile island inncedents. Also america has 500 years of coal to burn, investing in new clean burning coal plans would also lessen our forgien oil dependence, if we decided to go towards coal again imagine how much better our clean burning coal plants could be in the next 10 years. I DO belive global warming exists, however we should not drop the blaim competly on ourselves, over the past decade china has built numerous coal plants, not the clean burning plants we should be building, but the 1800's hotbox and steam plants. It is believed that 25-30% of the smog and polution in L.A. comes from china and india. America need to push ourselves toward independence from forgien energy.
Don't ask me why i knew all that, I had to write my AP enviormental science final essay on that.
i knew it would actually come in handy...
Don't ask me why i knew all that, I had to write my AP enviormental science final essay on that.
i knew it would actually come in handy...
TheClint
Member
Drilling in ANWR is a bad idea if for no other reason than we need to keep a clear line of where we should drill vs. where we shouldn't. I don't care if it only affects a small area. Once you let oil companies in you'll never get them out. When the well runs dry they'll want to drill another area in the reserve and since we've let them once we'll let them again. And it's not just the rigs. It's the roads, the pipelines, the infrastructure/support buildings. All of that has an impact, especially the pipeline. The current Alaskan pipeline was neglected because the oil companies didn't want to pay for the repairs.
No drilling project currently proposed is the solution for the near-term. Even if it were all approved tomorrow it would take years to start producing oil in any significant quantity. There's no infrastructure currently to support ANWR or even off-shore drilling.
The BETTER idea would be to put money and tax breaks into alternative fuels like hydrogen. Honda is releasing hydrogen powered fuels on a test basis to a small group of people. Most of them are in Southern California since that's where the hydrogen fuel stations are. It's clean burning and there's plenty of it.
People aren't going to push the better technologies until the cost of oil is high enough to make them viable. We're at that point now and it's better for the planet and all of us if we start moving away from oil rather than finding ways to get further entrenched in a dirty fuel. (That includes coal, there's no such thing as "clean coal")
No drilling project currently proposed is the solution for the near-term. Even if it were all approved tomorrow it would take years to start producing oil in any significant quantity. There's no infrastructure currently to support ANWR or even off-shore drilling.
The BETTER idea would be to put money and tax breaks into alternative fuels like hydrogen. Honda is releasing hydrogen powered fuels on a test basis to a small group of people. Most of them are in Southern California since that's where the hydrogen fuel stations are. It's clean burning and there's plenty of it.
People aren't going to push the better technologies until the cost of oil is high enough to make them viable. We're at that point now and it's better for the planet and all of us if we start moving away from oil rather than finding ways to get further entrenched in a dirty fuel. (That includes coal, there's no such thing as "clean coal")
You sir, are an ignorant piece of shit. I'm sorry, but this comment is incredibly selfish. There are only 5 opinions on this site that mean anything to you, so no one else is allowed to express their opinion, because YOU don't care? stfu.
Why don't you get off your ass and do something, rather than bitching about others educating themselves and others.
Why don't you get off your ass and do something, rather than bitching about others educating themselves and others.
coolhandluke
Active member
Alkyy
Active member
the freshwater thing is giong to be a HUGGE problem in our lifetime, We need to keep as much of the little freshwater fresh as possible.
I posted a thread a few days ago that was basically on this same thing. Me and a few other people got into a big argument kinda like this. Im just going to say a few quick things.
1) what use is more crude oil if we dont have a refinery to turn it into gas? Our few refineries are maxed out right now and more oil being pumped in will just sit in holding tanks.
2) Is a year or 2 of lower gas prices (probably wont be that much at all) really worth it?
3) I think it would be fine to drill in the ocean as long as the rigs dont change water temp spill any oil or break up huge areas of coral reef.
4) its never going to happen and i never would want it to because it would cause mass hunger but think about this, almost all of the OPEC contries of the world get most of their food from the US. right now corn is probably about 6 dollers a bushel; oil is creaping upto 150 dollers a barrel. Why not boost the price of exported food? Im not saying i would like it but if people were paying out the ass for food the people in all of the countries would fight their governments to lower their oil prices, to the people who think the US should do anything to keep our country on top why not do this your willing to kill the enviornment who cares about a few arabs right?
I posted a thread a few days ago that was basically on this same thing. Me and a few other people got into a big argument kinda like this. Im just going to say a few quick things.
1) what use is more crude oil if we dont have a refinery to turn it into gas? Our few refineries are maxed out right now and more oil being pumped in will just sit in holding tanks.
2) Is a year or 2 of lower gas prices (probably wont be that much at all) really worth it?
3) I think it would be fine to drill in the ocean as long as the rigs dont change water temp spill any oil or break up huge areas of coral reef.
4) its never going to happen and i never would want it to because it would cause mass hunger but think about this, almost all of the OPEC contries of the world get most of their food from the US. right now corn is probably about 6 dollers a bushel; oil is creaping upto 150 dollers a barrel. Why not boost the price of exported food? Im not saying i would like it but if people were paying out the ass for food the people in all of the countries would fight their governments to lower their oil prices, to the people who think the US should do anything to keep our country on top why not do this your willing to kill the enviornment who cares about a few arabs right?
Valind
Active member
Why do we need the ban lifted? “The president’s proposal sounds like another page from the
administration’s energy policy that was literally written by the oil
industry: give away more public resources to the very same oil
companies that are sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands they’ve
already leased.”
administration’s energy policy that was literally written by the oil
industry: give away more public resources to the very same oil
companies that are sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands they’ve
already leased.”
*monsterskier*
Active member
i dont wanna hurt the animals...but i dont want to pay ridiculous gas prices..idk
Tasche
Active member
There is no risk of ground water or fresh water contamination involved with drilling in Alaska. As far as federal drilling laws go they are very strict. A federal permit takes months to get and is a bitch to fill out, trust me.
Lets also think about this logically, wouldn't an oil company take every precaution to keep the environment clean and protect their reputation? Currently there are only majors and 1 independent in Alaska, Pioneer, and they take much better care of the environment than even the locals. There is no risk of spill in drilling. These would be complicated wells and I can guarantee they would have a closed mud system, which means not a drop of drilling fluid touches the ground. Completion would also be extensive. They would set a water string of casing to cover up ground water, I assume I have never looked at any drilling programs from that area, and they would have to circulate cement to surface. It would be a very clean, and expensive, job.
Production would also be heavily controlled. If you spill any oil anywhere in the US there are huge fines and you have to pay to clean it up, obviously. There would be on site people from the BLM and any spills would be instantly noticed and cleaned. Pipeline technology has also advanced. I am not involved with downstream very much but there is very sophisticated monitoring of pipelines along with regulation.
Oil companies are not evil, they are providing a service for the betterment of man kind. They are good people who care about the environment.
Whoever said we need to protect northern water is extremely misguided. How do you propose we get the water to cities thousands of miles away? A pipeline? a giant canal? A water tanker? Not going to happen. Its not important as a resource but it is important to keep it clean and oil companies know that.
That is not to say that there will be no environmental impact, there will. Some animals may die and extensive roads and pipelines will have to be built. This is one of the cost of affordable oil. Its important to understand that our country can NOT survive with out oil. There is no alternative to oil. There just isn't. No current alternative fuel has a positive energy swing. That is to say that you get out less than you put in.
Nuclear solar and wind are viable but they too have their drawbacks but this is not the forum for this.
So basically open up the ANWR we need the oil and it would have limited environmental impact.
I am a pretty hard core liberal but when it comes to this one I have to say drill it. It has to be done its foolish to suffer when a significant source of oil is present. If the price of oil rises to quickly technology will not be able to catch up and our country could collapse.
Lets also think about this logically, wouldn't an oil company take every precaution to keep the environment clean and protect their reputation? Currently there are only majors and 1 independent in Alaska, Pioneer, and they take much better care of the environment than even the locals. There is no risk of spill in drilling. These would be complicated wells and I can guarantee they would have a closed mud system, which means not a drop of drilling fluid touches the ground. Completion would also be extensive. They would set a water string of casing to cover up ground water, I assume I have never looked at any drilling programs from that area, and they would have to circulate cement to surface. It would be a very clean, and expensive, job.
Production would also be heavily controlled. If you spill any oil anywhere in the US there are huge fines and you have to pay to clean it up, obviously. There would be on site people from the BLM and any spills would be instantly noticed and cleaned. Pipeline technology has also advanced. I am not involved with downstream very much but there is very sophisticated monitoring of pipelines along with regulation.
Oil companies are not evil, they are providing a service for the betterment of man kind. They are good people who care about the environment.
Whoever said we need to protect northern water is extremely misguided. How do you propose we get the water to cities thousands of miles away? A pipeline? a giant canal? A water tanker? Not going to happen. Its not important as a resource but it is important to keep it clean and oil companies know that.
That is not to say that there will be no environmental impact, there will. Some animals may die and extensive roads and pipelines will have to be built. This is one of the cost of affordable oil. Its important to understand that our country can NOT survive with out oil. There is no alternative to oil. There just isn't. No current alternative fuel has a positive energy swing. That is to say that you get out less than you put in.
Nuclear solar and wind are viable but they too have their drawbacks but this is not the forum for this.
So basically open up the ANWR we need the oil and it would have limited environmental impact.
I am a pretty hard core liberal but when it comes to this one I have to say drill it. It has to be done its foolish to suffer when a significant source of oil is present. If the price of oil rises to quickly technology will not be able to catch up and our country could collapse.
coolhandluke
Active member
^ since you're obviously the most knowledgeable person here on the drilling issue.....
is it true that we're using the current trans-alaska pipeline at 25% capacity? i heard something about it has a 2MG/day capacity and currently we're only pushing .5MG/day thru it.
is it true that we're using the current trans-alaska pipeline at 25% capacity? i heard something about it has a 2MG/day capacity and currently we're only pushing .5MG/day thru it.
