No Alaska Oil

[Cosmoline]

It is not a State's land, it is our land.

I love the environmental movement. Such a wonderful mix of rank ignorance and elitist arrogance.

Of all the environmental problems to worry about, drilling a few holes in the frozen hell of ANWR is near the bottom of the list. Previous drilling, done with far fewer environmental restrictions than are now in place, has shown that the only serious environmental threat in the drilling itself is making the environment ACCIDENTALLY BETTER THAN IT WAS BEFORE. Garbage dumps on the slope have attracted wildlife such as brown bear and ravens who normally avoid the barren hellhole.

THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE LYING TO YOU!

 

[spacemanspiff]

oh yeah, there is that third side of the mouth: 'but it will take too long! we wont see any relief in gas prices now!'

okay, so the solution is to simply forget about it?

 

[KriegHund]

Im glad were not going to drill in alaska.

We cant keep drilling for oil forever, it will run out, wether people want to believe it or not. Drilling in alaska would only delay the inevetable- by about 6 months

We need to focus on hydrogen, nuclear, solar, and win energies, and also geo-thermal and hydro-electric oppurtunities.

We keep screwing ourselves over time and time again by not giving the attention the above needs.

Hydrogen may be expensive- but in 5 years, will it be half the cost of gas?
Besides, im willing to bet, that like anything, we can figure out a cheaper, faster way to produce hydrogen, but only if we put forth the time, effort, and money.

 

[Cosmoline]

I just wanna know why they always show pretty pictures of mountains and trees and lakes and stuff when they talk about this, instead of the barren, desolate arctic tundra landscape, which is essentially nothing but a frozen desert...

Exactly. They lie, lie, lie, lie. They find some Athabascans from Canada and convince them their bou are going to be killed off because someone drills some holes on the slope hundreds of miles away. Never mind that the Porcupine herd doesn't even make it to the slope some seasons because of floods. Never mind the fact that the drilling will do squat to impact them. Never mind the sheer size of the reserve and the tiny sections where drilling would take place. Never mind the fact that there are more caribou than people in this state. Never mind the fact that ALAKSA MANAGEMENT has revived the big herds. Never mind the fact that their numbers are increasing. Never mind the fact that far larger herds do JUST FINE in parts of the state with far more people, roads and development than ANWR WILL EVER HAVE! Never mind the fact that the natives who ACTUALLY LIVE IN ANWR support drilling. Never mind the fact that the major work is done ON ICE ROADS in the MIDDLE OF WINTER, and that the stations are mosly unmanned during the summer season.

The ANWR debate has proven once and for all that most people are idiots.

 

[Cosmoline]

Now ask yourself, who does it really serve to open up ANWR to oil drilling?

WHO DOES IT HURT?!

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[Cosmoline]

Why is it even a big fight to open a few square miles to drilling, when the local population seems to be all for it?

Excellent question. The environmental movement has morphed into the environmental INDUSTRY. They have decided to turn ANWR into their focus of attention, ignoring the much more serious threats of urban sprawl and woodland destruction in THEIR OWN BACK YARDS. It's a lot easier to get support and donations by making lies up about threats to a place 99.999% of people know nothing about and will never see than it is to actually deal with the REAL problems confronting the American environment. If you start demanding an end to suburban sprawl, you're hitting a lot of your support base in the wallet. So that's right out. But since almost nobody has actually seen it, you always tell people ANWR is a paradise, or that the porcupine herd is going to be slaughted because someone drills a hole in the ground. THen when someone who actually knows something chimes in you can attack them because they get a PFD and are a therefore de facto employee of Big Oil.

 

[spacemanspiff]

We need to focus on hydrogen, nuclear, solar, and wind energies, and also geo-thermal and hydro-electric oppurtunities.

i agree 110%.

 

[Firethorn]

We need to focus on hydrogen, nuclear, solar, and win energies, and also geo-thermal and hydro-electric oppurtunities.

I'll point out that hydrogen isn't a fuel source. You have to make it from something. It's more like a battery in that regard. At least you list nuclear as an option, though.

As for ANWR, since they predict that it's going to take 10 years from the time it's opened up before major production, you have to open it up before the major crisis. It's kinda like a savings account. The longer we wait to tap it, the more it's worth.

On the other hand, we're tapping other sources. North Dakota's production is supposed to be going up 25% within the year.

What I'd like to see would be the spread of an electric PRT style transit system. Especially the one that gets up to 100mph. Because it's on-demand, and nonstop to destination, it's actually faster on average than cars(no stopping or congestion). It's direct electric, which is very efficient. I'd just build some more nuclear plants to power it.

 

[Cosmoline]

Most outsiders seem to think of Alaska as a single place. They don't really know much about the state, so it all gets mixed together in their minds. In the movies, it doesn't upset their sense of the universe if Steven Segal gets on a horse in Valdez and dismounts it on the North SLope in the next scene. It's all the same thing to them. They don't understand the sheer magnitude of the place, or the wide array of ecosystems. They may know somebody who's taken a cruise in SE, and they picture the slope as being that place--with trees and rain and fog. And they imagine if big oil is allowed to drill there, everything will be torn down. The enviros have done their best to capitalize on this ignorance by lying to people about the nature of the environment on the slope and the threat drilling some holes would present to it. But the fact is the environmental damage caused by cruise ships, for example, far outstrips anything ice roads or holes is going to cause. The trillions of tons of human waste and cleaning products pumped into the incredibly diverse marine ecosystem is a genuine threat. Not to mention the impact caused by the all the waves of touristas assualting the beaches every season. Attacking the salmon, poking the bear, bothering the locals and bringing a mix of hideous cruise ship diseases with them.

 

[Third_Rail]

KriegHund, hydrogen takes electricity to produce. That electricity is made by coal or oil.

Hydrogen isn't a solution at all - it's a way of storing energy at a loss.

 

[KriegHund]

I'll point out that hydrogen isn't a fuel source. You have to get it from somewhere. It's more like a battery in that regard. At least you list nuclear as an option, though.

Perhaps, but under those cirumstances oil is the same.

Oil needs to be drilled, cleaned, processed, and refined into several different kinds of pertroleom.

Hydrogen isnt as effecient at it, and you cant use hydrogen to make hydrogen- you need oil to make hydrogen.

Dotn worry, i didnt miss your point, but i did feel like making my own too

 

[hso]

I'm a long-time lurker of THR and appreciate the spirited and (usually) civilized debate that occurs here. That being said, maybe I can jump in and stir the pot.

Nice first post Fleet_of_Foot and welcome to THR. If this is an example of all your posts you'll be a great addition to the site.

The same government that wants to open ANWR also provides the information about oil cosumption, imports, and projected reserves in ANWR that tell us that there's no reason to drill from a resource contribution standpoint. At current U.S. consumption of around 20.6 million bbl/d, U.S. production of around 7.6 million barrels per day (bbl/d) of oil makes up less than 35% of what we consume. If ANWR were producing today at projected max capacity of 1.6 million bbl/d it would contribute less than 5% of our current consumption. With increasing consumption of petroleum in 5 years (and ANWR only producing 0.6 million bbl/d {projected 2013 output}) it would provide less than 2% of what we consume (based on govt. estimates of accelerating consumption from current levels to 150% of what we now use in 5 years) and by the time it was available at that 0.6 million bbl/d level (which if we started now wouldn't happent until 2013) we'd be facing consumption demands of >30 million bbl/d and ANWR would only contribute <2%.

Now every well adds to the overall production and 2-5% is not trivial, but the production numbers don't get better and the consumption numbers only get worse and ANWR's contribution becomes trivial to the national energy balance.

Considering this confilct in information that ANWR has important oil reserves to be exploited that won't make any important contribution to meeting U.S. demand by the time it's available what motives would the government have for opening ANWR up for drilling? Who profits? That's what I think the big issue is. Who benefits if not the American people?

 

[Silver Bullet]

Ture, but even if we started work today, we would not get any production out of the sight for 5 to 10 years. That is not going to do snot about gas prices today.

I don’t know of any overnight solution. We have to start somewhere, and someday.

 

[Master Blaster]

Fleetoffoot you are mistaken here is a summary of how much we produce, import and consume:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Usa/Oil.html

Alternative sources ah yes that will be the solution. Anyone know how much electricity it takes to produce Hydrogen????

Answer more electricity than the Hydrogen can produce if you burned it to produce electricity.

How will we generate the electricity to create the Hydrogen??? Coal is the cheapest, Nuclear power is next, but those two choices are unacceptable to the environmentalists. So it is inefficient and impractical, not to mention Dangerous and expensive.

Windmills anyone?????
They are also expensive and Kill lots of birds, but environmentalists dont care about birds do they , plus they are inefficient ugly, and expensive, and they dont earn their keep. and of course NIMBY.

Biodiesal, and alcohol created by fermenting corn are the two closest in cost and convenience to gasoline and the most likely oil substitutes for the next 20 years.

The problem is that oil is too cheap and these alternatives are too expensive still.
Want to be a good environmentalist and actually do something to improve our energy situation?

Well then here is a great solution to our energy dilema it will save 10-30% of our energy consumption (if everyone did this) and you can do it today without the need for government intervention or regulation, and it saves you money as well!!!

1. Go around your house, and replace all of your incandescant lights with florescent or compact florescent bulbs. I did this and it saves me about $100 per year on my electricity.

2. Caulk and insulate all the nooks and crannies of your house, and add an extra 4" attic blanket fiberglass insulation to your attic. Also replace your heating/ cooling system with a new one if its more than 10 years old. Add a fiberglas blanket to your hot water heater as well.

3. Replace your old inefficient appliances with only energy star rated ones, washer dryer, dishwasher, TV sets, oven range etc.

4. Drive less, carpool or take public transit,only use that huge SUV when youreally need it. Drive a smaller car when you only have 1-4 passengers.

5. Optional for singles and retired folks, sell that Mcmansion, and buy a small condo or apartment.

Thats it its not rocket science, and you can actually start to make a big difference today.

Better than signing the Kyoto protocol.

I have followed this strategy, I am saving energy, I am helping the environment.

ALL on my own.

Unfortunatley when I promote this strategy to the liberals I know, they look at me like I am crazy, because obviously they (who drove to work in an 8 cylinder Cadillac SUV by themselves this morning) are not the problem, its those damn neocons who will not sign Kyoto, and want to drill in the ANWR.

The I ask them if they have ever read the Kyoto treaty and understand what it will do. No they have not read it but they understand it will reduce the amount of greenhouse gas the US produces, and save the environment, all without any change in energy consumption on their part. :banghead:

 

[MD_Willington]

We have enough coal in North America, why not do what the Germans did 70 years ago...google "coal liquefaction"...they are already doing this elswhere, China, Africa etc...and they are doing this on our tax dime in China via the US DOE...

http://www.htigrp.com/hydrocarbon.asp

http://www.htigrp.com/data/upfiles/pdf/Shanghai Conference 31OCT04.pdf

 

[engineer151515]

Biodiesal, and alcohol created by fermenting corn are the two closest in cost and convenience to gasoline and the most likely oil substitutes for the next 20 years.

It is a net energy looser. Not the answer to the problem.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050329132436.htm

 

[Cosmoline]

Bridge for sale. Historic location. Cheap! PM me for more information.

 

[Fleet_of_Foot]

WHO DOES IT HURT?!

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

I asked my question first. However, I think I know what you're getting at, seeing you're a citizen of the State of Alaska. Yes, it would directly or indirectly benefit people in the vicinity in the form of jobs and economic stimilus. Who else benefits, Cosmoline?

+FoF

 

[Cosmoline]

It would benefit the US by giving the domestic oil market another source to buy from. According to the anti-drilling people, we should turn away from a 6 month supply because oil is fininte. By that logic we should stop buying ALL oil instantly because the supply will eventually run out. Or heck stop eating because eventually you're going to die anyway.

What business is it of yours what we do here, anyway? The only reason you even know about it is because of the lies of the enviros.

 

[engineer151515]

We have enough coal in North America, why not do what the Germans did 70 years ago...google "coal liquefaction"...

Cheap oil has kept this option off the table for a long time. The break-even oil price where liquefaction of coal becomes viable is around US$25 to US$35/barrel. Through most of the 1990's, oil prices have been below these values and even trended lower. Now, things are different but business will ask, is this a long term trend or a short term spike.

Again - the facilities will not be built here with current environmental regs.


A facility that costs $18MM in the US will only cost $8MM in China with NO environmental/permitting restrictions.

 

[rick_reno]

Oil? Hydogen? We won't need very much of either. Luckily, we have a great leader in President Bush and he has a solution. President Bush is working on a solution that will be called "The War on Big Stuff". In his infinite wisdom, he has come to the realization that smaller stuff takes less energy to move around - and he will propose a national effort to develop smaller stuff. The President recently told reporters, "Everything needs to get smaller, the stuff we're using today is just too big." He knows that simply getting Americans using smaller stuff will not be enough and that some big stuff will still have to be moved and used - and the second part of his proposal is the scientific community immediately start work on a shrinking ray. Bush added "Disney did this in 1989 in "Honey, I shrunk the kids", and if they could do it with kids we should be able to do it with stuff. With this ray, we'll be able to still make big stuff; shrink it and move it using a little bit of energy and use another ray to make it big again."

 

[Master Blaster]

google "coal liquefaction"...they are already doing this elswhere, China, Africa etc...and they are doing this on our tax dime in China via the US DOE...

Google coal gas, coal liquefaction, POLLUTION, Toxic by products.

Canada has a huge amount of Oil sands google that, problem is it costs $80 per barrel and produces more pollution than refining. In the real world cost figures in.

 

[Fleet_of_Foot]

Fleetoffoot you are mistaken here is a summary of how much we produce, import and consume:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Usa/Oil.html

I wasn't stating precise numbers but they jive with the EIA site you list above. For example, the EIA site states: "during 2004, the United States produced around 7.6 million barrels per day (bbl/d) of oil, of which 5.4 million bbl/d was crude oil, 1.8 million bbl/d was natural gas liquids and 0.4 million bbl/d was other liquids."

I said: "the US consumes roughly 18 to 20 million barrels a day of crude oil. Out of that 20 million, we produce about 5 to 6 million barrels domestically, or 25%. If you add natural gas into the equation, our domestic production increases to the equivalent of 2 million more barrels more a day. These are all 2004 figures."

"5 to 6 million" barrels plus "the equivalent of 2 million more barrels" of natural gas is approximately the 7.6 million barrels a day domestic production the EIA states. Also, if you look at their pretty graph, it shows a total consumption of 20 million barrels per day for 2004. I don't believe I was mistaken but please let me know otherwise.

Well then here is a great solution to our energy dilema it will save 10-30% of our energy consumption (if everyone did this) and you can do it today without the need for government intervention or regulation, and it saves you money as well!!!

I agree with you 100% that the solution to many of our problems lies with the individual choices we make. I've practiced all your suggestions, some on a daily basis. Also, I appreciate your observations about the net energy loss to produce hydrogen. It's the same way with pure electric cars that people don't think about--sure they in themselves don't produce any emissions but the powerplant that's connected to the grid they plug into sure does, and probably more than the car itsef depending on the type of plant.

+FoF

 

[IndianaDean]

We need oil for alot more than just fuel. Plastics for example are made from petroleum. I used to be against drilling up there, but I look around Indiana now. Indianapolis is more crowded with people, buildings, etc than it's ever been in my lifetime, and it's NOW that bald eagles, golden eagles, coyotes, and even rumors of mountain lions in the southern part of the state and black bears up around Michigan have started occurring. In the early 70s it a was a major major big deal to see Canadian geese flying over. Now, they seem as numerous as pigeons.

I have no problem with drilling for oil up in Alaska anymore.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I have no problem with drilling for oil up in Alaska anymore.

And what is your plan when the finite amount of oil in Alaska is used up?

Pass the problem on to your children?

I don't think that is a good plan.